Multiplaying is illegal, so multiple people playing from the same IP at the same time is forbidden, nomatter how you swing it. Its code-blocked IP blocking, multiple connections from the same IP are stopped, if they have different IP's, and are all active.

I've had too many bad experiences with people who claim that its a room-mate, or what-not, and then it turns out that they are just muling gear, or grouping with their own high level character to help grind them up levels.

So I went harsh with it, and prevented people in-general from using the SAME ip-address. If they are legitimate, they'll find a way around it.

I know for my household, every computer connected has its own IP address on the net, but thats my ISP. How other peoples ISP's serve them is not my problem.

I know, I'm a dick running a mud, but my point is simple, if you are legitimate, you'll find a way around it. Or you can ask me, and I can lift that block for your IP, but it will be monitored for cheating. (I'm not all evil)

So that is how I would most likely deal with Tyche's particular scenario, just lift the multiple login block for his IP.

well seeing as this forum is useless now, as the point was to look for builders, not to discuss peoples thoughts on multiplaying, it's an experiment, yea i've got some rules for it so it doesn't get out of hand but thanks again for showing that as an admin you should be able to pick them out, you just need time, for instance, when ever i play muds i can always pick out who the imm morts are, very easy to do, same with people playing the same, this is as a character without immortal powers. but the point is
going back to it, I need some builders, heck if i get a few areas out of someone i'd like to hear thier ideas to, we run the mud like a democracy, the multiplaying allowance is in cause of majority, we like the idea, we wanna see how it works, thats what beta is for, testing, seeing how things work ect. IMO anyways

I think that sums it up pretty good.

Darien uses pretty much the same method I described. Account system, IP checking, actual monitoring of characters, ect, except that isntead of deleting characters for multiplaying, we simply hell them both and request it not be done again. I'm sure this may or may not be a problem on hack-n-slash MUDs or PVP MUDs, but on almost every SWR MUD I've known of, multiplaying is generally a no no. That does not mean our games are imbalanced or broken, it means that multiplaying severrely impacts the gameplay and enjoyment of the game by others. Another method of dealing with a problem does not impact the balance of the game.

Legitimate multiplayers will notice the IP block and will ask to be allowed to multiplay. I've modified the account code to allow a simply check to get around the code and it is a cinch to add it to anyone that is legitimate. They are watched afterwards and action is taken from there. Ones that are not legitimate do not ask and simply multiplay or attempt to get around the code, but this rarely happens. As I've stated, multiplaying on SWR MUDs is minimal and rarely a problem. Alt dropping or corpse looting is one of the bigger problems, which we also consider a form of multiplaying.

I know some players term multiplaying as having multiple characters but not necessarily playing them consecutively. I will clarify by stating that I define multiplaying as having multiple characters logged in at the same time. On SWGI, for example, multiplaying would allow players to craft armor for themselves, fly ships that their other character can't fly, thus allowing their main character to sit at a turret or fire countermeasures, party up to take out a stronger character, also known as grouping or gang killing, share items and credits one of the characters didn't legitly acquire ICly, and so on and so forth. Players separate characters do not know each other ICly, and therefore are not allowed to interact whatsoever ICly.

I request the thread be split at my first topic so we can get out of Frenze's thread. :)

That makes no sense at all. You're forcing innocent people with legitimate reasons for having the same IP to go to lengths to circumvent your "detection algorithm", where people who actively want to break your system will be getting around it in ways you can't detect anyhow. In other words, you are creating extra work for honest people, while not really changing anything for those incentivized to break the rules. You're only losing good players this way.


Yeah, unless they get annoyed enough by having to jump through all these extra hoops that they just go play somewhere else.



Why is it that people are so afraid of multiplaying that they go to such draconian lengths to prevent it? I mean, I'm against multiplaying and all, and yeah, I have same-IP flagging and all that – we even go to some lengths to detect people giving equipment to alts, which they're not really supposed to do (and yes I know this is a game design problem) – but definitely nothing like all of this stuff about actually blocking connections. All the decisions are still human in the end of the day, but there is no good automatic solution that will do more good than harm.


Good idea…

THANK YOU! rofl, but yea i understand it's a leap but again its the best part about beta, testing, i'll see if it works, if not then i'll simply disallow it, not that hard, i'm not going through all those lengths to punish people or anything either because if it's not causing a serious problem why care, i mean, isn't the point in the game for the players to have fun, not get a power trip by punishing them? This game is for the players, i'm making it for them to have fun, thats what i care about, unlike smaugs that have 50 million ways to punish people i've got two, silence and jail, other then that, i don't need a slay i don't need any of that when a problem arises i'll handle it, thats why i have an imm to take care of all that stuff then i can step in, with the ban hammer, the fact of the matter is, i want people to play and have fun, not worry that every time they do something they'll get punished.

Being harsh is not my style, and please split the thread.

Split from here

Can someone remind me the harm in multiplaying?

I forgot what it is, and can't think of it.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

I think the major issue here is people logging in and seeing more people than their actually are. If the imp is really concerned about that, they can always make it publicly known who's multiplaying. I honestly don't think it matters because the way I mud (konsole+telnet) I'd never be able to effectively manage two characters at the same time :).

Well I heard it's like stealing and pissing in the eye of the
groom at a wedding after stabbing it or something, I dunno, I lost track.

Personally I don't see the big deal. If you have the skills to play more
than one char simultaneously, then good for you. Enjoy the game as
you wish. Kind of like botting. If that's how you enjoy it, what do I care?

Only time I see it being a problem is if it interferes with the enjoyment
of others…for example, botting up a crowd of 50 chars on a pvp mud
to beat up on someone for having voted for Obama, say.

Obviously such a crowd should be reserved for Palinistas.

Aside from pvp destabilization tho, it's hard to think of actual harm
to the game from someone wasting their time getting two characters
leveled up in twice the time it takes to level one.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

PS 50 lol

It doesn't conform with The One True Way of playing the game. A lot of people get irritated when people don't play the game the way they were supposed to. :shrug:

And because there's no code way to merge! Reposts from alternate thread:

now thats harsh, how is it abusing the good will of anyone to play more then one character? I mean, i worked my ass off on my mud, if thats what they enjoy, do it, personally, i don't care, and yes, it was said best if it doesn't mess with other people's game then it's fine, i mean grouping your alts for pk is bunk and not allowed but still, and it's really easy to tell when bots are being used for that, just pay attention coming from a pk mud and as a pk player on muds still, as an admin i think i should know the diffrence

Hey Richard, on a slight tangent, is that something you have in the descriptor structure?
I'm looking at mine, and not seeing it, although I can add it easily enough
(something like sh_int ipaddy0-3 and display %d.%d.%d.%d etc).

The harm in it, I think, is generally in the perception that someone multiplaying is getting an unfair advantage.

If it isn't against the rules, then I suppose no one is getting an "unfair" advantage because they all have the option available. But, if you do outlaw it and someone breaks the rules and does it, while someone else isn't, then I can see the problem with there being an unfair advantage.

My problem with it is two fold… 1) I don't want an over-inflated who list. I want everyone to have a pretty clear picture of how many people play the game, and I don't want someone to come in and see 20 characters connected but only 4 or 5 of them seem to be actually respond. I think it represents the game as either deceitful (as in they are purposely over-inflating their who list) or as unsocial and unkind. I simply don't want that. 2) The "unfair" issue. This is more of a subjective thing, and it might come down to me simply wanting the game played the way I want it played, but I'm simply not interested in running a game where player success boils down to who has the most alts connected at the same time or who can write scripts the best. In both the case of botting and clever multiplaying, the game no longer is about playing the game, it's about trying to automate your character(s) the best you can. If someone wants to do that, they go find another game to automate, I want my players actually playing the game.

As I said earlier, if someone is multiplaying, and fools us into thinking its two room-mates or someone on a network or whatever, and they are able to seem like two different people (both characters being social and whatnot) then that at least negates my #1 issue with it, and we certainly aren't going to go to any draconian lengths to prevent it.

Like wise, clever botting and clever eq-switching are things that can easily be abused with no one the wiser, and I could see people argue for "improve your system" or "you can't enforce that, so it shouldn't be against the rules" and whatnot, I understand the validity in those arguments. However, it boils down to what we want or don't want in our game, and luckily for us, the vast majority of the players tend to respect that.

To each their own, I say.

I guess I'm not so bothered by people not playing the game the way I meant it because I don't feel capable of predicting all possible ways of playing the game. I might be surprised by some ways, and I would not like ways that provide unfair advantages – and those I would seek to fix – but if somebody has fun playing my game in some other way that doesn't get in the way of other people's enjoyment, well, "to each their own" as you said. :tongue: The key point as far as I'm concerned is that other people aren't getting pushed aside.

No, it's stored in the Socket class and retrieved by the 'users' command via the GetControlType() method of the Brain interface, which is overloaded by HumanBrain (the only type of Brain with socket data).


I know some muds have rules against idling as well, perhaps for the same reason - but what about players who really don't want to socialise? I'm assuming players still show up on the who list if they switch off their public channels?


Neither am I - however I prefer to deal with the problem rather than the symptoms. If your players were leveling too quickly, you'd lower the amount of exp they earned, or increase the toughness of the mobs, or something like that, right? You wouldn't introduce a rule threatening to punish players who gained more than X levels per day. Well that's pretty much my attitute towards all aspects of game design - if I don't like it, I change the design.

That's actually a pretty good analogy, well put…

We have a 'nowho' flag that players can choose to set, which hides them from the who-list and turns off their public channels, so players who don't want to be bothered with socializing can choose to basically be invisible to the rest of the game in regards to public channels and the who list.

As far as the idling thing, I think that hiding idle players on the who list would be a pretty easy fix for that. I imagine other reasons to outlaw idling might be benefits that can be gained from play time (bank interest, exp gain for real time play, etc) but those might just be poor game choices if that's the case.



I certainly understand where you are coming from. Running a Diku derivative, a key element of the game is the efficiency of how easily you can gain exp or get gold, and generally speaking, the more people allied toward either of those goals, the easier it is to achieve that. Without hurting the social/grouping aspect of the game, I don't really see much of a way to change the game, yet still maintain the core elements of the game, to where multiplaying wouldn't be feasible yet group-play still would be. The only "solution" I see to multi-playing, in this regard, is to add something like an account system, limit one character per account connected at the same time, and just offer a load of incentives for a player to keep all of his/her characters in one account. I don't view that, really, as "fixing the game design" so much as basically bribing your players to keep all of their characters in one place. Maybe others are seeing something I'm not, but if you want to encourage more than one character to group together, I find it difficult to see how you could discourage or even distinguish within the game design whether those two characters are the same player or not. Maybe someone is seeing something I'm not, and I'd be delighted to hear what that might be ;)

HK brings up a good question, which is how to encourage (or sometimes even require) group play in a game while discouraging multiplay, from a game design perspective. The account trick he mentioned is kind of hacky, like he said, and also doesn't really feel like a game design solution.

If all players needed to be acting particularly intelligently more or less simultaneously, it would be difficult to multiplay unless you had particularly clever botting or something like that. Still, at this point, the game becomes one of writing good AI bots.
But hey, maybe you could allow that, and then ask people to share AIs, and use those AIs to power NPCs, to make things even more challenging or at least interesting for players…