+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Proposal: Remove second part of Rule 5.5 (/showthread.php?tid=164464)
RE: Proposal: Remove second part of Rule 5.5 - Karst - 09-14-2018
Why was this amendment added in the first place? Serious question.
RE: Proposal: Remove second part of Rule 5.5 - Thyrzul - 09-14-2018
(09-14-2018, 12:48 PM)Karst Wrote: Why was this amendment added in the first place? Serious question.
Likely because it is hard to prove or disprove claims of multiple players behind a single IP running multiple instances, and this amendment outlaws the main purpose of potential multiboxing. In a way, removing this amendment would give way for circumvention of the entire rule. This is why I like Laura's idea of a middle ground.
RE: Proposal: Remove second part of Rule 5.5 - MotokoSusu - 09-14-2018
I remember oh like 6 month ago that this issue was "under consideration" among the admin team. my whole faction well 3 of the 4 members. live in the same house with the same in-house network and ISP and IP. I have recently been having a problem with my daughters being able to log in on their laptop while my desktop is online. I have been guessing it is the server kicking them because of the multi-boxing issue. although this has only happened in the last week and a half. I can see the reason it was put in place. but for the OH DEAR GOD, someone is going to have an advantage and get rich quick POWER TRADING pffft.
there plenty of people that have an unfair advantage in disco. First is just the location they live in. most instant events happen during hours that certain community members cannot attend due to the time zone difference. which allow them to get that data and such to build overpowering siege ships and what not. Also, base declaration if timed just right a core one can be attacked while an owner is asleep. which in itself is taking advantage of the rules. but oh multi-boxing is the bain of disco oh please. there is plenty more problems then multi-boxing. of which all these have been " under discussion" among the admin
team
I don't have a problem with the admins in general. but it seems they are quick with a knee-jerk reaction. but slow to respond on matters like the multi-boxing. Which i am not holding my breath. this is the main reason i am just letting my PoB's go poof because i am tired of fighting with whatever is kicking my daughter's computers and frankly i don't have the free time to do all the work myself.
RE: Proposal: Remove second part of Rule 5.5 - Kaze - 09-14-2018
(09-14-2018, 12:13 AM)Thunderer Wrote: Pepe and I share the same network. We were both in several BAF|MN trade convoys. Nothing happened.
That's because you're both special. Anywho, I agree with Kazi. Kaz. Kazin. Well, you know who.
<3
<3
RE: Proposal: Remove second part of Rule 5.5 - St.Denis - 09-14-2018
(09-14-2018, 03:41 PM)MotokoSusu Wrote: I don't have a problem with the admins in general. but it seems they are quick with a knee-jerk reaction. but slow to respond on matters like the multi-boxing. Which i am not holding my breath. this is the main reason i am just letting my PoB's go poof because i am tired of fighting with whatever is kicking my daughter's computers and frankly i don't have the free time to do all the work myself.
There should be nothing, from our end, stopping your Daughters from playing. There are quite a few people who play from the same IP and have no problems.
RE: Proposal: Remove second part of Rule 5.5 - Altejago - 09-14-2018
Me and @Widow both played from the same IP for six years. There’s no issue if both are playing.
RE: Proposal: Remove second part of Rule 5.5 - Commander Crucible - 09-14-2018
+1
This would benefit a lot of people.
RE: Proposal: Remove second part of Rule 5.5 - MotokoSusu - 09-14-2018
well, at any rate, i cannot figure it out i have worked on it for 3 days with no results but am able to log either one on from a diffrent IP other then the house with no issues. that is why it is stumping me and nothing has changed with the house IP
RE: Proposal: Remove second part of Rule 5.5 - Durandal - 09-15-2018
Re @Altejago and @St.Denis, the problem is not that people technically can get away with playing on the same IP, it's that people are afraid to do so at all.
RE: Proposal: Remove second part of Rule 5.5 - St.Denis - 09-15-2018
(09-15-2018, 03:24 PM)Durandal Wrote: Re @Altejago and @St.Denis, the problem is not that people technically can get away with playing on the same IP, it's that people are afraid to do so at all.
The Rule does not state that no more than 1 person, from an IP can play. It just restricted the Mining/Transporting together part.
The mining part comes with a Trade Ship turning up at a Mining Field, and a few seconds later the Miner turns up, fills the Trade Ship and then logs off until the next time the Trade ship turns up. Very suspicious.
With Trade Ships, if both Ships are flying independently of each other, then it would suggest that it is 2 seperate people flying the Ships. As soon as they fly in formation, halt after a Jump Gate, whilst they one at a time form up on the lead ship or only 1 Ship responds to a hail, then it becomes very suspicious and generally leads to a Violation Report appearing in front of us.
By use of the Rule we are trying to mitigate these incidents and, hopefully, reduce the amount of VRs that we get.
Supposedly, we are all fairly intelligent people and can 'see' the inherent problem. If they use a modicum of sense, they can see the Admins will not be jumping on people if a Trader has an escort or 2 fighting Ships are patrolling an area, as it is very unlikely that this is being done by 1 person.
If, some how, 1 person can fight with 2 Ships at the same time, then 'hats off to him' as I have difficulty fighting with one Ship.