UO Second Age

Currently 4 connections can be made from one IP. This affects just about everything, whether it be trade interaction or pvp. Many people now farm with 2 (or 3) hidden archer "bots". They can kill fairly easily and cost just about nothing if they die. An obvious exploit of the current system. TG's famous archer bots are the same and you are starting to see it a lot more now. People farming/fighting while mining on 2 or more other clients. Pretty soon the whole shard will be automated.

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.

Says the King of Archer Bots!

there was a long thread about this topic like 3 or 4 weeks ago.

and you should add an option for 1con/ip to your poll. every other number is just an arbitrary policy decision anyway...

This again?

No

Limiting IP's is definitely not a good idea for numerous reasons that has already been hashed out on here.

The design for any sort of client limitations that was developed by me in my opinon is the best route to look into so far for this issue. The 0xA4 - Hardware Info packet has the ability to detect a clients hardware information. This information is already being sent when you log onto any RunUO server including this one. How many computers in a house hold actually has the same hardware information such as an identical processor, memory, hard drive, video card, etc...? A limitation could be put in place to limit a connection per IP based on an exact replica of a system's hardware information. This would mean you could use multiple PC's like in the past but connect to only one client on each PC. There is only one problem to get this idea to work since this packet isn't always reliable unfortunately.

The only negative downside would be two legitimate computer's with the same hardware from being able to connect to the server. However, no matter what type of prevention method is put in place there will always be a rare downside like this. This is only prevention method available that could theoretically be put in place to recreate a situation very much simiilar to how the game was played for the majority of players back in the day.

Hemp you killed me with archer bots 2 days ago. Way to take advantage and then come post this stuff. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!

I bet if wong made this thread it wouldve been a success.

Connections should be limited to 3 accounts per IP.

Maybe exceptions for people who can prove they have more than one active player in the house.


On OSI I could have any many accounts running on my IP as I wanted and there is absolutely no reason to limit this on second age beyond the maximum allowable accounts.

When I played I only used one account at a time it was because computers back in 1999 couldn't even run one account properly let alone 2 or 3. My stepbrother however ran 5 computers to multi-client and its something I always admired and wished to do myself. I didn't get the chance to mutli-client till now and I would feel pretty rotten if it was changed.


Archer bots can be fixed with a new rule that is on many free shards, No AFK Macroing PvP.
Example, No running a macro with multiple archers no running macros healing or curing players. This wouldn't be allowed on OSI anyway so it would be era accurate.

Dunno what my feeling is on the subject, but it seems like it would be nice to get an actual staff comment on archer bots, has there ever been one?

another failed poll

No one for 4 clients has stated any reasons.

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.

The reason that I always thought it was four was based on the average number of ports for the every day router is typically four.

Anyone that legitimally needs more than 3 connections can probably solve said issue with a simple PM.

Implement 1 connection per ip using a method as Faust described.

If there is a viable method for limiting connections to one per computer, then why not go that direction? I always thought the justification for multiclienting on this server was that there was no way to distinguish computers from ip's, thus in order to allow households with multiple users, we had to allow for multiclienting.

Seems to me if there is in fact a way to get around this issue....why continue to discuss 3 or 4 connections when multiclienting has probably been the largest source for issues of inaccuracy thus far.