UO Second Age

Faust wrote: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.

Sorry, stopped reading, your posts really have been off-topic. There currently is an IP limit, and as far as I know (and the rest of the players) it's going to remain in. Your posts are merely wishful thinking at this point, not trying to knock them, but they really are off-topic and that's no valid reason to vote 4.

Believe what you want son... my post was about IP restrictions which is no where near off topic. My idea surrounding a system's hardware is not wishful thinking and is definitely possible if done properly. Kaivan has a decent fix that is possible with a 100% guarentee stamp that is much better than using "your proposal" of restricting by an IP that is the worst solution or approach that can be taken. Second, you were the one requesting reasoning behind the vote.. if you don't like the outcome of that reasoning don't ask for it.

Faust wrote:Believe what you want son... my post was about IP restrictions which is no where near off topic. My idea surrounding a system's hardware is not wishful thinking and is definitely possible if done properly. Kaivan has a decent fix that is possible with a 100% guarentee stamp that is much better than using "your proposal" of restricting by an IP that is the worst solution or approach that can be taken. Second, you were the one requesting reasoning behind the vote.. if you don't like the outcome of that reasoning don't ask for it.

I'm not doubting that, nor was I trying to attack you. Simply I'm saying, make your own topic with your own proposals, clearly they are different than what we currently have and what this topic is about so therefore: off-topic.

I disagree. The entire purpose behind limiting connections per ip is to do away with multiclienting and the number of exploits that come with it.

If Blackfoot or any of the staff have a solution to the issue that wouldn't hinder households with multiple users, I'd like to hear more.

I'd like to know the staffs stance on multiclienting at this point. Is it something they're trying to do away with? Are they looking into different approaches to the problem or are Blackfoot and Kaivan's ideas mere musings?

Hemperor wrote:The only argument that the most guilty of botters ever put up against limiting to two connections is the Thompson family who like to all dungeon crawl as a family with their two sons. I really don't think they exist, 4 connections isn't necessary.

Actually, myself and my two brothers both play on this shard from the same IP, and we each have multiple accounts just like any other UOSA player. I would hope that if any changes were made to the number of concurrent connections, a system would be put in place to avoid blocking off the shard to anybody not lucky enough to have their own personal IP address.

Any fix to mutli clients will be able to be exploited by anyone smart enough to fake having multiple people in their house.

On top of that OSI had no client limitations and I dont see why UOSA should.


If archer bots are such a huge issue, ban archer bots(automated pvp).

multi-clienting was not a legal option

you had to have a separate box per client

people did circumvent though

Lord Cavewight of GL wrote:
On top of that OSI had no client limitations and I dont see why UOSA should.

Completely false.

It was installed into the game to automatically prevent someone from opening a client if one was already running.

Forget about the message "another instance of UO is already running" ?

I swear people will completely make things up in order to justify keeping inaccurate exploits.

The game itself required you to only run one client at a time and had mechanics to prevent the user from running secondary clients. Multiclienting is inaccurate as are all of the exploits that come with it.

Any fix to mutli clients will be able to be exploited by anyone smart enough to fake having multiple people in their house.

And how many people would that be out of the whole, even with a population like exists on a freeshard, probably would be a very small percentage that bother bypassing it.

Not a good argument against multiclienting.

For myself, I don't ever see multiclienting being limited more than it is now, i'm trying to just accept UOSA as it is, though I would too would probably prefer a shard with no multiclienting.

Bascially all the arguments against multiclienting all well reasoned, well argued, and consistent with the stated purpose of this shard. Unfortunately though, like the events that pay people to leet pvp it seems to be a popular way to play UO...so I don't see it going away.

Smelly Ira wrote:

Any fix to mutli clients will be able to be exploited by anyone smart enough to fake having multiple people in their house.

And how many people would that be out of the whole, even with a population like exists on a freeshard, probably would be a very small percentage that bother bypassing it.

To be fair only a handfull of players archerbot or ghost for pks. Should we limit client connections because only a small segment of the entire populations abuses it?

Just about anytime I hit !status in irc I see about 1.7-1.75 clients connected. I dont really see why mutli-clienting should be restricted at all when the average player doesn't even use two clients at the same time.

No no, the archer bots and ghosting is a symptom of multiclienting, it's nonsense to present them as isolated problems unconnected to anything else...in fact I would think for many people they are a more minor issue than many things.

Most of the good arguments regarding limiting clients have to do with how the game is broadly played, not just taking care of one or two things. Archer bots and ghosting are annoying, but there are other huge things, such as the fact that it is easy for someone to do so many things without the work or risk associated in a game that is supposed to be challenging and risky. IN this sense the influence of multi clienting extends to every aspect of the game, PvP, PvM, you name it.

It really and truly is basically a modern MMO version of UO, complete with the ease of playability and the possiblity of quickly "powerlevelling", archer bots are just a symptom of the whole issue. For all the smack that gets talked about WoW and such (yeah, yeah I hate it too), playing on UOSA ends up having alot of the same pitfalls due to largely multiclienting, and due to the fact that people get paid to PvP...think about it, most modern MMO's now you have the ability to have "one of everything"...just like you can on UOSA. Multiclienting is what makes that practicalit in this game.

While this thread may have touched on archer bots and ghosting, I think it's safe to say the arguments of most people who favor more limited clients aren't just about these two things.

IMO if was really gonna be done then I'd say limit it to one, i'm not sure there would be a measurable impact if anything less was done, of course once again..I have no expectation that the possibility will even be considered by the staff.

People multi-accounting and archer botting and all other lame stuff like that, is ultimately going to make it very difficult for people like myself and my 2 brothers who also play UOSA to justify being able to have multiple accounts to one IP...

Same old story - The wreckless behaviour of a minority spoil the fun for the majority.

Lord Cavewight of GL wrote:

Smelly Ira wrote:

Any fix to mutli clients will be able to be exploited by anyone smart enough to fake having multiple people in their house.

And how many people would that be out of the whole, even with a population like exists on a freeshard, probably would be a very small percentage that bother bypassing it.

To be fair only a handfull of players archerbot or ghost for pks. Should we limit client connections because only a small segment of the entire populations abuses it?

Just about anytime I hit !status in irc I see about 1.7-1.75 clients connected. I dont really see why mutli-clienting should be restricted at all when the average player doesn't even use two clients at the same time.

There are also a handful of players that mine on 3 clients while playing a 4th. Simply turning a blind eye is a stupid response, that alone can ruin part of the ingame economy.

Hemperor wrote:There are also a handful of players that mine on 3 clients while playing a 4th. Simply turning a blind eye is a stupid response, that alone can ruin part of the ingame economy.

So thats already illegal and risks an account ban? Anyone playing 4 accounts will lose their best account at some point.

Im not saying to turn a blind eye to mutliclienting, im saying its not an issue and its only exploited by a very small minority of players.

If multiclienting is such an issue why is it the average player doesn't even use 2 accounts at the same time?

Lord Cavewight of GL wrote:

Hemperor wrote:There are also a handful of players that mine on 3 clients while playing a 4th. Simply turning a blind eye is a stupid response, that alone can ruin part of the ingame economy.

So thats already illegal and risks an account ban? Anyone playing 4 accounts will lose their best account at some point.

Im not saying to turn a blind eye to mutliclienting, im saying its not an issue and its only exploited by a very small minority of players.

If multiclienting is such an issue why is it the average player doesn't even use 2 accounts at the same time?

First off, the ratio has gotten worse lately. Secondly, it's not the majority that exploit it, but it does have negative effects upon the game for everyone. I'm not sure how you expect Derrick to police individuals using 4 accounts so easily, however an IP limit can't be surpassed.