| Author | Content | Date |
|---|---|---|
|
PROTEUZ |
"ELRIC"If you were to implement an automated verification request for change of ip address on an account this would make it a little more difficult for multis/pilots using the same accounts. Fantastic and simple idea, like Steam Account access. This would certainly work.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="PROTEUZ"][quote="ELRIC"]If you were to implement an automated verification request for change of ip address on an account this would make it a little more difficult for multis/pilots using the same accounts.
For example if new ip tries to log onto account the account is suspended until a code is inserted. The code can be automatically generated and sent to the original e-mail address for the account.[/quote]
Fantastic and simple idea, like Steam Account access. This would certainly work.
[/quote]
|
#46 2015/12/15 16:10:01 |
|
REXAR |
Why not just change how rested exp works,
Make it so lvling without rested is extremely slow (or even effect overall %/stat ratio and drop rates) Basically force people to only hunt with rested exp but can still gain rested while out of town so they can still pvp and kill bosses etc. Just need to find a way to make botting and multing not worth doing. A lot faster rates could effect this. If you can't police multis etc then put something in place to police their lvling speed Just a few ideas
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="REXAR"]Why not just change how rested exp works,
Make it so lvling without rested is extremely slow (or even effect overall %/stat ratio and drop rates)
Basically force people to only hunt with rested exp but can still gain rested while out of town so they can still pvp and kill bosses etc.
Just need to find a way to make botting and multing not worth doing.
A lot faster rates could effect this.
If you can't police multis etc then put something in place to police their lvling speed
Just a few ideas[/quote]
|
#47 2015/12/15 16:14:35 |
|
MAGICAL |
ye lets cap the speed at which they lvl at when there is a ton of capped chars. great idea.
|
#48 2015/12/15 16:46:02 |
|
_SEPHIROTH_ |
"PROTEUZ""ELRIC"If you were to implement an automated verification request for change of ip address on an account this would make it a little more difficult for multis/pilots using the same accounts. Not a bad Idea but I doubt Isylver/Ghost/Fin are going to put alot of time/effort into something thats not particularly effective.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="_SEPHIROTH_"][quote="PROTEUZ"][quote="ELRIC"]If you were to implement an automated verification request for change of ip address on an account this would make it a little more difficult for multis/pilots using the same accounts.
For example if new ip tries to log onto account the account is suspended until a code is inserted. The code can be automatically generated and sent to the original e-mail address for the account.[/quote]
Fantastic and simple idea, like Steam Account access. This would certainly work.
[/quote]
Not a bad Idea but I doubt Isylver/Ghost/Fin are going to put alot of time/effort into something thats not particularly effective.[/quote]
|
#49 2015/12/15 16:50:50 |
|
PROTEUZ |
"_SEPHIROTH_""PROTEUZ""ELRIC"If you were to implement an automated verification request for change of ip address on an account this would make it a little more difficult for multis/pilots using the same accounts. On the flip side, this looks very effective. Actually I think this method will hit more afk leveled chars than the current rules for bots as there is no clear cut strategy for dealing with bots but what we have here is a very precise, simple and definitely effective method of dealing with multis. I can't see a reason why GMs wouldn't implement it. It would be very easy to code too, so it wouldn't take any time at all. Couple of hours max.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="PROTEUZ"][quote="_SEPHIROTH_"][quote="PROTEUZ"][quote="ELRIC"]If you were to implement an automated verification request for change of ip address on an account this would make it a little more difficult for multis/pilots using the same accounts.
For example if new ip tries to log onto account the account is suspended until a code is inserted. The code can be automatically generated and sent to the original e-mail address for the account.[/quote]
Fantastic and simple idea, like Steam Account access. This would certainly work.
[/quote]
Not a bad Idea but I doubt Isylver/Ghost/Fin are going to put alot of time/effort into something thats not particularly effective.[/quote]
On the flip side, this looks very effective. Actually I think this method will hit more afk leveled chars than the current rules for bots as there is no clear cut strategy for dealing with bots but what we have here is a very precise, simple and definitely effective method of dealing with multis. I can't see a reason why GMs wouldn't implement it. It would be very easy to code too, so it wouldn't take any time at all. Couple of hours max. [/quote]
|
#50 2015/12/15 16:56:55 |
|
GHOSTLORD |
What stops the owner of the email in simply sharing that code with another? Seems like a lot of work doe something that very little.
|
#51 2015/12/15 18:47:51 |
|
_SEPHIROTH_ |
"PROTEUZ"and definitely effective method of dealing with multis. Thats debatable, alot of preplanned multi accounts were created with a specific email account which is shareable, so it's a none issue there. Passing on a code you receive on your phone through notification is a very small inconvenience. And if all else fails (which it wont) people would just use www.teamviewer.com/ it's free. It's a process designed more to stop people stealing accounts than to stop people sharing accounts.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="_SEPHIROTH_"][quote="PROTEUZ"]and definitely effective method of dealing with multis.[/quote]
Thats debatable, alot of preplanned multi accounts were created with a specific email account which is shareable, so it's a none issue there. Passing on a code you receive on your phone through notification is a very small inconvenience.
And if all else fails (which it wont) people would just use www.teamviewer.com/ it's free.
It's a process designed more to stop people stealing accounts than to stop people sharing accounts. [/quote]
|
#52 2015/12/15 18:52:49 |
|
ISYLVER [Staff] |
Dynamic IP address?
Means an email from an SMTP server every time this IP changes? Which spam will flag often opening Pandoras box of more work to fix. As said above people will also share the email? |
#53 2015/12/15 19:22:38 |
|
PROTEUZ |
"_SEPHIROTH_""PROTEUZ"and definitely effective method of dealing with multis. The strategy for bot detection is even more debatable but GMs are going ahead with it. Email confirmation using a shared email means the account is at much greater risk of being stolen, the setup will make it much harder for a account to exist easily. Unless the owner of the account is in contact and has access to email there really isn't a way for the multis to log on. It makes it much more difficult for multis. Another reason this idea is great is that it effectively wipes out pilots too, so there really is no good reason to ignore this idea and to only go ahead with the very debatable strategy to target bots. Why not do both. TeamViewer is awful, I've tried it for Soma in the past. As was said earlier, just because it is not perfect, does not mean we should not do what we can. The code can be shared but everytime a new PC logs onto the the char a new code gets sent. So while it is not perfect it makes it much more difficult for the multi. It is a much more effective approach to the current one with bots so I can't see an issue and this change to the server/game will not take long at all. I have worked in Web design and development for many years, this is a simple change. I think you're deliberately being negative about a strategy to target multis which is much better than what has been proposed to target bots.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="PROTEUZ"][quote="_SEPHIROTH_"][quote="PROTEUZ"]and definitely effective method of dealing with multis.[/quote]
Thats debatable, alot of preplanned multi accounts were created with a specific email account which is shareable, so it's a none issue there. Passing on a code you receive on your phone through notification is a very small inconvenience.
And if all else fails (which it wont) people would just use www.teamviewer.com/ it's free.
It's a process designed more to stop people stealing accounts than to stop people sharing accounts. [/quote]
The strategy for bot detection is even more debatable but GMs are going ahead with it.
Email confirmation using a shared email means the account is at much greater risk of being stolen, the setup will make it much harder for a account to exist easily. Unless the owner of the account is in contact and has access to email there really isn't a way for the multis to log on. It makes it much more difficult for multis.
Another reason this idea is great is that it effectively wipes out pilots too, so there really is no good reason to ignore this idea and to only go ahead with the very debatable strategy to target bots. Why not do both.
TeamViewer is awful, I've tried it for Soma in the past. As was said earlier, just because it is not perfect, does not mean we should not do what we can.
The code can be shared but everytime a new PC logs onto the the char a new code gets sent. So while it is not perfect it makes it much more difficult for the multi. It is a much more effective approach to the current one with bots so I can't see an issue and this change to the server/game will not take long at all. I have worked in Web design and development for many years, this is a simple change.
I think you're deliberately being negative about a strategy to target multis which is much better than what has been proposed to target bots.[/quote]
|
#54 2015/12/15 19:34:21 |
|
PROTEUZ |
"ISYLVER"Dynamic IP address? Why would sending an email be a problem? I send my email in batches of 50,000 every 2 weeks, a few emails a day won't be a problem. You work in Web so you know this is not a problem. People just have to enter a code when their IP changes every so often. Small price for big gains.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="PROTEUZ"][quote="ISYLVER"]Dynamic IP address?
Means an email from an SMTP server every time this IP changes? Which spam will flag often opening Pandoras box of more work to fix.
[/quote]
Why would sending an email be a problem? I send my email in batches of 50,000 every 2 weeks, a few emails a day won't be a problem. You work in Web so you know this is not a problem.
People just have to enter a code when their IP changes every so often. Small price for big gains.
[/quote]
|
#55 2015/12/15 19:41:41 |
|
_SEPHIROTH_ |
"PROTEUZ"I think you're being deliberately being negative about a strategy to target multis which is much better than what has been proposed to target bots. I said I think it's not a bad idea but not worth the effort because it wont be effective enough which I still stand by. Your hinting I may be biased because I am/was a multi, it's not the case I hardly play I dont have a dog in the race anymore. I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of Isylver and co an it sounds like it would cause more problems than it would solve and waste a lot of time to boot. I also think for the reasons stated earlier in this thread that endorsing/legalising sophisticated bots has a strong potential to have a much worse consequences for the server than multies.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="_SEPHIROTH_"][quote="PROTEUZ"]I think you're being deliberately being negative about a strategy to target multis which is much better than what has been proposed to target bots.[/quote]
I said I think it's not a bad idea but not worth the effort because it wont be effective enough which I still stand by. Your hinting I may be biased because I am/was a multi, it's not the case I hardly play I dont have a dog in the race anymore.
I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of Isylver and co an it sounds like it would cause more problems than it would solve and waste a lot of time to boot.
I also think for the reasons stated earlier in this thread that endorsing/legalising sophisticated bots has a strong potential to have a much worse consequences for the server than multies.[/quote]
|
#56 2015/12/15 19:49:47 |
|
ELRIC |
"GHOSTLORD"What stops the owner of the email in simply sharing that code with another? Seems like a lot of work doe something that very little. As I said it was meant more for the multis who have people use a char while they are asleep or at work, so if they are asleep they cant share the code until they wake up creating an inconvenience. Also when they want to log in they have to get another code in order to log back in as ip would change again. As for dynamic ips they only really change when rooter is rebooted so wouldn't cause to much of a hardship. People who have multiple users who do not share an e=mail for the account would start getting fed up if they had to relay a code 3/4 times every day because of multiple ips using a char. I don't believe many of the accounts on the server have a shared e-mail account otherwise when people have taken over chars they seem to get recalled much to the dismay of the people who have taken them over.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="ELRIC"][quote="GHOSTLORD"]What stops the owner of the email in simply sharing that code with another? Seems like a lot of work doe something that very little.[/quote]
As I said it was meant more for the multis who have people use a char while they are asleep or at work, so if they are asleep they cant share the code until they wake up creating an inconvenience. Also when they want to log in they have to get another code in order to log back in as ip would change again.
As for dynamic ips they only really change when rooter is rebooted so wouldn't cause to much of a hardship.
People who have multiple users who do not share an e=mail for the account would start getting fed up if they had to relay a code 3/4 times every day because of multiple ips using a char.
I don't believe many of the accounts on the server have a shared e-mail account otherwise when people have taken over chars they seem to get recalled much to the dismay of the people who have taken them over.
[/quote]
|
#57 2015/12/15 20:17:54 |
|
OPENTHEDOOR |
Not a cat in hell's chance I would give someone else access to my email account just for a verification code.
I think that would certainly slow things down. The simple fact is the following, it doesn't really matter currently what this discussion bring because the punishments are not severe enough, unless we address the punishments we won't get anywhere fast. Simple things that are going wrong currently : 1) Banned players just log on a friends account 2) Banned players have moved their gear onto a friends account 3) Someone bots for 2-3 weeks solid and gets banned for 7 days logs back in with 100% rested experience (thats if they don't talk their way out of a week ban, and get it reduced to 3 days or so) and starts botting again. 4) You mention a 3 strike system - I can't honestly see anyone who has been given 3 strikes? There are people playing with about 10 strikes still. 5) There are alot of low level chars botting - absolutely no risk to the owner as his level 100 is protected. So what if you ban a level 40 chances are all frogs or herbs or presents he got are stashed away and he has moved onto another char. Until these, and most likely more points of punishment is addressed anything else is futile.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="OPENTHEDOOR"]Not a cat in hell's chance I would give someone else access to my email account just for a verification code.
I think that would certainly slow things down.
The simple fact is the following, it doesn't really matter currently what this discussion bring because the punishments are not severe enough, unless we address the punishments we won't get anywhere fast.
Simple things that are going wrong currently :
1) Banned players just log on a friends account
2) Banned players have moved their gear onto a friends account
3) Someone bots for 2-3 weeks solid and gets banned for 7 days logs back in with 100% rested experience (thats if they don't talk their way out of a week ban, and get it reduced to 3 days or so) and starts botting again.
4) You mention a 3 strike system - I can't honestly see anyone who has been given 3 strikes? There are people playing with about 10 strikes still.
5) There are alot of low level chars botting - absolutely no risk to the owner as his level 100 is protected. So what if you ban a level 40 chances are all frogs or herbs or presents he got are stashed away and he has moved onto another char.
Until these, and most likely more points of punishment is addressed anything else is futile. [/quote]
|
#58 2015/12/15 20:31:20 |
|
GHOSTLORD |
"ELRIC" Surely a smart pilot would ask to settle this BEFORE the deal is made? Also as Sylver mentioned dynamic IP's can be annoying and will most likely lead to requests to GM's to 'fix it'. What you guys seem to want is like the Blizzard Authenticator. That'll only happen if you supply us with a uber budget and an extra person dedicated to that task. Openthedoor does have a few good points. Only time can reveal the outcome.
PM
Reply
Quote
[quote="GHOSTLORD"][quote="ELRIC"]
As I said it was meant more for the multis who have people use a char while they are asleep or at work, so if they are asleep they cant share the code until they wake up creating an inconvenience. Also when they want to log in they have to get another code in order to log back in as ip would change again.
[/quote]
Surely a smart pilot would ask to settle this BEFORE the deal is made? Also as Sylver mentioned dynamic IP's can be annoying and will most likely lead to requests to GM's to 'fix it'.
What you guys seem to want is like the Blizzard Authenticator. That'll only happen if you supply us with a uber budget and an extra person dedicated to that task.
Openthedoor does have a few good points. Only time can reveal the outcome.[/quote]
|
#59 2015/12/16 10:41:34 |
|
ISYLVER [Staff] |
Also what happens when someone has used an email address that doesn't exist? There's quite a few high levels with non existent emails.
|
#60 2015/12/16 12:57:04 |
Please sign in with one of your characters to reply