UO Second Age

valheru wrote: However, during the "T2A era" it was definitely possible to multiclient. My original statement was that, why is this even in the era accuracy forum, PEOPLE KNOW, FOR A FACT, THAT MULTI-CLIENTING IS ERA ACCURATE.

THIS IS ERA ACCURATE, IT'S NOT UP FOR DEBATE, HENCE, MOVE IT OUT OF THIS FORM.

It actually is up for debate... Yes, multi clienting was possible (i used it for ressing a ghost for healing). What was not possible was actually playing 2 or 3 accounts on one machine.

The client file was so resource consuming at the time that when i was multi clienting i could do nothing else on my machine... no browsing, no msging....it just sat there and mutlied two clients with ezmacro... Combine resources consumption along with average connections speeds (dial-up) and you will see that active multi-client, like we have here, is indeed NOT ERA ACCURATE.

I bought a brand spanking new machine in 99/2000 just for UO and It was not possible to have 2 or 3 clients open and actully do anything useful with them. Even walking around was an issue. Im sure someone had a $5000 NASA computer on a T1 and could actually multi back then, but the overwhelming majority would be the same as me or worse... How many nerds spent 2k on a new machine just for UO....

"It could be done by someone, somewhere." =/= "Era Accurate"

Hoots wrote:

valheru wrote: However, during the "T2A era" it was definitely possible to multiclient. My original statement was that, why is this even in the era accuracy forum, PEOPLE KNOW, FOR A FACT, THAT MULTI-CLIENTING IS ERA ACCURATE.

THIS IS ERA ACCURATE, IT'S NOT UP FOR DEBATE, HENCE, MOVE IT OUT OF THIS FORM.

It actually is up for debate... Yes, multi clienting was possible (i used it for ressing a ghost for healing). What was not possible was actually playing 2 or 3 accounts on one machine.

The client file was so resource consuming at the time that when i was multi clienting i could do nothing else on my machine... no browsing, no msging....it just sat there and mutlied two clients with ezmacro... Combine resources consumption along with average connections speeds (dial-up) and you will see that active multi-client, like we have here, is indeed NOT ERA ACCURATE.

I bought a brand spanking new machine in 99/2000 just for UO and It was not possible to have 2 or 3 clients open and actully do anything useful with them. Even walking around was an issue. Im sure someone had a $5000 NASA computer on a T1 and could actually multi back then, but the overwhelming majority would be the same as me or worse... How many nerds spent 2k on a new machine just for UO....

You are right about the performance being sucky with 2 clients up. One was able to run 2 accounts at a time but it was mainly for macroing and maybe IDOC waiting.

Sorry this argument just isn't sound for multiclienting.

Two computers + KVM for the win.

While I agree ghosting is lame, multiple accounts I kind of like :\

Hoots wrote:

valheru wrote: However, during the "T2A era" it was definitely possible to multiclient. My original statement was that, why is this even in the era accuracy forum, PEOPLE KNOW, FOR A FACT, THAT MULTI-CLIENTING IS ERA ACCURATE.

THIS IS ERA ACCURATE, IT'S NOT UP FOR DEBATE, HENCE, MOVE IT OUT OF THIS FORM.

It actually is up for debate... Yes, multi clienting was possible (i used it for ressing a ghost for healing). What was not possible was actually playing 2 or 3 accounts on one machine.

The client file was so resource consuming at the time that when i was multi clienting i could do nothing else on my machine... no browsing, no msging....it just sat there and mutlied two clients with ezmacro... Combine resources consumption along with average connections speeds (dial-up) and you will see that active multi-client, like we have here, is indeed NOT ERA ACCURATE.

I bought a brand spanking new machine in 99/2000 just for UO and It was not possible to have 2 or 3 clients open and actully do anything useful with them. Even walking around was an issue. Im sure someone had a $5000 NASA computer on a T1 and could actually multi back then, but the overwhelming majority would be the same as me or worse... How many nerds spent 2k on a new machine just for UO....

You're arguing about the lack of computer technology/power to run multiple clients without slowing down etc. Era accuracy is about game mechanics, not the lack of computer power that you had at that time.

Your argument could be used to suggest that high speed connections should be illegal on this server, just because 99% of players were forced to use dialup back in the day. Again, not a game mechanic.

Removing multiclienting would also kill shard recruitment. The only client number would drop from 500 to 250, making this shard look at LOT LESS ACTIVE than it actually is, and therefore, it would not be attractive to new players.

Again, this shouldn't be up for debate.

valheru wrote:

Hoots wrote:

valheru wrote: However, during the "T2A era" it was definitely possible to multiclient. My original statement was that, why is this even in the era accuracy forum, PEOPLE KNOW, FOR A FACT, THAT MULTI-CLIENTING IS ERA ACCURATE.

THIS IS ERA ACCURATE, IT'S NOT UP FOR DEBATE, HENCE, MOVE IT OUT OF THIS FORM.

It actually is up for debate... Yes, multi clienting was possible (i used it for ressing a ghost for healing). What was not possible was actually playing 2 or 3 accounts on one machine.

The client file was so resource consuming at the time that when i was multi clienting i could do nothing else on my machine... no browsing, no msging....it just sat there and mutlied two clients with ezmacro... Combine resources consumption along with average connections speeds (dial-up) and you will see that active multi-client, like we have here, is indeed NOT ERA ACCURATE.

I bought a brand spanking new machine in 99/2000 just for UO and It was not possible to have 2 or 3 clients open and actully do anything useful with them. Even walking around was an issue. Im sure someone had a $5000 NASA computer on a T1 and could actually multi back then, but the overwhelming majority would be the same as me or worse... How many nerds spent 2k on a new machine just for UO....

You're arguing about the lack of computer technology/power to run multiple clients without slowing down etc. Era accuracy is about game mechanics, not the lack of computer power that you had at that time.

Your argument could be used to suggest that high speed connections should be illegal on this server, just because 99% of players were forced to use dialup back in the day. Again, not a game mechanic.

Removing multiclienting would also kill shard recruitment. The only client number would drop from 500 to 250, making this shard look at LOT LESS ACTIVE than it actually is, and therefore, it would not be attractive to new players.

Again, this shouldn't be up for debate.

And this is why the issues need to be separated.

Once again, multiclienting is NOT the issue, it's how the alts are used. Using them for risk free recon is the problem and should be addressed.

Kraarug wrote:
And this is why the issues need to be separated.

Once again, multiclienting is NOT the issue, it's how the alts are used. Using them for risk free recon is the problem and should be addressed.

Thats how i see it. For what seems like the 100th time, ghosting was very accurate in t2a. But it was done actively! People logged out or killed themselves and scouted with a ghost then returned and reported.

They lost their time for the information.

So it was a give/take. But with ghosts camped 24/7 its just take, take, take.

Considering the big complaint about this is its use in PvP... and considering that the LAST thing you wanted to do on a multi client bc of bandwidth and cpu proccessing in 99 was PvP.....umm, im just amazed at people defending it...

not to mention paying an extra $10 a month...

At some point common sense has to be allowed to enter the arguement, doesnt it?

Hoots wrote:

Kraarug wrote:
And this is why the issues need to be separated.

Once again, multiclienting is NOT the issue, it's how the alts are used. Using them for risk free recon is the problem and should be addressed.

Thats how i see it. For what seems like the 100th time, ghosting was very accurate in t2a. But it was done actively! People logged out or killed themselves and scouted with a ghost then returned and reported.

They lost their time for the information.

So it was a give/take. But with ghosts camped 24/7 its just take, take, take.

Considering the big complaint about this is its use in PvP... and considering that the LAST thing you wanted to do on a multi client bc of bandwidth and cpu proccessing in 99 was PvP.....umm, im just amazed at people defending it...

not to mention paying an extra $10 a month...

At some point common sense has to be allowed to enter the arguement, doesnt it?

The fact is that people COULD do it back then. Just because they DIDNT do it often (because of CPU/connection lag) doesn't mean it isn't era accurate.

The game mechanics were there to allow you to do it, and thus, they are here. End of story.

valheru wrote:

Hoots wrote:

Kraarug wrote:
And this is why the issues need to be separated.

Once again, multiclienting is NOT the issue, it's how the alts are used. Using them for risk free recon is the problem and should be addressed.

Thats how i see it. For what seems like the 100th time, ghosting was very accurate in t2a. But it was done actively! People logged out or killed themselves and scouted with a ghost then returned and reported.

They lost their time for the information.

So it was a give/take. But with ghosts camped 24/7 its just take, take, take.

Considering the big complaint about this is its use in PvP... and considering that the LAST thing you wanted to do on a multi client bc of bandwidth and cpu proccessing in 99 was PvP.....umm, im just amazed at people defending it...

not to mention paying an extra $10 a month...

At some point common sense has to be allowed to enter the arguement, doesnt it?

The fact is that people COULD do it back then. Just because they DIDNT do it often (because of CPU/connection lag) doesn't mean it isn't era accurate.

The game mechanics were there to allow you to do it, and thus, they are here. End of story.

That's like proving you had a bug or exploit in 1999 that a handfull of people about and, because OSI didn't fix it and, because it was done, then it should be put here.

The fact is, bug and exploits that have been recreated here are vetted before they are placed in the game.

Ghosting is a true exploit of the ability 3rd party programs and the unquie rules of this shard. It possible during OSI T2A but it wasn't heavily used like it is here to freely and without much risk deny whole areas of the game to other players.

Because of it's negative effects and the way ghosting breaks the risk v. reward structure of the game it should be addressed and minimized.

Kraarug wrote:That's like proving you had a bug or exploit in 1999 that a handfull of people about and, because OSI didn't fix it and, because it was done, then it should be put here.

The fact is, bug and exploits that have been recreated here are vetted before they are placed in the game.

Ghosting is a true exploit of the ability 3rd party programs and the unquie rules of this shard. It possible during OSI T2A but it wasn't heavily used like it is here to freely and without much risk deny whole areas of the game to other players.

Because of it's negative effects and the way ghosting breaks the risk v. reward structure of the game it should be addressed and minimized.

well said

valheru wrote:Removing multiclienting would also kill shard recruitment. The only client number would drop from 500 to 250, making this shard look at LOT LESS ACTIVE than it actually is, and therefore, it would not be attractive to new players.

It's more than 250 uniques... and also 250 is bigger than 95% of all shards thus still attracting players.

But yea, down with ghosting (and multi-clienting if there is no curb in place)

Can a script for ghost be added?

Dead for X amount of time in a dungeon you get booted out and to a healer or something?

Login dead at a dungeon and you are kicked out the dungeon?

not sure if its just for tonight .. but i think i may have changed my mind on this issue .. i never saw it as a huge problem ..but now i think it may have helped ..

when this started .. i shortly after started a ghost and left him in LL room .. everyone hunted LL room alone or with tames ..though now i will see lone tamer and some mage dexers .. what i HAVE seen is muti people working together to negate pk's ..

people hidden ready to attack and some pvm'er as bait ..it don't always work people still die . but i love to see the interaction ..

Risk vs Reward isn't a factor when it comes to ghosts. VIEWING LIVING PEOPLE WHILE YOU ARE DEAD on a ghost is not an exploit. It is a game mechanic that was introduced with the conception of the game, and has remained up until this very day.

It's not a hack, it's not an exploit, it's not a cheat. Just because a game mechanic gives someone an advantage doesn't make it an exploit.

This is the era accuracy board, not the "wah wahh mommy i get owned too much" board. Viewing people as a ghost on multiple accounts IS era accurate. As advantageous as it is, it's era accurate. end of story.

valheru wrote:Risk vs Reward isn't a factor when it comes to ghosts. VIEWING LIVING PEOPLE WHILE YOU ARE DEAD on a ghost is not an exploit. It is a game mechanic that was introduced with the conception of the game, and has remained up until this very day.

It's not a hack, it's not an exploit, it's not a cheat. Just because a game mechanic gives someone an advantage doesn't make it an exploit.

This is the era accuracy board, not the "wah wahh mommy i get owned too much" board. Viewing people as a ghost on multiple accounts IS era accurate. As advantageous as it is, it's era accurate. end of story.

It is an exploit of the game mechanics and the unique rules of UOSA. Justify it and attack those that are against it all you'd like, the plain and simple fact is that is an exploit and clearly breaks the game's risk v. reward structure.