Multiple Clients

[tp1212]

I don't know what a packet macro is... The client is written in Java, if we users want to mess with it we can.

Indeed, I'm not denying that. The average user is not going to know how to/care enough to manipulate it to send false MACs though. : ) If they were, well, more power to 'em.

So basically your suggestion is to limit this 'exploit' to only those with advanced technical knowledge.


Personally, I think it would probably be a better idea to just leave it as-is.

So you are saying that until a magical solution to get rid of all exploiters is found, we shouldn't do anything against them?

[TempestReborne]

So you are saying that until a magical solution to get rid of all exploiters is found, we shouldn't do anything against them?

I don't think it's worth bothering, to be honest.

[Ferinex]

So you are saying that until a magical solution to get rid of all exploiters is found, we shouldn't do anything against them?

I don't think it's worth bothering, to be honest.

I do.

[Delamore]

So you are saying that until a magical solution to get rid of all exploiters is found, we shouldn't do anything against them?

I don't think it's worth bothering, to be honest.

I do.

This thread is just you defending your idea, rather than a two sided argument.

[Ferinex]

I don't think it's worth bothering, to be honest.

I do.

This thread is just you defending your idea, rather than a two sided argument.

That's the point.

[sami1337]

Well it's obvious that whoever is not effected by it or feels the urge to exploit it will say it won't need a fix. But just cause you're not noticing it doesn't mean it's a good / bad thing.

[Delamore]

Well it's obvious that whoever is not effected by it or feels the urge to exploit it will say it won't need a fix. But just cause you're not noticing it doesn't mean it's a good / bad thing.

Right now the only one calling it an exploit is one person, other than that everyone seems to think it is just a feature with no problems.

[sami1337]

Well it's obvious that whoever is not effected by it or feels the urge to exploit it will say it won't need a fix. But just cause you're not noticing it doesn't mean it's a good / bad thing.

Right now the only one calling it an exploit is one person, other than that everyone seems to think it is just a feature with no problems.

Well i think the wiki page on "exploit" Pretty much sums it up quite nicely why i would want to see this fixed.

In the realm of online games, an exploit is usually a software bug, design flaw, hack or bot that contributes to the user's prosperity in a manner not intended by the developers.

Game Mechanics Exploits / Bug Exploits - There are also other exploits involving the physics of the game, sometimes in conjunction with items. This includes using wall-walking to get into unfinished areas or abilities to make one's character unattackable by mobs or other players and sometimes are able to attack back.

On which a reaction of the devs would be:

Depending on the EULA and the severity of the exploit, developers may do anything from simply removing the exploited material from the game, to reprimanding the players, or banning their accounts. There are only occasional rare cases of an exploiter being threatened with legal action.

And to prevent "OMG WHEN DID DEVS SAY THAT WTF LIES GAY":

Also, some of the alt-abuse issues would be reduced if we were to implement the suggestions outlined in 2 and/or 3. When we're talking about a couple of days of game play to get the "alt" up and running, I think the practice is fair play.

3) Trained alts are not a problem. If a thief player loses an alt with black skills + high str, he has lost a significant value, and things are as they should be. The entry bar for thievery could relatively easily be raised by requiring thieves to hold certain personal beliefs (Considering high "Night"), and/or by requiring certain stats before allowing the purchase of black skills (Say, 10 stealth for trespassing, 20 for theft, 35 for vandalism and 50 for murder).

4) Spam-alts are a problem. Alts engaging in behavior which is ugly, rather than criminal, are hard to get to. It requires very little energy to create a character that digs swastikas out of clay for lulz.

Pretty much saying serious alts are fine. Spam alts are not.
Transferring goods between alts with multiple clients or other "ugly" actions done with multiple clients are downright lame.And i don't think hardware should give you an unfair advantage over others because you can run 2, 3 or more clients.

[Jackard]

An interesting interpretation you have there, that "spam alts" should equal "multiple clients."

[sami1337]

An interesting interpretation you have there, that "spam alts" should equal "multiple clients."

Alts and spam alts are undeniably the only thing you could use multiple clients for. So yeah it makes sense to me.