Aradune is limited to two accounts per household??

Discussion in 'Time Locked Progression Servers' started by Psalmz, Aug 15, 2020.

  1. Psalmz Lorekeeper

    A guildie was told by a GM (Serl) that only two accounts can be used per household. (IP address?)

    What is this crap? My brother has two 20ish sons who play more than he does. Before the virus scare, his sons would sometimes host LAN parties with friends. Is this not allowed to on Aradune now? Is my brother not allowed to play if his sons are online? Is DBG trying to drive away the casual players?
    Pumpernickel likes this.
  2. ItzJusJonSkywalk New Member

    lol is this a troll post?

    Should I even answer?

    good obviously didn't read the description of the server...

    ib4 go to rizlona to play more than 2...
  3. Psalmz Lorekeeper

    The above was not a troll post. There is an ongoing discussion in the everquest discord channel. It is the GM Serl who needs to read the Aradune rules description.
  4. Captain Video Augur

    The Aradune ruleset is crystal clear, it's using the now-standard EQ Truebox code and a limit of two simultaneous accounts per player. Truebox defines "player" as an IP address. A LAN party can be done legitimately on Aradune if you have more than one router, with different IP addresses, and no more than two logged-in accounts per router. Put six players on a single IP and the server sees it as a 6-box, which is bannable on Aradune. You can do as much of that as you like on Rizlona. Do some people cheat on Aradune and box anyway with multiple routers? Of course they do. But the moment you start talking about "LAN parties", you've just bought yourself a ticket to GM scrutiny.
  5. Psalmz Lorekeeper

    Why no more than two accounts per router? Routers, households, and IP addresses are not mentioned in the Aradune ruleset. I am quite certain that when they LAN grouped they were all being active as opposed to bot (3rd party software) groups.

    Truebox does NOT define a player as an IP address.

    Mashef_8013 likes this.
  6. Gheed Is not reading your response


    Taken directly from

    So... no, truebox does not "define a player as an IP address". It clearly states on their official FAQ website "A True Box Progression server is a place where players are only allowed to play one Everquest account at a time on their computer

    Completely agree with OP, the rules stated by Dreamweaver are not matching the rules being enforced in-game regarding 2 accounts per household vs. 2 accounts per person.

    Pretty funny something like Project1999 can do box tests but DPG cannot and just assumes you are cheating.
  7. Psalmz Lorekeeper

    Completely separate to this but P1999 requires the users to apply to use more than one account at a time from an IP address. A GM approval is required before a spouse or roommate can use the same IP.
  8. Gheed Is not reading your response

    So not only do they have time to approve each household that wants to play together BUT they even have the capacity to BOX TEST them before handing a warning/ban.

  9. Captain Video Augur

    I didn't say anything about one account per computer. I said the limit on Aradune is two accounts per person, which means two computers per person. Those two computers can have the same IP address, so one address = 1 person. If the Truebox code sees more than two accounts on Aradune using a single IP address, they're going to get flagged; that's how the code works, that's how it's worked for years now, and has been discussed/debated in literally hundreds of other threads on these forums. You can whine all you want about how the code doesn't match your personal interpretation of the rule, but it's their show, their code, their rules. Deal with it. The intent of Truebox, for all its alleged shortcomings, is to put the burden on the player(s) to not run afoul of its enforcement. It's not that hard to do. I've already tried to explain one very simple solution to the "six players in a household" problem.

    You might do well to search the forums and read a few dozen of the hundreds of threads you will find on this topic. Take note of the many other posters who have said the exact same thing you and the OP have, and see how much good it has done them.
  10. Gheed Is not reading your response

    You literally said "truebox defines a "player" as an IP address", which isn't true. Truebox explicitly defines a player as ONE computer, not ONE IP address. On Selos tons of people had their 2-6 accounts all playing from their home IP address while following "truebox" rules. I was just pointing out that you were wrong, no idea why you feel the need to type me an essay and insult me, but hey, seems to be a common theme with the old farts on these forums.

    Dreamweaver just needs to make a post clarifying if the rule is: 2 accounts per household (sharing the same IP address) or if it is 2 accounts per physical person. From what I've seen there are plenty of spouses that play together and maybe they both want to 2 box. It really isn't that hard to box test people that are on the same IP, takes about a minute from my experience on P99.
  11. Captain Video Augur

    Good luck with that.

    It's perfectly legal to box 6 on Selo or any other TLP from a single IP address, as long as it's 1 toon per computer. The 2-toon limit is specific to Aradune, and is explicitly stated as such in the ruleset. The fact you keep trying to compare apples to oranges just shoots down your entire argument.

    And just so you know, I've played a little bit on P99 (Green) too, and its version of Truebox code is just as easily defeated as the SOE system still being used here. P99 has a >lot< of volunteer GMs, and they suspend or ban just as quickly as EQ GMs do if the rule is broken. The reason it isn't a big conflict on P99 is because there is no company-sponsored RMT there.
  12. Gheed Is not reading your response

    Good luck with what? Hoping a community spokesperson would make a statement to the community regarding a clarification of the rules which clearly could be stated better...? While I agree that its very unlikely that Dreamweaver will do that, he should. I don't see how me thinking he should is asinine in your eyes. It speaks more to how bad the CS department is and how disconnected they are with the GM team.

    I also never said it was hard to get around the truebox code on P99 or on TLP servers, I agree that it is quite easy. DPG should just state the rules clearer.

    Btw there is literally a post from Dreamweaver saying the rules are "2 accounts per PERSON". If the rule is actually 2 accounts per household or IP, he should delete that post and make a better one.
    Adobebodii likes this.
  13. JohnnyBgood Lorekeeper

    There is no clarification needed. Dreamweaver specifically said multiple times in discord when asked about this very question its 2 per person not household. He said there were no limits to how many people could play from the same household. When questioned more about if this means they are all coming from one ip address from the same house. Dreamweaver said yes, its not ip limited but person limited.

    So either dreamweaver told everyone wrong many many times OR the rules were changed without alerting the player base.
    jeskola likes this.
  14. HoodenShuklak Augur

    Sure they can do that because their budget allows it. Dpg is staying afloat afloat on a shoestring budget though.
  15. Gheed Is not reading your response

    That was the impression I have been under since the release of the server. That it is 2 accounts per person, and that people could still play with others in their household while both 2-boxing.

    From what Serl said in the tells posted to discord there is a massive disconnect between the GMs and the CS people
  16. KimchiGoddess Augur

    I wish I could say I was surprised.

    That being said, in the discord tell screenshot, the player in the tells first says that their daughter and their wife are each playing two other accounts. Then they go on to say that they (being the person in the tells) are logging off the other four accounts. This kind of insinuates that they were perhaps breaking the rules in the spirit we were told by DW they were (ie two accounts per person). Looks like maybe they were exploiting a loophole? I dunno, I feel like the GM is misinformed about the rules stated to us by DW but I also feel like the player is gaming the system and playing more than two to themselves.
  17. Pumpernickel Lorekeeper

    Yep! I found that out the hard way. I logged in to group with my grandma and my great gram timed us both out! Two per household!
    Galaras, jeskola, ttin and 1 other person like this.
  18. Yara_AB Augur

    Limiting by IP pretty much is pure nonsense and would be very stupid to say the least.

    Many providers are using DSLite along with AFTR servers these days which will make hundreds of households use the same IPv4 (why EQ isn't using IPv6 in parallel already is beyond me though).
    Universities and other big campus also route their folks through a centralized device making them all appear to come from the same IP.
    The number of available IPv4s is depleeted. Simple as that. It is an outdated protocol and providers need to funnel customers through the same IPv4 address while not all assets out there are on IPv6 yet.

    There for sure is more behind truebox (and especially the Aradune added rule of two per person) than most believe. Checking for "running on the same computer" is as easy as checking "running in a virtual machine".

    Usually if someone wants to implement such things as truebox they will also consider having sort of UBA (user behaviour analytics) in place - even if it is just the most simple one like checking if characters are pressing (similar) keys at about the same time (which led to people getting disconnected when they were playing at the same time, having similar setup).
  19. jeskola Why no Erudite Female avatar?

    I can't believe we are having this discussion again. We went through this already before launch... It was settled long ago that Captain Video is clueless about this subject and likes to spew uninformed nonsense because he was a COBOL coder in the 70s something.
  20. Psalmz Lorekeeper

    The immediate issue is not someone posting inaccurate information but a GM (Serl) taking action against players based on the wrong information.