Limited Connects Per IP **POLL**

[RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR]

What is there not to understand? First, having a Siege Perilous ruleset means that an account can ONLY create one character. We would have thousands of accounts that have 5 characters if it went to that ruleset... That is beyond common sense son.

Secondly, you don't allow 3 accounts saying that it's okay to allow your player base to spend massive amount of time developing the account to say a year later "well you don't get those two accounts anymore too bad". That is simply not very smart at all.

I'm definitely for the 1 account per IP, but only if it's done right. At this point it's simply too late unless you grandfathered them knowing that this isn't a solution at all. There is no true way to limit a 1 account per IP unless you prefer to screw over those who actually play on a network.

I will say it again... This is something that you do BEFORE a shard opens up.

This poll isn't for 1 account per IP, its for only allowing 1 CLIENT to connect to the server per IP, why would you need to grandfather that in.


And yeah you could not stop people from creating more than one account, for a bunch of reasons.

Thats why this poll is for 1 connection a IP.

Siege perilous would fun, but yeah its impossible here

But if you put 1 client connected PER IP then you wouldn't be fucking anyone over.

[RoadKill]

I don't farm anymore. But I use to farm with 3 accounts at once and could pull in roughly 140k/hr after gem sales (but before selling Tmaps or quality magic drops)

People talk about tamers ruining economies. Multiclienting ruins it a lot quicker than a tamer

[Faust]

But if you put 1 client connected PER IP then you wouldn't be fucking anyone over.

What about dorm rooms with multiple computers? What about a house hold where a husband and his wife plays or a few roomates that play? This would limit these type of connections... There is no getting around this at all if you limit it by one IP. Routers use the SAME IP and splits the connection among the computers. This has been the problem with this issue for nearly 10 years in the player run shard scene...

[RoadKill]

What about dorm rooms with multiple computers? What about a house hold where a husband and his wife plays or a few roomates that play? This would limit these type of connections... There is no getting around this at all if you limit it by one IP. Routers use thTe SAME IP and splits the connection among the computers. This has been the problem with this issue for nearly 10 years in the player run shard scene...

You would allow them to have 1 extra connection, or 2 if there are 2 others needing to play. How is it any different than it is now. If a nerdy Frat House wanted to play UO together, Derrick would allow them to by opening up more connections/account creations for them.

[Safir]

What about a customized solution? A small program required to run on any computer connecting to UOSA servers. All it does is send information that a computer has a specific IP-number. If one has multiple computers, that computer would also have to use the same small application and thus allowing that IP-number to have two active connections to UOSA. All in all, every IP-number that wishes to connect to UOSA must use this small application to validate their IP-number and thus allowing them to connect to the shard. If the same IP-number is validated from two computers, one will be able to use two client connections to UOSA. Perhaps tie the connections to unique MAC-addresses.

It's like the small application Open DNS provides for those with dynamic IP-adresses, Open DNS IP-Updater. It updates the IP-number continuously and allows the user to use Open DNS. It's so small you barely notice it running.

Heck, just a small program that does just that, but runs a check to see how many UO Clients are running on the computer at the same time as well, and if more than one wants to get started, all connections from that IP-number are closed for 2 minutes.

[Faust]

What about dorm rooms with multiple computers? What about a house hold where a husband and his wife plays or a few roomates that play? This would limit these type of connections... There is no getting around this at all if you limit it by one IP. Routers use thTe SAME IP and splits the connection among the computers. This has been the problem with this issue for nearly 10 years in the player run shard scene...

You would allow them to have 1 extra connection, or 2 if there are 2 others needing to play. How is it any different than it is now. If a nerdy Frat House wanted to play UO together, Derrick would allow them to by opening up more connections/account creations for them.

What stops people from abusing this? I have a few computers in my house, and it would be a piece of cake to fix this up. You're talking about wasting time on scripting this to allow a loop hole that will definitely be abused. I know for a fact that people already abuses the 3 account per person rule by saying it's for another person. This situation will be no different at all. If there was any "easy" or "simple" solution to this I'm all for it. However, I don't see this being the case at all.

[RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR]

What about dorm rooms with multiple computers? What about a house hold where a husband and his wife plays or a few roomates that play? This would limit these type of connections... There is no getting around this at all if you limit it by one IP. Routers use thTe SAME IP and splits the connection among the computers. This has been the problem with this issue for nearly 10 years in the player run shard scene...

You would allow them to have 1 extra connection, or 2 if there are 2 others needing to play. How is it any different than it is now. If a nerdy Frat House wanted to play UO together, Derrick would allow them to by opening up more connections/account creations for them.

What stops people from abusing this? I have a few computers in my house, and it would be a piece of cake to fix this up. You're talking about wasting time on scripting this to allow a loop hole that will definitely be abused. I know for a fact that people already abuses the 3 account per person rule by saying it's for another person. This situation will be no different at all. If there was any "easy" or "simple" solution to this I'm all for it. However, I don't see this being the case at all.

The issue isn't whether its cheatable or not, as even the current system is cheatable.

The issue is that almost everyone has 3 accounts running, and it makes the shard smell like just another free shard, not like T2A.

Anyways I don't think that is a good enough excuse to prevent it.

Although at this point I am certain this will not be implemented now or in the near future, people are to attached to multiclienting.

[Faust]

Do you not understand what the problem is involving a one IP restriction while connected to the server?

If you permitted an IP to have a couple more connections allowed to be connected it would be no different than it is at this very moment... The same IP will be able to CONNECT with 2 other accounts on the same computer being able to multi client. There is no "real" way to verify if a request for these connections are legit(+90% will be false). The only way you could disable that for sure is if you STRICTLY disallow an IP to connect more than once to the shard. This means only ONE person at a time will be able to connect to the shard on this IP no matter what. If there truly are mulitple people using a router those people will not be able to play. There are people playing at this very moment that play on a router. You are requesting that those people will no longer be able to play unless their friend, family member, or whatever isn't playing at the same time. This is not a viable solution unless you can fix this problem.

I will say this again... I completely support a one IP limit if it's DONE right. However, I haven't seen one viable solution on this matter that seems feesible to fix this problem though.

[MustardCat]

I will say this again... I completely support a one IP limit if it's DONE right. However, I haven't seen one viable solution on this matter that seems feesible to fix this problem though.

Whats the problem? It will be just like it is now, 99% of the players will follow the rules and the last 1% will lie about needing extra connects per IP. There is no way to completely fix this problem as it's already been happening for some time I imagine, however I think it would make spotting one person playing on multiple accounts at once much easier.

[RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR]

Do you not understand what the problem is involving a one IP restriction while connected to the server?

If you permitted an IP to have a couple more connections allowed to be connected it would be no different than it is at this very moment... The same IP will be able to CONNECT with 2 other accounts on the same computer being able to multi client. There is no "real" way to verify if a request for these connections are legit(+90% will be false). The only way you could disable that for sure is if you STRICTLY disallow an IP to connect more than once to the shard. This means only ONE person at a time will be able to connect to the shard on this IP no matter what. If there truly are mulitple people using a router those people will not be able to play. There are people playing at this very moment that play on a router. You are requesting that those people will no longer be able to play unless their friend, family member, or whatever isn't playing at the same time. This is not a viable solution unless you can fix this problem.

I will say this again... I completely support a one IP limit if it's DONE right. However, I haven't seen one viable solution on this matter that seems feesible to fix this problem though.

I understand perfectly that some people will get more IPS if they just PM Derrick requesting them, I know I would't but some people will cheat the game to get an unfair advantage, and obviously you've predicted that.


Well then why don't we all think of a way to restrict 1 IP, while finding a way to verify that people actually have family members, ect.

I had an idea about verifying through Ventrillo in that the players requesting an extra IP would both talk through one microphone then another microphone, but then someone retorted that, Derrick doesn't have the time to do such a task, but it doesn't have to be Derrick doing it.

This obviously could be cheated, but to do so would be somewhat tedious, and would require the cheater to at least have 2 computers to the best of my knowledge.

It's good to know that you support a effective and logical way to stop multiclienting, as it seems many others prefer it.

[Just Me]

Hi all, as I am new and have only had my accounts for about 3 weeks I thought I would give some perspective. first having 3 playable accounts is great and as much as I like to macro, I find myself playing incomplete characters in the field. Yes I have had to stand there while para'd and watch helplessly as I am engulfed in flames, but that was the choice I made.

I play here because it is accurate to my favorite era ever.....not because I have access to 15 characters that I can play 3 at a time. No not era perfect, but accurate. Take away the 2 extra accounts and make me pay for uo assist (razor counterpart)...that by the way was not available at the time. I would still play here as opposed to some other shard, simply because it was uo the way I remember it.

Ok so I still get 3 accounts, I get razor to make life easier, and I get all this for free. I am simply limited to playing 1 account at a time, perfect I love that idea. I can macro while I sleep without having to balance a roll of pennies on an eraser on my uo macro key...and play to gain while I am awake. Hell I have to admit that sounds great to me. It seems to me that the only ones complaining are the ones who object to playing the field on incompleted charaters, and are too self important to work for what they want.

Yes I've paid my dues I still have my original uo account (beta, uo release, uo second age, skip to aos, gave up completely), restarted thousands of charaters on hundreds of free shards and finally ended up here), yet I do not feel that I am owed an easy ride to 7Xgm X 15. I missed out on gm resist with magery in town, and many others such as the recent fixes to taming making some aspects harder here. But I love that too.

The point is this, the closer We get to era accuracy the happier I become, if we have to make sacrefices for what we already have, like only playing 1 of our 15 charaters at a time so be it. If anything I have more to lose than any veteran here as I have 8 characters semi complete that would greatly benefit by using multi accounts. Will I leave if I am unable to train 3 at a time, or use 2 others to support my main in battle or hunting or whatever? NO I would stay even if I had to condense down to 1 account. furthermore I would elect to play in the field as a noob, as I have allways done. Attended macroing suks, who would prefer that to going outr and exploring the land?

one side note that needs to be addressed many player killers seem to oppose this change and state the there would be fewer peeps in the field to kill, for reasons stated (my view on the posts that i read). however the rudeness and lack of roleplay and general pathetic loser attitude of the pk's that took me down are the ones athat hurt the field play. most of the pk's that I ran into in my exploits here were pathetic compared to those back in the day. hunters use bait and are conscerned about animal poulation, they respect thier game and are better in the long run. I have respect for the different pk styles it just seems that there is no respect for newer characters that actually are in the field. would it kill you to give a res after u loot or allow us to keep our mounts, every pk I ran into sucked as a player....look to that as a possible cause for your thin pickings as well. There are many styles of pk, back in the day there were even a few I respected, it just seems that teh noob killers here go too far and are a great deterrant to noobs in the field, hence your cause for conscerne.

Well sorry for the lengthy post, seems more than 2 cents worth but if it helps with perspective in any way it was cost effective.

[Tronica]

I have to say that I am not for this change.

One of the things I enjoy about free shards is the ability to play multiple characters. To "do more" than I would be able to with just on acc running.

One acc running would mean I could play UO, be a target on the field, or in a dungeon. Or I could macro one char in my house all the time instead of playing.

I can think of other things, but I'm going to just sum it up by saying I think it would make uo more "boring". And feel even more dead.

[Hemperor]

I have to say that I am not for this change.

One of the things I enjoy about free shards is the ability to play multiple characters. To "do more" than I would be able to with just on acc running.

One acc running would mean I could play UO, be a target on the field, or in a dungeon. Or I could macro one char in my house all the time instead of playing.

I can think of other things, but I'm going to just sum it up by saying I think it would make uo more "boring". And feel even more dead.

That is actually the point people are making...you shouldn't be able to do all those things at once.

There is no way it could make the shard any more dead, I certainly don't think the shard is better off when 70% of it's clients are bank/house sitting macroing.

[benny-]

That is actually the point people are making...you shouldn't be able to do all those things at once.

There is no way it could make the shard any more dead, I certainly don't think the shard is better off when 70% of it's clients are bank/house sitting macroing.

Exactly, the only thing this change would hurt would possibly be the online count, which is nothing more than the appearance of how many people are ig. When it comes down to it, we would still have the same number of users logged in regardless, they would just have one char logged in instead of 2-3. So yes, it would make the shard appear smaller, but in reality it would have the same number of people connected. However, if people were forced to play one char at a time, as the game was originally, we'd probably see more activity as people would have to actually play the game (and more often) rather than benefit from having multiple chars running at once.

[Tronica]

That is actually the point people are making...you shouldn't be able to do all those things at once.

There is no way it could make the shard any more dead, I certainly don't think the shard is better off when 70% of it's clients are bank/house sitting macroing.

Exactly, the only thing this change would hurt would possibly be the online count, which is nothing more than the appearance of how many people are ig. When it comes down to it, we would still have the same number of users logged in regardless, they would just have one char logged in instead of 2-3. So yes, it would make the shard appear smaller, but in reality it would have the same number of people connected. However, if people were forced to play one char at a time, as the game was originally, we'd probably see more activity as people would have to actually play the game (and more often) rather than benefit from having multiple chars running at once.

I disagree.

I like having less to do that I consider "chore work" and having more time to be on my pvpers.

I just want to log on and fight, and log off. Or log on and farm something while fighting off pks and randoms in the same area, and log off. I don't want to have manage my time between other shit because I can only have 1 account on. As a new player from another shard, the idea of building my 7 pvpers 1 at a time, is gross. I would never do it. It's going to be fucking required that my computer is on 24/7 macroing. So with my 600w psu, I'm paying like 30$/month to macro on UO.

Having multiple accounts helps people get started and catch up also. Newbs suck, everyone needs to be good so the field can benefit from their presence. The only downfall to multiple accs in my own mind is the long term affect on the economy. But there is no issue with that here as of now. The economy seems just fine.