UO Second Age

Disclaimer: This is a discussion which has been brought up in the past, and while there is no middle ground or possibly even a solution I feel that it should be raised again for discussion on the matter, Thank you.



Ultima Online, was programmed so that only 1 client could be opened on a computer at once, thus essentially only allowing players to play 1 account & 1 Character at a time.

Razor & Secondage Allow the use of up to 4 Clients to be open & logged in at once giving the user the possibility of up to 4 Characters to be active in game (while it is illegal to use more then 3 accounts, this has been proven and brought up for discussion on multiple occasions that there are many players who abuse this)

This leads way to many of issues which come up for discussion as months pass

currently these are the "hot topics" on the first few pages of the forums which are a direct result of this mechanic

http://forum.uosecondage.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7830
http://forum.uosecondage.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6446
http://forum.uosecondage.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8067

The list of problems this causes goes on and on, but the main few I will list here

- Resource Macroing: Allowing more then 1 client online allows for players to "attend" resource gather on 2 or 3 clients while they run around on their 3rd or 4th account PvMing, Crafting, Playing in events, PvPing Ect. this creates players with MASS ingot supplies and essentially being able to control the market, this also means that there are more GM Smiths per population then there was during OSI which causes a decrease in weapon & Armor prices. (its cheaper to buy new gear then to repair it)

-Ghosting: This has been an issue for along while now, minor tweaks have been made to "fix" this but indeed it is still an issue, allowing every pvp/pk guild or even just solo players the advantage of leaving 2 or 3 ghost accounts loged in at popular spawns to that they can kill any players who attempt to actually play the game at those locations. While this was still done during OSI, Only Large Guilds & those with the resources to Multi Box were able to do so, which is a very small % of the population

-AFK Event Sitting: Players leaving multiple clients in CTF events to get the 50% chance of winning a trophies while they play regularly on their 3rd or 4th client. Trophies points are already not era accurate and have their own effect on the economy, but there are players who abuse and even make this worse by AFK sitting in events.

-IDOC camping: This falls closely to Ghosting as players can sit ghosts or other accounts at an idoc to watch to see if it falls & to block the placement of other houses. This allows those who seek out the best of the best spots in Secondage to greif & hold more spots then they should arguable be able to if they had to individually watch each house & stop the placement of it.

-Recalling new PvP characters into single or group battles: While I have no had any personal experience with this, from my discussions with those who have its frustrating finally beating your opponent in a 1v1 in the field to only have his alt already suited up recall in moments later to kill or chance you from your hard earned kill, the same is done in group pvp, recalling in alternate characters. This creates an unbalanced and skewed perspective on field PvP

-Fancy 2, 3 or 4 client macro scripts: while there are many examples I will use one in particular, Matron De Winters Animal Taming Script which uses I believe 3 accounts to macro taming, using them to herd animals into a house, to tame, to remove or kill the animals afterwards, scripts and macros such as these would not be possible in the days of OSI with out Razor & the access to so many accounts.


While I could go on all day about the effects of this I shall not as my point has been made, I do wish to propose a solution.

Even During OSI players "multi boxed" and this seams to be the argument against this chance as it seems every UOSA player has Multi boxed during the era, THIS IS NOT a good argument why we should be allowed 4 accounts on ONCE COMPUTER, for those who don’t know "multi box" was a term used for those who had multiple computers set up to run the Ultima Client, Proof in itself that running multiple clients on one computer didn't work.

I also heard there was a program that was not widely used that allowed you to run multiple instances of UO on one computer, this was surely illegal on OSI and again goes against what the designers had in mind.

THE SOLUTION:

Limiting account connectivity on individual computers, while players will keep their 3, 4+ accounts they will not be able to log more then one in at a time per computer. Each additional computer would be allowed to open another client as this should satisfy those who Multi Boxed during the era, it would once more be "era accurate" & I am sure those who had access to 2+ computers in 1999 still have access to 2+ computers 10 years later.

This easily solves all the issues i laid out and more, there would be no issues with roommates/friend playing on the same IP as it would be individual computers, and it would still allow you to use all your characters on all your accounts.


I spent alot of thought and time into writing this discussion, I only expect the same from those who wish to dispute it, Anyone who wish's to add to this idea I encourage as this is ment to open up discussion on the matter.

Cheers

Wise wrote:THE SOLUTION:

Limiting account connectivity on individual computers, while players will keep their 3, 4+ accounts they will not be able to log more then one in at a time per computer. Each additional computer would be allowed to open another client as this should satisfy those who Multi Boxed during the era, it would once more be "era accurate" & I am sure those who had access to 2+ computers in 1999 still have access to 2+ computers 10 years later.

This easily solves all the issues i laid out and more, there would be no issues with roommates/friend playing on the same IP as it would be individual computers, and it would still allow you to use all your characters on all your accounts.

Doing this is not possible server side without limiting a connection per IP basis only allowing one account logged in for that specific IP. This would mean that anyone on a LAN using that same IP address will not be able to log in. This is a sole reason why this issue cannot be resolved.

I have four PC's connected to my home network, and three of us play a bit of UO.

That would suck for us.

Wholeheartedly agree. This proposal would definitely make a lot of the issues you listed above be corrected to the maximum feasible extent that Derrick and his staff could work on without having a lot of legwork put in. The only downfall I can see is that new players may not take to the shard because they are not used to that type of setting. A lot of new players coming from other shards struggle with the current rules and this would be a big one. Furthermore, the "players online" would drop significantly. While it gives a more accurate reading... let's face it, the high amount of players online is a huge selling point for a lot of people. I think a trial run on this for a month would be a good start to test the waters.

As stated prior, I agree this would be a big improvement to the shard. I just think it should be done with care and with the "trial period" attached to it so that it can be reverted without any bitching on either side. It's a tough balance of give and take, and as much as we shouldn't pander to players suggestions for non-era accurate improvements, we should also take care in keeping players here and adding new players without immediately turning them off, given the time we live in.

Faust wrote:

Wise wrote:THE SOLUTION:

Limiting account connectivity on individual computers, while players will keep their 3, 4+ accounts they will not be able to log more then one in at a time per computer. Each additional computer would be allowed to open another client as this should satisfy those who Multi Boxed during the era, it would once more be "era accurate" & I am sure those who had access to 2+ computers in 1999 still have access to 2+ computers 10 years later.

This easily solves all the issues i laid out and more, there would be no issues with roommates/friend playing on the same IP as it would be individual computers, and it would still allow you to use all your characters on all your accounts.

Doing this is not possible server side without limiting a connection per IP basis only allowing one account logged in for that specific IP. This would mean that anyone on a LAN using that same IP address will not be able to log in. This is a sole reason why this issue cannot be resolved.

I don't know the code. Does the server also store the MAC address information of the connecting computer? It could, if coding allowed for it, be possible to authenticate not just by IP but by MAC address. There's also the case of routers forcing their MAC address onto all outgoing traffic, I think that could be handled on a case by case though.

Faust wrote:

Doing this is not possible server side without limiting a connection per IP basis only allowing one account logged in for that specific IP. This would mean that anyone on a LAN using that same IP address will not be able to log in. This is a sole reason why this issue cannot be resolved.

this is the major issues that needs to be avoided, I do not wish to limit to only 1 account per IP but only 1 account per computer, because yes 1 account per IP causes major issues with roomates/girlfriends/friends/imaginary friends and their 3 accounts

is there not a way to limit only a individual computers IP? or better yet allow only a program which allows only 1 client open or setting razor to allow only 1 client at a time?

Wise wrote: this is the major issues that needs to be avoided, I do not wish to limit to only 1 account per IP but only 1 account per computer, because yes 1 account per IP causes major issues with roomates/girlfriends/friends/imaginary friends and their 3 accounts

is there not a way to limit only a individual computers IP? or better yet allow only a program which allows only 1 client open or setting razor to allow only 1 client at a time?

There is, t ypically, only one IP per internet connection. The computers themselves are connected through a router, or other device to allow multiple devices to access the internet at the same time. The router then hands off all of that info to the web, and when it comes back it goes to the computer requesting it. That computer has a LAN IP address, which you couldn't use to authenticate or check with. That's the short and simple of it.

MAC address or, if razors forced shard rules allowed for only 1 client to be open I think this would be a simple fix. However, I'm quite sure you could put another razor in it's own partition with an other UO client folder and bam, you have two on one PC.

MAC address or, if razors forced shard rules allowed for only 1 client to be open I think this would be a simple fix. However, I'm quite sure you could put another razor in it's own partition with an other UO client folder and bam, you have two on one PC.

Also "Virtual PC", "VMWare Workstation" and alike will solve that problem too.

Batlin wrote:

MAC address or, if razors forced shard rules allowed for only 1 client to be open I think this would be a simple fix. However, I'm quite sure you could put another razor in it's own partition with an other UO client folder and bam, you have two on one PC.

Also "Virtual PC", "VMWare Workstation" and alike will solve that problem too.

I thought about VMWare, however I don't think running VMWare and UO would look all that spectacular even on a beast of a machine. I'll try it out.

I thought about VMWare, however I don't think running VMWare and UO would look all that spectacular even on a beast of a machine. I'll try it out.

You should, try Windows ME. You'll experience era accurate crashes out of the box too.

I support this!

Batlin wrote:

I thought about VMWare, however I don't think running VMWare and UO would look all that spectacular even on a beast of a machine. I'll try it out.

You should, try [expletive deleted]. You'll experience era accurate crashes out of the box too.

Please do not mention its name.

I know I am going to get some hate for this but:

How the **** can there be trophy points, CTFs etc. and still be a claim to era accuracy?

If we want true era accuracy then get rid of these things, run events like GMs did (monster spawns, the month long Trinsic siege etc.) and have players derive their enjoyment from the game itself. If you don't want accuracy, then get rid of this ridiculous claim of era accuracy and make the best shard possible that accommodates the greatest amount of players possible with the least deviation of original pre-P16 gameplay. This shard has the potential to unite all of us who want UO like it was played before UO:R destroyed the game, but era accuracy mixed in with era inaccuracy just completely destroys that potential.

Amen.

Cara

I support this as well. This would be a huge step towards true era accuracy. I think alot of us are trying to recreate the feel we had back when we played the original t2a and as nice as it was to develop my thief, treasure hunter and dexxer all at the same time, it was just not how i remembered things.

This change would create a better balance of the characters that are being played. With the allowance of only one client running at a time people are going to focus their time more on the characters that they really want to play. (Perhaps not as many people running around on their thiefs or griefers while their other characters macro.)

If i didnt have the luxury of running 3 accounts at the same time i probably wouldnt have half the players made that i do now. Which would mean id be forced to go out and buy alot more materials from other players. With resource gathering cut down big time, the economy would receive a huge boost.

It would be a huge change, and im sure most people wont like the idea after having the luxury of 3 accounts though.

This change would create a better balance of the characters that are being played.

I didn't think of that before, but you got a good argument there.