Mischief, the land of the Macaroni Quest overlords..

Discussion in 'Time Locked Progression Servers' started by MischiefMan, May 28, 2021.

  1. Waring_McMarrin Augur


    If this was the case they wouldn't be disconnecting people for pressing the same key on multiple computers at the same time. I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that they want a single client per computer and controlling it from the computer it is running on.
    Hypatia likes this.
  2. SoandsoForumUser Augur


    You're misunderstanding what those people are reporting. They're reporting that pressing the same key in two different clients at the same time kicks them, this is it detecting what it thinks is broadcasting the same key to multiple clients, which we've already established is against the rules. This is not what happens when controlling via another computer, you'll never trigger the disconnect since the controlling computer is sending keystrokes only to the receiving client, not broadcasting to multiple clients. There is no possible interpretation of the duplicate key press blocking feature as anything else, and I'm not sure how you're reading this into it.
  3. Niskin Clockwork Arguer


    There's the rules, the things they can control for, and then there's the intent of the rules. The above quote is what they can control for. The below quote is the intent of the rules, and you are pretending that intent doesn't exist.

    Waring_McMarrin likes this.
  4. SoandsoForumUser Augur

    I mean their intention has been explicitly said that you have to have one computer per instance of EQ. Not that it has to be a certain level of inconvenience, that's just the intent you're ascribing to them. Of course that's dumb, but so is truebox.
  5. Waring_McMarrin Augur


    I don't think it is much of a leap in logic to say that if you can only have one client per computer and that vm's are banned that they don't want you to control everything from a single computer. What is the point of limiting it to a single client per pc if you can just control a bunch through remote desktop?
  6. Machen New Member


    Maybe you don't think it's much of a leap, but it IS a leap. Especially since the vm ban predates truebox and has nothing to do with it really.

    DPG has never clarified if you are right or wrong, so it shouldn't surprise you that other players leap in a different direction. We can argue about it all day, but at the end of the day it's a matter of opinion for now, since they won't clarify and also aren't taking action against people for this.
  7. Niskin Clockwork Arguer


    So you think they just made the rule to annoy us then? That they don't care if we can control multiple characters from one PC as long as we are using different physical hardware to run the clients? Because of pointless reasons? Seems like a lot of work to implement something they don't care if you work around.

    Truebox isn't dumb. Based solely on the number of people who complain about it, it solves most of the problem they are using it to solve. It's a hassle to run more than two clients at once on Truebox, low-hanging fruit harvested!
    Waring_McMarrin likes this.
  8. SoandsoForumUser Augur

    Clearly they felt requiring one actual machine per client would be enough of a hurdle.
  9. Niskin Clockwork Arguer


    Is it a leap, or is it a small step across a very small and visible crack? Sure, you are right it's all opinion, but common sense is still a thing I thought.

    There is literally no reason to force Truebox other than to keep people from controlling multiple clients from one PC. If you can think of one please say it.

    Maybe they don't want your processor to overheat from running two clients? So they make you use two PC's but remote controlling them is fine because it won't melt your processor?

    They are in the bag with Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA, and Truebox sells more CPU's and video cards so they get kickbacks?

    They hate us and want to make our lives harder?

    It's just a show so people who hate boxers can feel like DPG is on their side?

    Like I said, low-hanging fruit. Same with the disconnect code. If they go to the trouble of trying to determine if you are running in a VM, then the disconnect code isn't just about pressing 1 on two systems at once without physically touching the 2nd system. It's just all they can accomplish without ending up in constant false-positive territory.

    Uses 1 PC to click 1 on two PC's at once: :mad:
    Uses 1 PC to click different keys on different PC's at once: :D

    They are both issues, they just can't control for both as easily as they can control for one. By that same logic, alt-tabbing on one PC to control multiple characters is against the intent of the Truebox rules.
  10. Niskin Clockwork Arguer


    Are you implying that they adjusted the intent of the rule to match the technical limitations of the checks their client is capable of?

    For people who don't write code for a living, this is how it works. Somebody tells you what they want, you tell them what's possible, they use that information to decide what they can live with.

    For example, if a bank wants an unhackable database, and the dev tells them that's not possible, they don't just decide that hacking is ok. They ask for the most secure thing they can get, and then police it from there with logs or other means.

    DPG historically hasn't been in a good place financially or staff-wise for a while. There are many things I'm sure they would do if they could. Sometimes they just have to do what they can and live with the difference existing.

    So let me just say this: Does nobody know what low-hanging fruit means as an analogy?
  11. Machen New Member


    You are missing the bigger picture. Truebox is about limiting boxing. Not eliminating it, but restricting it. A $200 computer purchase as the cost of entry does this, whether you are controlling it remotely or not.
  12. Accipiter Old Timer

    How can you not understand that to DBG it is exactly the same thing?
  13. Accipiter Old Timer


    No. It is detecting what it thinks is two identical keystrokes coming from the same IP address.
  14. SoandsoForumUser Augur

    Because they made up a rule that super explicitly says only one of the two things. One has nothing to do with the other, and they've only ever enforced one of the two and only ever made statements that you shouldn't do one of the two. So we have... the written rule, the enforcement of the rule, and stated interpretations of the rule all which align, and then we have you folks with your 'Obvious what they meant' alternate reading between the lines.
  15. SoandsoForumUser Augur


    Which as I pointed out only occurs with broadcasting keystrokes to multiple clients, not with remote control of a machine.
  16. Niskin Clockwork Arguer


    I don't necessarily agree that this logic is the full extent of their reasoning, but I do appreciate that there is logic behind the response. We may never know the truth, but it probably lies somewhere between what you said and what I said.