Discussion - Rule 11 - Amended 12/28/2017

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Yaximus, Feb 19, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yaximus

    Yaximus Member

    Messages:
    107
    I'll preface this with I'd like to try to keep the discussion civil.

    So far there hasn't been much discussion on this openly although I'm aware it has happened to a degree on the leader forums. I haven't felt compelled to discuss it because i honestly wanted to see how it panned out.

    My first assumption is that the rule is specifically to address 4+ boxing by 1 person. Please correct me if this is not the case. Based on that I would question if this is an effective rule. From my perspective this rule negatively impacts a lot of people who were doing the right thing while I would argue it slightly hinders peoples ability to 4+ box.

    A lot of players here have leveled up alts so that other people can use them on either raids or for grouping. Given that it's a low population server, this is helpful when you don't have enough classes for certain raids or targets. You might argue that in that case you shouldnt do the target or somehow you conjure more people but I don't think this is reasonable.

    With regards to 4 boxing, i don't believe it really hinders people who do it. Ok so now they don't use 4 + chars on 1 account, now they use a second forum account to 4+ box and your back to square 1. I mean there is already an IP limit so you cant load more than 3 accounts on 1 IP accidently. And there is already a rule that says don't 4 box.

    I would ask that this amendment is revoked so that the people doing the right thing can continue to let other people use there characters without worrying about this rule. The people who are 4+ boxing are going to continue to do this with or without this rule.
     
    Bobobn, Quirk, Videri-Tala and 5 others like this.
  2. jcmtg

    jcmtg New Member

    Messages:
    70
    Vets. Who took advantage of the level 60 green levelling. And OOR levelling. They did this for "for far too long".

    Good riddance.

    Maybe you're asking for a one time forum-account-character-move to permanently "gift" the characters to another player? Nah.

    /salt
     
  3. Linkamus

    Linkamus People Like Me

    Messages:
    413
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2018
  4. showstring

    showstring I Feel Loved

    Messages:
    3,332
    Not sure if that sort of discussion helping, leveling up alts is not difficult with help from higher level chars and/or AE groups, and/or Tolon crap.


    Sensitive topic I guess, not much feedback.

    From my experience this has had the following impact:
    1. Me being more careful when logging in guild porters/coth bots by asking around, or just risking it by doing a /who and praying we don't all get banned.
    2. Me checking with my friends when logging in their toons to ensure they're not online via discord/txt, or just doing a /who and praying we don't all get banned.
    3. Few people changing passwords for the porters/coth bots out of paranoia, making those toons unavailable for use by the guild :(
    4. Me having to level new chars on my own instead of being able to play friend's chars (which I also helped level and gear up, RIP).

    Overall, I'm managing OK I think, but I won't know for sure until the banwave hits. I actually don't know if people are logging in some of my toons while I'm playing some anon lowbie alts, so thoughts and prayers is what I'm counting on.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2018
    Ameliorate, Dane and Videri-Tala like this.
  5. jcmtg

    jcmtg New Member

    Messages:
    70
    The amended rule promotes the use of a fake or throwaway forum accounts for the express purpose of sharing and circumventing the amended rule.
     
  6. Yaximus

    Yaximus Member

    Messages:
    107
    I don't know who this applies to and I'm not seeing the relevancy here in this discussion.

    I agree with this and what I was thinking would likely happen. I don't believe the current amendment will address 4+ boxing, it'll just push those people doing it into doing it a different way. While in the meantine putting boundaries such as some of the ones Rimidal was discussing that doesn't really seem necessary.
     
  7. necra

    necra People Like Me

    Messages:
    606
    Would it be possible to flag it so your forum acc was only allowed 3 game accounts online altogether across different locations. That way it will prevent the anxiety of using others toons
     
    Quirk and Nilduz like this.
  8. gardnerjens

    gardnerjens People Like Me

    Messages:
    715
    Ya if the rule is here to stay, then it might aswell be like that. But still doesnt change the posibility for people to box more then 3 toons at the same time
     
  9. necra

    necra People Like Me

    Messages:
    606
    100% agreed and those are the people who should be punished and if this rule helps get those ppl banned then it has to be a good thing. the reason i made my suggestion was just to protect innocent players who share their info out from being caught up in it
     
  10. jcmtg

    jcmtg New Member

    Messages:
    70
    Would like a dev/admin response on whether our discussion constitutes

    "PS) Rule lawyering will grant you a vacation. It is annoying and wastes time."

    Cuz we'll all just shut up and follow the rules, if so.

    Particularly the intent of amended rule#11. is it to avoid aggregation of toons to 1 account? Like, a player-owner-of-account hording of useful-toons? Further avoiding sadface when a player changes pw and takes all the pixels?
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018
  11. Haynar

    Haynar Administrator

    Messages:
    3,637
    When the thread turned to attacking vets for OOR leveling, I considered it junk. And quit watching as it became a troll fest that belongs in RnF.

    Want a serious discussion? Then stay on topic.

    H
     
  12. Liegezen

    Liegezen People Like Me

    Messages:
    277
    Literally one person in the thread has tried to troll, and at least 2 people have called them out on their views of "vets" that has no relevance in this thread. Also, where is the troll fest? I love me a good troll thread, and this one clearly isn't save for one dude trying to ruin it for everyone.

    One butt hurt guy coming into a thread started by someone who is legit trying to start an open discussion does not constitute a thread turning into a "troll fest that belongs in RnF".

    I don't care one way or another, I don't give out my account infos.
     
  13. Yaximus

    Yaximus Member

    Messages:
    107
    The majority of the posts have been on topic, i guess i could have requested that as well in the initial thread. I'd request you don't right it off completely as I really was trying to get a serious, on topic discussion about this.
     
  14. Bum

    Bum I Feel Loved

    Messages:
    2,647
    Did someone request a troll?
     
  15. Speedz

    Speedz Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,469
    Problem is, no matter what rules happen there will be a select few that try and game it.
    If we relaxed the rules based on this concept, then everyone does it and the game play turns into AK a few months before sunset.
    People make the game trivial and get bored. It eventually happens anyway, but in the process of those 4+ boxing due to a lack of rules without any degree of limitations, it eventually turns off players that want a challenge and feel that inflated baz prices are not the challenge they are looking for and quit/get bored.

    It is all about balance and games in general have had this problem from the start. We aren't alone here.
    Vets tend to "know the game" better. Meaning the tricks of the server, so it is far easier to game it.
    But those that set out from the start to game it happen as well. It just appears different due to experience with the server and staff.

    The amendment was discussed among the team, and decided by all of us as one approach to a continued issue that surfaced as an issue when it was talked about.
    There is discussion off and on about what to do with this issue, but no matter what we the devs come up with or players suggest it will always have "some" issue.
     
  16. Yaximus

    Yaximus Member

    Messages:
    107
    I agree with what your saying but specifically with this rule. It's made something previously allowed (which was more than 3 accounts being used on 1 forum account as long as 1 IP or person is not playing more than 3 at a time) into something not allowed. And this has been changed to address something (4 boxing) which was already not allowed.

    Anyway I'll leave it at that, thanks for giving us your thoughts.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018
    showstring likes this.
  17. jcmtg

    jcmtg New Member

    Messages:
    70
    I went back on topic. #haynarded

    So it's the He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named reason, cool. Makes sense now that i think about it. thx speedz
     
  18. gardnerjens

    gardnerjens People Like Me

    Messages:
    715
    This was the Reason i played on the original Ak, which also made the server speical for me. but i gusse the recreation that is going on is maybe trying to recreate the time before the Freetoplay time?
     
  19. Speedz

    Speedz Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,469
    My meaning was it being a ghost town.
     
  20. gardnerjens

    gardnerjens People Like Me

    Messages:
    715
    ahhh i see. i never really played right before the server shut down. but i know i played once the huge influx came. and i really enjoyed that time.. but i know ofc those hacking warping stuff that occured is not acceptable... but the old client and this unpatched server with boxing allowance and no monthly fee was just paradise
     
    jcmtg and showstring like this.
  21. GreldorEQ

    GreldorEQ Active Member

    Messages:
    52
    If we want to encourage healthy populations of people attempting content during more hours of the day, preventing the use of guild resources on raids will not help.
     
  22. Inacht

    Inacht People Like Me

    Messages:
    553
    My main concern regarding this rule is mostly centered around cothbots / clerics / porters positioned in strategic places for guild/s access as Rimidal mentioned. I would like for players to be able to use these resources without being concerned they may get the account banned. We've discussed the matter some, our solutions have mostly been about reducing access to certain accounts and making an effort to ensure the relevant account is safe to log in, but its not a perfect answer.

    Will there be a human reviewing violations of a forums account have 4 in game accounts logged in to determine if actual 4 boxing is taking place? How do the devs feel about shared cothbots, porters, etc? Would they consider providing an exception to them? Maybe a flag similar to a trader account?

    I'd imagine much of this has already been discussed by the devs, just wanted to add my perspective.
     
  23. benoeb

    benoeb People Like Me

    Messages:
    377
    There could be, but that would cost money to have a dedicated person go through all the reports and attempt to verify the validity of each and every report in a timely manner.

    Server is run by volunteers who do this as a passion project. I'm not about to ask someone to dedicate all of their free time to policing and rule lawyer-ing when they already use what free time they feel is appropriate on a project they make zero money off of.

    If you have useful characters such as rez, coth, or taxi bots. Log off one of your "main" toons, take care of the raid and by the time you re-log your 3rd "main" back there will be another person to fill the void you previously filled with your bot.

    Don't make this harder for the server admins than it needs to be. I'd like them to stick around long after PoP drops and maybe they will be able to enjoy the server they helped build.
     
  24. Jugo!

    Jugo! People Like Me

    Messages:
    470
    Haven't been reading up on everything, but to recap: 3 accounts, 1 trader, and if another player wants to use your rez/coh/whatever bot, you need to log off one of your own toons so there is a max of 3+1trader accounts associated with a forum handle online at a given time?
    Am I understanding this correctly? (I don't want to get folks banned accidently)
     
  25. Bum

    Bum I Feel Loved

    Messages:
    2,647
     
    Jugo! likes this.
  26. Darchon

    Darchon I Feel Loved

    Messages:
    3,627
    You are.

    So I tend to agree with the OP and with the intent of the staff.

    I ended up with 4 level 60 characters on TAKP at this point and frequently will use Dru/Cler/Ench for solo activities or raids. It was nice to be able to throw someone (or alliance) the keys to my wizard should they not be playing 3 characters already themselves. Whether they just need a port or want to help DPS on a raid. Having this flexibility was nice.

    However with the amended rule this isn't possible. Now for raids the characters that offer the most flexibility are those of members who are on hiatus or have quit the game. For those of us law-abiding-citizens of Norrath, we are better off powerleveling or commandeering toons on a friend or guildmate's account if we want to be able to loan it out to other people while we are ourselves 3 boxing.

    By the rules, this is completely acceptable. I don't think the staff here would take any issue with it either. It just seems like an odd route we are encouraged to go should we wish to offer up our toons to people who either don't have the time, desire or will to level up another character for whatever reason.

    I agree that a 3-box limit is best for the server in its current state. From someone not looking to break the rules, I always felt from the beginning of the server, the hard IP connection limit worked. On a few occasions I'd forgotten a toon in a background instance or a camp got interrupted and I tried to load in another box and the server stopped me. To me... it always felt like the system worked.

    Now I do understand those who aren't technically inept like myself have ways to dupe IPs or lie about IP exemptions etc. It's unfortunate that the actions of these extremely few have forced the creation of a rule that hurts the flexibility of sharing accounts with others.

    I don't subscribe to the idea that the "rule breakers will break rules so why have rules at all?". However I don't think that is what's being asked here. The IP hardcap is still in place. No one wants that removed. That prevents most attempts to box beyond 3. I just feel like this rule, which I don't believe is actually hard enforced (like the IP cap is), actually prevents what you're looking to stop here.

    I'm a civil engineer by day. If we don't want someone U-turning along a roadway you can put up a physical barrier like an island, guard rail or concrete barrier (3-IP hardcap) which physically prevents that action. Or you can put up a No U-Turn sign or special pavement marking to indicate that it's not allowed, but physically does nothing to block it (amended rule 11).

    The physical barrier stops 99.99% of people from attempting to break the rule. If they REALLY, want to break the rule by going out of their way to bypass the physical barrier, they will. Having a soft rule suggestion aimed at these people exclusively will not deter them. They're already the ones jumping the curb and U-turning. A no U-Turn sign in addition to the physical islands isn't gonna stop them.

    I hope my bad metaphor helps clarify my thoughts on this. I agree with the intent however I don't think it's currently having the effect desired. It's mostly just making people who have no intent to break the rules be more cautious about sharing accounts.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2018
    Videri-Tala, lurari, Loraen and 10 others like this.
  27. Cadsuane

    Cadsuane People Like Me

    Messages:
    815
    I think that's a really good metaphor actually, and agree.
     
  28. Ameliorate

    Ameliorate Member

    Messages:
    39
    Darchon has read my mind and relayed my thoughts much more eloquently! Nice metaphor. I'm in 100 percent agreement with Darchon.

    I will add I believe it is illogical to assume that this amended rule will prevent 4 boxers. If they are going to circumvent the IP limit, it will take them about 2 weeks to get Joe Smo next door to make a forum account he will never log on and PL some new toons to 60.

    I understand the intention, but in practice the rule only hurts those of us who have put the time and energy into building up extra toons for guild usage. There's something very demoralizing to realize any extra characters I've created for extra dps or ports or whatever are now basically dead if I happen to be at a raid with my base 3. I know I'm not just speaking for myself that it feels like a lot of wasted time.

    My request would be that exceptions at least be made for raiding if the rule must stay in place. That said, I don't believe the rule is operating as intended so I don't think there is a point to keeping it in place.
     
    showstring, Anta and GreldorEQ like this.
  29. Haynar

    Haynar Administrator

    Messages:
    3,637
    What I plan to do.

    Code it so a single IP cannot exceed 3+1 on a forum account. Need that wiz logged in to port? Gonna have to be someone on a diff IP. 2 ppl in same house? Going to have to be on seperate forum accounts. This will fix 99% of problems.

    After this is coded, then the rules can be adjusted as needed.

    H
     
    Videri-Tala, Lenas, Dane and 5 others like this.
  30. Darchon

    Darchon I Feel Loved

    Messages:
    3,627
    Haynar, forgive my technical ineptitude, but it was my understanding that's how the code already works?

    It allows you 3 accounts online + 1 Trader acccount online from a single IP. Any further attempts to connect an additional account lead to an error message.

    Or am I mistaken and the server already saved me from my dumbness on its own without being coded as I/you described?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.