03 Jun, 2009, Frenze wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
It really isn't about that, it's about letting the players play the game they want to, and if it's handled well, i'll leave it be, why not let them just do whatever, as long as every time i log in i don't head some kid rantinga bout how stupid the system is, it doesn't matter, if enough people come to me and say "hey, i don't like this" i'l change it, but it's more a test to see how well it can be handled the point in the game is to have fun, not to be bogged down by so many rules playing is more tiresome
03 Jun, 2009, Ssolvarain wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
I know Diablos set up a little alarm that bugs the immortals when someone logs in from the same IP. No bans, just a question and a close eye :biggrin:

Eh, he already replied and I missed it. No more forum access after 2 am for me -.-
03 Jun, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
My 'users' command sorts people by IP address:

6260/6260 (2360)> users
—————————-[ CONNECTION DETAILS ]—————————–
1 Bubba @ blah.blah.org (1.1.1.1)
Boffo @ blah.blah.org (1.1.1.1)
2 Biffo @ blah.blah.ro (2.2.2.2)
Buffy @ blah.blah.ro (2.2.2.2)
3 Bilbo @ blah.blah.com (3.3.3.3)
4 Bobo @ blah.blah.net (4.4.4.4)
5 Wibble @ blah.blah.de (5.5.5.5)
6 Wobble @ blah.blah.co.uk (6.6.6.6)
7 Nibble @ blah.blah.dk (7.7.7.7)
8 Nobble @ blah.blah.fr (8.8.8.8)
9 KaVir @ localhost (127.0.0.1)
10 Nabble @ blah.blah.au (9.9.9.9)
——————————————————————————-
There are twelve users connected, ten of whom are unique.
——————————————————————————-


You can also include a full or partial IP address as an argument for the 'users' command, and it highlights any matches.

My 'whois' command also uses IP address to suggest suspected alts (although only when used by an admin):

6260/6260 (2360)> whois test
————————[ Test the Young Blue Dragon ]————————-
Position : Player.
Status : Offline.
Class : Dragon.
Gender : Male.
Divine Age : 100 (with 50 free stat trains), 50% potential.
Talents : 9 slots, 8 of which are unused (inc. 3 Weapon Masteries).
——————————————————————————-
Creation date : 2nd October 2006.
Last played : 3rd June 2009 (3 hours, 5 minutes and 47 seconds ago).
Connected from : localhost (127.0.0.1).
Suspected alts : Zadmar and you.
Playing time : 17 hours, 7 minutes and 39 seconds.
——————————————————————————-


IP address is far from conclusive, but as my mud doesn't have any rules against multiplaying there's no real need for proxies (except for the one player who kept creating alts to spam-advertise his mud on the public channels, and didn't want it linked back to his main character).

As players usually have no incentive to hide multiplaying, it's easier for me to keep track of, which in turn makes it easier to discourage through code.
03 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
As players usually have no incentive to hide multiplaying, it's easier for me to keep track of, which in turn makes it easier to discourage through code.

Why do you need to discourage something that people have no incentive to hide?
03 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
As players usually have no incentive to hide multiplaying, it's easier for me to keep track of, which in turn makes it easier to discourage through code.


Not for long….
03 Jun, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Why do you need to discourage something that people have no incentive to hide?

Because I dislike people multiplaying, and don't want it to become an integral part of the gameplay, but I don't feel the need to slap the players around for playing the game differently to the way I intended. A design problem deserves a design solution whenever possible - preventing exploitation of game flaws with a list of rules and punishments should be a last resort.

Runter said:
Not for long….

Sure it does. Players usually only multiplay when it's beneficial - not because they enjoy it, but because it gives them an edge. Arbitrary rules and punishments won't solve the problem, they'll only hide the symptoms.
03 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Oh – so by fixing something with code you mean game design, not some system that targets multiplaying specifically.
03 Jun, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Oh – so by fixing something with code you mean game design, not some system that targets multiplaying specifically.

Right - my goal isn't to try and prevent multiplaying itself, but rather to reduce the incentive to multiplay.
03 Jun, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
The proliferation of wireless home networks makes it even more likely for friends and family to mud together. I've played muds with both my wife and son. My wife and I even used to swap and share characters. If we were hassled or bugged about it we just moved on to another game. For example everyone in my tabletop gaming group always brings a laptop with them. Just last month after our game I got them to all guest log on several mushes with the same game system we were playing just to see how they create characters and run it. Nobody hassled us about it and were quite helpful besides.

In any event a group of friends power-leveling together on a hack-n-slash mud ain't a whole lot different than a single user running many characters. They are probably going to engage in "suspicious" or overt" cooperative play just as much as an individual multiplaying than several strangers. And don't expect silence between players to mean anything. They could just as likely be chatting with each other the old-fashioned way because it's easier, or even using AOL/IM chat, or whatever that headset audio thingy my son uses when he plays with his buddies on WoW/CallofDuty is called, instead of mud channels. Often people chat outside the game explicitly to evade nosy admins.

I think KaVir is right. If there's something about your game that multi-playing seriously imbalances or breaks, your game is fundamentally broken. You should consider running SUDs instead of MUDs. :-P
03 Jun, 2009, Frenze wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, i think the idea of allowing multiplaying as a whole is looked down on, seeing to the responce, but my question is why not, if there are rules to it, and they are followed then it can work, besides it's really easy to tell when people multiplay outside of code, just watch them, you can spot a multiplayer a mile away in most cases, i've seen it a million times, it's not that hard to do :P
03 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
you can spot a multiplayer a mile away in most cases, i've seen it a million times, it's not that hard to do :P

Not always, especially when you consider the examples that Tyche used. My brother and I used to play from home together, and didn't communicate in-game at all. A lot of people thought we were multiplaying, which got kind of annoying after a while – occasionally enough for one of us to use a proxy server (we happened to have a machine available on a different network that we could configure as a proxy). Basically, it's not so simple to always spot multiplaying, but maybe you have some technique that gets around these problems.
03 Jun, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Frenze said:
besides it's really easy to tell when people multiplay outside of code

No, it isn't. In fact it isn't just not easy, it's outright impossible.

As I said before, you can catch careless multiplayers, as long as you don't mind punishing a few legitimate players along the way. For some mud owners that's an acceptable price to pay, but don't fool yourself into thinking you've addressed the problem - all you're doing is hiding the more obvious symptoms of the real problem.
03 Jun, 2009, Frenze wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
Ok, lets use a few examples shall we

one is rping one is fighting, the fighter breaks when the p posts are being made

you run a game event, 4 people online and only one joins it when the prize is awesome, yea fishy

people who put thier name in thier prompt

misschannels

now i know none of these are sure fire ways but you just gotta do the math heh
03 Jun, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
Frenze said:
Ok, lets use a few examples shall we

Examples of careless multiplayers.

Great. I once caught a fish, and it was easy. Therefore I conclude that it should be easy to catch every fish in the ocean.
03 Jun, 2009, Ssolvarain wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
Could you stop heckling him now, KaVir?

I think you've made your point.
03 Jun, 2009, Brinson wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
I put forth that people hiding multiing is better than them being open about it. I'd prefer them hide it, because if they are hiding it then they are at least stopping some of the negative affects. Someone roles ten chars, groups them, sets them with scripts, and goes around killing people. That is super obvious.

At least in hiding it they don't do quite as bad things.
03 Jun, 2009, Omega wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
Multiplaying: My mud has it illegal, how we deal with it.

Step one: Players are set into an account.
Step two: Only 1 player can be loaded from an account at a time.
Step three: only person per IP allowed at a time.
Step four: Strict rules on punishment of multiplaying.
– If caught (and its 100% verification of multiplaying, like using a proxy server to get around
the multiple IP issue, and we find you) We delete one of your accounts and all the players.
Usually the most in-depth. We also search for other accounts using either of the IP's in
question, and then we monitor them to see if they are connected, or just very convient IP's.
Step five: Enforce rules with a VERY public display.
Step six: Relax and have a beer, its only a game.


In any-case, the best way to stop a multiplayer, is to block them out-right in the code, but even then proxy-servers exist for a reason, and a person who really wants to multiplay, will find a way. Thats where you as an admin must know the signs.

- Account X is always on with Account Y
- They come/leave at the exact same time
- One will be responsive while the other is not
- mischanning as the other player
- when asked if multiplaying, one of the accounts gets vocal then leaves abruptly to let the other account
continue speaking on both of their behalves.
- when snooping player, it does nothing but sit and let the main player do everything, may have some basic
trigger, whenever player x does skill bash, player y does skill rush. Or one player will have a 'save' trigger
to prevent from idling.

Those are just some of the more common ways multiplayers are caught. Though, some of them may just be convient coinsidences, I know that when I play with friends, we usually login at the same time, and logoff at the same time (within afew seconds of each other) I also know that we have skill triggers setup because we know the best pattern to hit people.

The example I used above of bash and rush.
Bash knocks victim to ground, rush pins victim to ground, (if knocked down, else it chances knocking them down) Pinned makes them lose their next few attacks.

Anyways, thats besides the point.

Truth be told, there is no 100% method to stop a player from multiplaying. Best bet is always code it in, and be strict with those whom you catch that found ways around it. I believe in harsh-rule sets. Most of my rules are code-enforced, but if you find a way around the code-block, my punishments are… severe to say the least.

Example being, you have 2 accounts, both with several characters, one with allot of high levels, one with medium levels.

I delete your account with the high levels, and I look through your medium level characters to see if you are muling gear well above your level that you couldn't normally get. And then remove that gear. But thats just me. And when I punish for it, I make it VERY public, so people know not to break the rules, and if they do, they know to be REALLY smart about it, and not get caught.

Fear is the best preventative measure to stop any-form of rulebreaking. Last thing you want is 100+ hours per character, just vanishing as your player/account get deleted :)

Anyways, thats my two cents.
03 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Step one: Players are set into an account.
Step two: Only 1 player can be loaded from an account at a time.
Step three: only person per IP allowed at a time.

What do you do with cases like what Tyche described? (many people legitimately connecting from the same IP)
03 Jun, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
Darien said:
Multiplaying: My mud has it illegal, how we deal with it.


I like your approach, and am thinking of using it to deal with another serious issue - some of my players have started wearing pirate hats in real life, which is clearly cheating, and I'd like to nip it in the bud before it gets out of hand. Here's a modified version of your approach to deal with this new problem:

Step one: Players each upload a photograph of themselves wearing a hat.
Step two: Only 1 player can be loaded per photograph at a time.
Step three: Only 1 person per hat allowed at a time.
Step four: Strict rules on punishment of wearing a pirate hat.
– If caught (and its 100% verification of wearing a pirate hat, like
using photoshop to make it look like a baseball cap, and we find
you) We delete one of your accounts and all the players.
Usually the most in-depth. We also search for other photographs
wearing either of the hats in question, and then we monitor them
to see if they are connected, or are just very comfortable hats.
Step five: Enforce rules with a VERY public display.
Step six: Relax and have a bottle of rum. Arrrrrrrr, matey!

If the punishment is severe enough, do you think this might work?

Also, I've heard that Tyche sometimes swaps and shares hats with his wife and son. If one of those hats is a pirate hat, should I punish all three of them? Tyche, do you have a pirate hat?
03 Jun, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
Frenze said:
Well, i think the idea of allowing multiplaying as a whole is looked down on, seeing to the responce, but my question is why not, if there are rules to it, and they are followed then it can work…


I don't look down on it. The only time I'd do anything about it is if someone logged in a hundred or so characters. Of course I'd probably appreciate the free stress test on all the game's system the first time or so before I would ask them to cut it out. ;-)
20.0/75