Limit Client Connections

[Faust]

Well my solution would probably take a lot of work and it's not even a guarentee. I honestly don't know the full extent of this packet and how well it works. Doing some research on it only made this solution less likely possible since there has been mention of the packet being unreliable and only being sent once a day if even that by the client. Derrick has mentioned in the past that the current state of the default RunUO /admin command feature when looking at the hardware info that I think uses this packet wields a 60% chance of successfuly acquiring the information. This solution would have to be worked on until it's perfected(if possible) in order to get it implemented for an anti-multi clienting feature.

[nightshark]

3 connections would make more sense. The history on why it is four is that sometimes when you disconnect, the connection lingers for up to 50 seconds preventing you from logging back in. We had it at three very early in the shard, when we discovered this glitch we upped it to 4. The secondary justification for 4 is that some people do have multiple persons in their household playing.

I've been considering that it would be a good idea to lower it to three myself, but this is the first time I've mentioned that.

Last night I had a friend come to my house and I introduced him to UO (on UOSA), and he loved it. I was just thinking... if he played from home (with his multiple accounts), giving us 4 accounts each, would accounts be banned in the circumstance we were occasionally playing from the same household? I have a couple of RL friends that play UO and it would suck if we were not able to play in the same household.

It doesn't get any better than raging at your friends IRL for failing to cross heal effectively, causing death

[Biohazard]

i vote for 1

i paid 100 a month back in the day to run my 10 clients btw.. all the people on my street licked my balls because i was so totally cool and was the envy of the world. i loved my 32 333mhz computers in which i used 10 of these to run UO on with my OC3 connection.

these suggestions come once a month: http://forum.uosecondage.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15022

[corr]]

2 connections is the best. If you go to the trouble of getting 5 people to your house to play UO, you can go to the trouble of getting a temporary boost to your # of connections with a private message to an admin. People saying that limiting client connections will hurt families sounds like a bad political argument, and I doubt it's sincere.

[Biohazard]

People saying that limiting client connections will hurt families sounds like a bad political argument, and I doubt it's sincere.

*golf clap*

[Hemperor]

People saying that limiting client connections will hurt families sounds like a bad political argument, and I doubt it's sincere.

*golf clap*

Yup

[Orsi]

The benefits of such a change would far outweigh the odd annoyance here and there of an admin allowing reasonable, or temporary, exceptions to the rule. The few who would be allowed multiple connections could be granted a 3 month probationary period, in which the admins could keep a close eye on them to make sure they aren't abusing there privilege.

[Sandro]

Right, because the admin have all day long to check on each player to make sure they aren't multi-clienting on a 600+ average server population.

Everyone and their mother is going to say they have a brother / kinfolk who also plays. Let's be serious.

[Faust]

Everyone and their mother is going to say they have a brother / kinfolk who also plays. Let's be serious.

Correct, my son.

[Hemperor]

Right, the limit would have to be consistant across the board, which really changes nothing.

Poll results really aren't surprising tbh, I'm willing to bet that half the "4" votes are the same person using multiple accounts!

[Sandro]

I voted 4.

Won't even lie about it.

How else am I going to consistently PK and macro my skills at the same time?

[Hemperor]

I voted 4.

Won't even lie about it.

How else am I going to consistently PK and macro my skills at the same time?

Heh, I was joking, everyone's entitled to their opinion however it would be better if some of the 4 voters left reasons.

[Faust]

I voted for four because using a limit by IP's isn't the correct action towards fixing this and most routers come with four ports/connections... even if my solution(the only one that would actually curve multi-clienting closest to the level it was back in the day) ends up not being possible. Kaivan has a decent solution that is better than limiting by IP...

I will end up having 3 actual people in a house hold playing and the possiblity of a 4th from time to time when one of two people comes over.

Trying to limit by IP is the worst possible way to resolve this issue and screws over legitimate connections on LANs.

[Hemperor]

I voted for four because using a limit by IP's isn't the correct action towards fixing this and most routers come with four ports/connections... even if my solution(the only one that would actually curve multi-clienting closest to the level it was back in the day) ends up not being possible. Kaivan has a decent solution that is better than limiting by IP...

I will end up having 3 actual people in a house hold playing and the possiblity of a 4th from time to time when one of two people comes over.

Trying to limit by IP is the worst possible way to resolve this issue and screws over legitimate connections on LANs.

With that logic we should have infinite connections allowed.

[Faust]

We should have infinite allowable connections when a reasonable method that can combat multi-clienting on one machine exists. However, we don't have any other method to limit this for now making this the only possible solution to eliminate unlegitimate connections. My logic behind this matter is right rather you believe it or not. Trying to eliminate multi-clienting through IP restrictions is downright the worst possible solution available that only renders legit players on LANs obsolete. Honestly, if you want put the restriction down to one IP with the notion that on a case by case basis you can gain access for more if you're on a LAN... I guarentee that everyone will bypass the restriction and continue their multi-clienting ways even if this happens.