UO Second Age

I would rather one account per IP, unless someone could prove multiple people shared the same internet access. No one had multiple clients back in T2A unless they paid an extra $15/mnth. No ghosting, no macroing off counts or resource gathering on a separate account simultaneously. You had your one account, your five characters (per shard), and suffered the consequences of your own actions...

But, since I doubt many people would agree with me, I am in favour of anything closer to it.

I think this change wouldn't satisfy people that want one account per IP, and it would bother people that want to use all of their accounts at once. Seems like a lose/lose compromise to me.

Rabbi Dan wrote:I think this change wouldn't satisfy people that want one account per IP, and it would bother people that want to use all of their accounts at once. Seems like a lose/lose compromise to me.

Kepping everyone's 2-3 accounts, but allowing only one active client per COMPUTER, would pretty much fix alot of this.

But unfortunately, I don't think there is any way to implement this.

I didn't see your suggestion of two active accounts only. That just seems like tying one hand behind our backs for no good reason.

I'm trying to limit you to two hands and tying the third one behind your back. I've stated reasons, and I think they are good ones.

I don't know what a rail macro is, so perhaps some explanation could help on that too. I don't know how one could have 3 clients up and be present to quickly respond to a GM at all times... unless you're frantically swapping between screens, in which case I'd say that's probably not AFK.

Rail macro basically means hands free mining/lumbering along a predetermined path. I know one way people have done it is two monitors. I believe (not entirely sure) showing that you were there when a gm checked on you is enough, so you wouldn't have to be too frantic about it either.

I still don't know what you mean about archer bots, so whatever I guess.

I've seen it on multiple shards, but the example here is the TG bots. 5 characters are kept on the tower roof in TG village. They are all running a razor macro to synch arrows on a character in range that runs by. TG pvps in their village, and if they get in trouble, they tend to run near the tower. If you chase them, and run into the (rather large) range where the archers can hit you, you have a high probability of instantly dying. To their credit is it actually pretty clever.

If it was limited to two clients, a person could pvp and have a single archer on his tower, but then he would have to give away his ghost at whatever pvm hotspot, or not macro his statloss pk for example.

UO is not an RTS so I wouldn't consider being able to use two chars at once as proposed would be "tying one hand behind your back."

I enjoy the convenience of my 3 accounts. Mostly I just use 2, but sometimes I do use the third. I never use them for ghosting, unattended resource gathering, looting my own body in pvp (Oldman....) or any other lame behaviors. I don't even reverse myself out of losing fights tho I could easily do so. I mostly use my 2 accounts for opening my front door (saving me time) grinding explode pots while I pk or maybe skilling a char.

I don't play uo to EXPERIENCE THE T2A FANTASTICO. I just play for fun, and the extra accounts let me have more fun.

corr] wrote:

I've seen it on multiple shards, but the example here is the TG bots. 5 characters are kept on the tower roof in TG village. They are all running a razor macro to synch arrows on a character in range that runs by. TG pvps in their village, and if they get in trouble, they tend to run near the tower. If you chase them, and run into the (rather large) range where the archers can hit you, you have a high probability of instantly dying. To their credit is it actually pretty clever.

If it was limited to two clients, a person could pvp and have a single archer on his tower, but then he would have to give away his ghost at whatever pvm hotspot, or not macro his statloss pk for example.

UO is not an RTS so I wouldn't consider being able to use two chars at once as proposed would be "tying one hand behind your back."

This shouldn't be allowed btw. On hybrid we went far beyond this. We had bots (using Krrios) that would synch with us perfectly, and xheal perfectly thro party heal.

We got to run it for 2 days, and of course it was obvious, and we had to stop. Archer bots had been used at least a year before that on the shard, and they were also "bannable" after Ryan found out about it.

It's unattended resource gathering if you're killing other players with bots.

I see no reason why this is even up for discussion. You could have multiple accounts on OSI. Era accurate. The end.

I'm been considering something along these lines myself, and I think it would be worth turning this into a poll.

Our average clients/ip is < 2 but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot running 3.

I think it may make sence to at least turn it down from 4 connection to three connections, the account limit it 3, but it was set to four becuase often connections will "hang" for some time after a disconnect. In practice the 4 connections have been helpful to people who have more than one person playing in their household.

For a poll, I would recommend including three in the poll.

It's also worth nothing that we do expand the connection limit on a case by case basis when there are verifibly multiple people behind a single IP adress; however this is not possible when the IP address frequently changes; So a household with 2 or 3 or more people behind a dynamic IP address are going to be hit hard by this proposal.

I believe I would be one of those people, as my wife plays, and a friend comes over from time to time to play. This is a serious issue that could cause some major problems for many of the player base. My play style for one would be sevearly limited, to the point of not really wanting to play.

When i came here being able to Bot was a big thing for me. When my friend told me about UOSA, it was my first question. At this point so far into the server, telling us we can no longer use our bot charecters is anything but fair. I've but time into using my accounts to the best of my ability, and its become central around my playstyle.

tekai wrote:I believe I would be one of those people, as my wife plays, and a friend comes over from time to time to play. This is a serious issue that could cause some major problems for many of the player base. My play style for one would be sevearly limited, to the point of not really wanting to play.

When i came here being able to Bot was a big thing for me. When my friend told me about UOSA, it was my first question. At this point so far into the server, telling us we can no longer use our bot charecters is anything but fair. I've but time into using my accounts to the best of my ability, and its become central around my playstyle.

Come on now... I think your friend can wait till he gets home to play, rather than creating a whole array of problems by allowing many connections. You've admitted on many multiple times to play with at least 3 clients at any given time, gate bot, tamer, plus an extra vet/healer for your farming purposes... Pretty crazy.

I think the post should have been remade for the poll :/

You've admitted on many multiple times to play with at least 3 clients at any given time, gate bot, tamer, plus an extra vet/healer for your farming purposes...

This is not illiegal and doesnt interfear with your game play. It is how I enjoy the game.

I think your friend can wait till he gets home to play,

Now that is just plain nonsense.

So you're basically admitting that you can't PK without 3 accounts online to help you out.

The only people a change like this would really affect are the pks and pvp-centered people/guilds. A normal player doesnt need a gate bot or any other nonsense like that.. if a person or guild can't play without the use of bots and stuff then they just need to learn to play better and not be able to rely on 3 accounts online at a time because they suck so bad, that wasn't the intended purpose of allowing 3 accounts, i'm sure of that.

2 clients online is a reasonable change. For a person and their husband/wife/whatever they can each play one account at a time (not 2 clients per person).. that's fair isn't it. adjust one's play style to be able to survive as such. "honey can you get off an account i want to play"

It would also cut down on rare spawns being camped (which tekai was complaining about on irc today).

tekai wrote:

I think your friend can wait till he gets home to play,

Now that is just plain nonsense.

I question the legitimacy of this. It's just plain nonsense that someone plays at their own home? There's no need for a UO LAN party, heh.. and with hemperor stating in the third post of the thread, before anyone ever mentioned 4 accounts, he brings up running 4 accounts nonchalantly as if that were the discussion the whole time. I don't know what kind of process Derrick has in place to alert him to more than the allowed 3 accounts (if any, i mean it's been alleged that felix has more than 3 accounts, bags of tricks, etc) but perhaps some Duke Jones' style militant restrictions should be put in place to clean up people that want to abuse.

I'd love to know what the logic is behind this.

Era accuracy=no multiclienting? Then the guy with 3 computers has a huge advantage....totally dumb. Why claim era accuracy on something that simply involves having enough money to buy hardware? Scrap this reasoning please, it's crap.

Is it "I don't like the fact that some people utilize 3 clients and beat UO while I don't have the time/inclination/brains to do it too?" Obviously, a specious argument....smelt it.

All I can see from this general idea being enacted (with nothing based in era accuracy [gameplay/UOsoftware] mind you) is people who enjoy this shard will quit in droves.

If you want to macro hiding on two chars while you kill monsters, what is the the problem?

If you want to have three people interacting in a resist session simultaneously, what is the problem?

If I had three computers and 3 dialup connections in 99 I could have done the same thing. I did have 2 of each, and my family played them both legally at the same time.

There's a reason for having three accounts. To play them!!! Either simultaneously or not, our choice.

Smelt this thread is my view.

Halogen wrote:I'd love to know what the logic is behind this.

Era accuracy=no multiclienting? Then the guy with 3 computers has a huge advantage....totally dumb. Why claim era accuracy on something that simply involves having enough money to buy hardware?.

This is an EXCELLENT parallel to the players who paid for multiple accounts on OSI.

Yes, The guy with 3 computers has a huge advantage, just like the guy who paid for 3 accounts has a huge andvantage.

And just as it is a huge advantage, it's the exception to the rule, and is not common place. Sure, there's no doubt that households have multiple computers, but what are the percentage of players that will tie up every machine in the house, just to play UO?

Odds are, you're going to have friends, parents, significant others, children, siblings, or something like that wanting to use the computer.

Halogen wrote:I'd love to know what the logic is behind this.

Era accuracy=no multiclienting? Then the guy with 3 computers has a huge advantage....totally dumb. Why claim era accuracy on something that simply involves having enough money to buy hardware? Scrap this reasoning please, it's crap.

Is it "I don't like the fact that some people utilize 3 clients and beat UO while I don't have the time/inclination/brains to do it too?" Obviously, a specious argument....smelt it.

All I can see from this general idea being enacted (with nothing based in era accuracy [gameplay/UOsoftware] mind you) is people who enjoy this shard will quit in droves.

If you want to macro hiding on two chars while you kill monsters, what is the the problem?

If you want to have three people interacting in a resist session simultaneously, what is the problem?

If I had three computers and 3 dialup connections in 99 I could have done the same thing. I did have 2 of each, and my family played them both legally at the same time.

There's a reason for having three accounts. To play them!!! Either simultaneously or not, our choice.

Smelt this thread is my view.

I've beaten uo as much as it can be beaten, so no it's not your fantasy argument you've imposed on me. Your post is just nonsense topped with a trade forums inside joke, and you apparently didn't even read the original post. Great input bro, smelt it.