Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Two accounts

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 8:58:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

If I had two accounts would I be able to access both accounts on one
computer at the same time (multitask)?

Andrea

More about : accounts

Anonymous
October 19, 2004 4:11:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:58:24 -0700, "Andrea2"
<andrea6192001nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>If I had two accounts would I be able to access both accounts on one
>computer at the same time (multitask)?
>
>Andrea

Not super easily. I have multiple computers so I just use two of them
when I want to transfer pets or whatever between two accounts.

If you have XP you could set up a second user account on the computer then
use fast user switching to go between the two computer accounts. On each
account you could log into a different UO account.

You could possibly run an emulator like Virtual PC and run a separate UO
session within it.

You can't run two instances of UO at the same time on the same computer
unless you use some kind of illegal third party software hack like
MultiUO, etc.

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 4:11:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

> You can't run two instances of UO at the same time on the same computer
> unless you use some kind of illegal third party software hack like
> MultiUO, etc.

I'm not slighting Poly, so don't take it wrong but since Andrea is new to
the game I'd also like to point out that:
1. Anything 'illegal' is bannable. ie anything that is not listed with the
UO Pro aceptance can get you banned.
2. To modify #1 MENTIONING you use ##### (Can't think of the big bad ones
:p  ) to a GM is grounds for an immidiate ban. (Even if you are joking and
don't really use said program they still have the option of doing this.)
3. In reality they have a hard time telling if you are using a 'bannable'
program which is why they have such problems getting rid of the %$^$%^@#$%
script looters.
4. In my experiance using outside programs make the game more boring. Having
said that I do approve of UOAM and UOAssist (I resisted those for years
though :p  )
5. 3rd party programs, while seeming good, have often been bug and virus
infested. Some non-UO Pro programs are fine and safe but a lot of stuff is
out there that will promase the world and contain a backdoor/trogan program
ready to rip your PC to bloody shreds. (A good up to date AV prog works good
here)

Oi! Preachy I am! :p 
Related resources
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 4:11:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

I won't use an illegal program. But, it would seem to me that UO would want
you to have two accounts, and therefore should allow you to run two
instances on one computer. That is the only way I will get another account.

Andrea

"Alminair" <Alminair@*Nospam*Earthlink.Net> wrote in message
news:2tjd71F1u8789U1@uni-berlin.de...
>> You can't run two instances of UO at the same time on the same computer
>> unless you use some kind of illegal third party software hack like
>> MultiUO, etc.
>
> I'm not slighting Poly, so don't take it wrong but since Andrea is new to
> the game I'd also like to point out that:
> 1. Anything 'illegal' is bannable. ie anything that is not listed with the
> UO Pro aceptance can get you banned.
> 2. To modify #1 MENTIONING you use ##### (Can't think of the big bad ones
> :p  ) to a GM is grounds for an immidiate ban. (Even if you are joking and
> don't really use said program they still have the option of doing this.)
> 3. In reality they have a hard time telling if you are using a 'bannable'
> program which is why they have such problems getting rid of the %$^$%^@#$%
> script looters.
> 4. In my experiance using outside programs make the game more boring.
> Having said that I do approve of UOAM and UOAssist (I resisted those for
> years though :p  )
> 5. 3rd party programs, while seeming good, have often been bug and virus
> infested. Some non-UO Pro programs are fine and safe but a lot of stuff is
> out there that will promase the world and contain a backdoor/trogan
> program ready to rip your PC to bloody shreds. (A good up to date AV prog
> works good here)
>
> Oi! Preachy I am! :p 
>
>
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 4:38:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Andrea2" <andrea6192001nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:J5ydnfAy0OEvCencRVn-vw@giganews.com...
>I won't use an illegal program. But, it would seem to me that UO would want
>you to have two accounts, and therefore should allow you to run two
>instances on one computer. That is the only way I will get another account.
>
> Andrea

Nope. If you try to run UO 2 times on the same PC it generates "An instance
of UO is already running" error. That was why Poly mentioned MultiUO, it
allows you to do that. I'm just wary of viruses and hacks. (Among other
things I do IT support) The other reason to get multi acounts is BOD
accounts, but I think at your stage in the game it would be a bad idea, :p 
(Using an acount for getting BODs for gold and items gets boring )
The two instances not running is a programming thing. For when it was made,
UO kicked ass and it was the first type of setup like this. Problem was 2D
was really PC intensive when it came out even if it looks 'dated' now. The
same goes for 3D. I just upgraded to a 'buff' new system and even I don't
know if I could run 2 copies of 3D.... That program is a damn recource hog.
2D is bad about that as well but nowhere on the same scale. :p 
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 6:03:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

I only use 3D because it looks so much better.

I just checked Windows Task Manager, with UO running, it is using 40% of my
CPU time. I have a P4 3.2GH, ATA 9800 and 1GH system memory. UO only uses
200MH system memory. I could easely overclock it to 3.6MH. It shouldn't be a
problem for the computer to run 2 instances of UO.

I get the same message when trying to load 2 instances of UO.

Andrea

"Alminair" <Alminair@*Nospam*Earthlink.Net> wrote in message
news:2tjr2bF1ss8ajU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Nope. If you try to run UO 2 times on the same PC it generates "An
> instance of UO is already running" error. That was why Poly mentioned
> MultiUO, it allows you to do that. I'm just wary of viruses and hacks.
> (Among other things I do IT support) The other reason to get multi acounts
> is BOD accounts, but I think at your stage in the game it would be a bad
> idea, :p  (Using an acount for getting BODs for gold and items gets
> boring )
> The two instances not running is a programming thing. For when it was
> made, UO kicked ass and it was the first type of setup like this. Problem
> was 2D was really PC intensive when it came out even if it looks 'dated'
> now. The same goes for 3D. I just upgraded to a 'buff' new system and even
> I don't know if I could run 2 copies of 3D.... That program is a damn
> recource hog. 2D is bad about that as well but nowhere on the same scale.
> :p 
>
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 7:45:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

Andrea2 wrote:
> I only use 3D because it looks so much better.
>
> I just checked Windows Task Manager, with UO running, it is using 40% of my
> CPU time. I have a P4 3.2GH, ATA 9800 and 1GH system memory. UO only uses
> 200MH system memory. I could easely overclock it to 3.6MH. It shouldn't be a
> problem for the computer to run 2 instances of UO.
>
> I get the same message when trying to load 2 instances of UO.

You are still a little new to the game to worry about two accounts. Two
accounts is more for filling holes in your line up. For instance after
you have filled your six slots you may end up with dozens of high level
treasure maps so rather then sell them you develop a cartographer on the
second account. It also works better after you have a house.

The bottom end for what will run UO is really low. I have run it on a
500 m Hz AMD with built in video. For that matter, I started playing UO
on a PII 120. All that is needed is a couple of network cards and a
network cable.

There's just a lot of characters people find interesting to run. Much
more then six anyway and having them on the same server offers support
benefits.

Some nice lineups to have are:
GM tamer on one account and high level tamer with ~82 veterinary on the
second. That way everyone gets a horse and bonded pets get rezed.

GM cartography/Treasure Hunter with GM lock picking. One is enough to
handle both accounts.

GM miner/blacksmith/tinker for armor and repairs. One is enough for two
accounts.

GM tailor for enhancing leather armors.

Some flavor of lumberjack. Lots of uses for wood, my bowyer is also
lumberjack. Carpentry is nice to have too.

GM bard. Really handy to have around for everything from debuffing
monsters to peacekeeping to provoking.

GM fisherman. Handy way to get low level treasure maps and tons of house
decorations like pictures.

And I haven't even got any of the standard [swordsman, paladin, mage,
fencer] types listed yet.
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 2:35:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Rick Cortese" <ricortes@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:eEadd.1005>
> You are still a little new to the game to worry about two accounts. Two
> accounts is more for filling holes in your line up. For instance after you
> have filled your six slots you may end up with dozens of high level
> treasure maps so rather then sell them you develop a cartographer on the
> second account. It also works better after you have a house.

I agree - give it some time before you throw too much cash at EA!
You're new to the game, right now you're loving every moment of it, and
having a great time.
I've been playing for about 18 months, and I still feel the same way.
However, I've met a LOT of people who start off feeling the way we do about
Ultima, and then either losing enthusiasm, or just finding life getting in
the way after a while.
There's one case over on the Siege shard - I'm not going to mention any
names, but Siege regulars will know who I'm talking about - he bought so
many accounts,and eBay-ed so much gold, he was able to start his own small
town near Minoc.

Then life got in the way (polite way of saying I'm respecting his privacy),
and he couldn't afford to pay for (get this!!!) 24 accounts every month.
Really. The town is rapidly dwindling (I think the town hall and one other
house is left), and his name is, for the most part, mud as far as I can
tell.

Now, I know two accounts is a far cry from 24, but the mere fact that he was
nutty enough to open 24 accounts can tell you how much in love with the game
he was at one point.

So my advice, take it or leave it, is this:
Build your characters (or character, if you're on Siege). Have at LEAST 6
months of fun with them, and then decide which direction you want to go in.
You may well find a second account suits you, but push your one account as
far as you can first. Siege is probably the best reason I've seen for having
a second account, but that's only because you're only allowed one character
per account there. The same goes for Mugen.

One thought - if you're wanting a second account to help you train a
character on your first account - don't. That has been known to get accounts
banned in the past, and I believe it's still the case. Find some friends to
help you train instead - I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would,
and the same probably goes for the bunch at stratics.

Oh, and running 2 instances on your PC? While it CAN be done, what you need
to look at is not your PC's CPU power, it's your bandwidth. While running
multiple accounts on the same network, sharing a common internet connection
works fairly well up to 4 accounts (I had 6 friends round playing a month
ago!), if more than one account is on the same computer, using any of those
illegal utilities, they are sharing the same network card - which more often
than not causes connection loss. If you do want to play with multiple
accounts at the same time, you're better off getting a second PC.
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 4:56:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

Alergic Alchemist wrote in
news:4175888f$0$27544$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk:

*snip*


>
> One thought - if you're wanting a second account to help you train a
> character on your first account - don't. That has been known to get
> accounts banned in the past, and I believe it's still the case. Find
> some friends to help you train instead - I'm sure there are plenty of
> people here who would, and the same probably goes for the bunch at
> stratics.

I dont see how a second account help train the first will get you banned.
It would amount to the same thing as having a friend help you train with
his account. As long as you dont break any in-game rule, that is.

Greytone

--
*****
"He is richest who is content with the least,
for content is the wealth of nature."-Socrates
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 12:03:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Greytone" <Greytone@Greytone.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9587D54B710B4RELTYMPOR@167.206.3.3...
> Alergic Alchemist wrote in
> news:4175888f$0$27544$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk:
>
> *snip*
>
>
>>
>> One thought - if you're wanting a second account to help you train a
>> character on your first account - don't. That has been known to get
>> accounts banned in the past, and I believe it's still the case. Find
>> some friends to help you train instead - I'm sure there are plenty of
>> people here who would, and the same probably goes for the bunch at
>> stratics.
>
> I dont see how a second account help train the first will get you banned.
> It would amount to the same thing as having a friend help you train with
> his account. As long as you dont break any in-game rule, that is.
>
I didn't say it was fair... but given that you NEVER get to hear the GM's
side of any bannings, just the banned person's account of events, I've yet
to hear of one 'fair' banning :) 
Go for a wander through old posts on stratics for examples, and it's a
fairly safe bet google groups would turn up one or two instances in this
very group's history. It has happened, and as far as I know, the 'rule'
that makes it a bannable offence has never been overturned.

I think (open to correction) the mind-set is this - while you're controlling
character 'A', you're unattended on character 'B', and therefore it's an
exploit. Narrow minds, and all that. Technically, the odds of someone
catching you at it are fairly low, but the GM's 'god tool' does display your
IP address, going by a screen-shot that was posted the second-last time they
were posting 'GM wanted' ads on UO.com. So, it would be easy enough for them
to see that both characters were on the same PC. And, unless you're REALLY
quick on the keyboard/mouse, it would be fairly obvious that when one
character did something, the other character 'lagged'.

Feel free to risk it - it's your account(s), and the odds of being caught
are probably fairly low - but, GM's don't generally need much of an excuse
to ban people...

If you want absolute clarification, send a question via the UO website - but
I'm about 99.9% certain it falls into the bannable offences category.
October 21, 2004 2:32:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Alergic Alchemist" <allyTchemist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41760de0$0$27553$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...

<snipped>

Technically, the odds of someone
> catching you at it are fairly low, but the GM's 'god tool' does display
your
> IP address, going by a screen-shot that was posted the second-last time
they
> were posting 'GM wanted' ads on UO.com. So, it would be easy enough for
them
> to see that both characters were on the same PC.

errr... or that we are on a LAN? Otherwise my partner and I and many others
would have been banned by now ;) 

Archeon
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 1:14:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Archeon" <archeon@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:4176d977$0$47989$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>
> "Alergic Alchemist" <allyTchemist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41760de0$0$27553$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> <snipped>
>
> Technically, the odds of someone
>> catching you at it are fairly low, but the GM's 'god tool' does display
> your
>> IP address, going by a screen-shot that was posted the second-last time
> they
>> were posting 'GM wanted' ads on UO.com. So, it would be easy enough for
> them
>> to see that both characters were on the same PC.
>
> errr... or that we are on a LAN? Otherwise my partner and I and many
> others
> would have been banned by now ;) 
>
hey, I'm not really arguing the point. My wife and I are also on a LAN, and
we've had no problems. I'm simply raising the point that others have claimed
to be banned in the past for being 'found out' as having two accounts logged
on at the same time - although I suspect it probably went something like
this:

GM (after being tipped off, or watching from a hidden position for a while):
Hi guys.
Character A: Oh, hello, whazzup?
Character B: *stands there doing nothing, as player is startled at the GM's
arrival*
GM: not much, I was just in the area. What are you two doing? Training?
Character A: Uh.. yeah, me and my friend here *franticly scrabbles for
switch box controls*
GM: What skills are you working on? Maybe I can give some hints
Character B: *accidentally lists character A's skills, scrabbles franticly
for switch box*
Character A: *long pause, random keystokes* uhhh... magic resist..
GM: You two are the same person, aren't you?
Character A: No, of course we're not! *frantic scrabbling for switch*
GM: ok, do me a favour - both walk in opposite directions, away from each
other.
Character A: I think I'm losing connection... bye...
GM: no, looks fine to me, you've got a good ping rate. I know you're both on
the same IP address. If one of you was losing connection, the other one
would probably go as well. *zap* off to jail...

Personally, I feel where there's smoke, there's fire, so my advice is not to
risk it. The question wasn't about a husband/wife team playing together -
lots of people do that. It was about having a single player with multiple
characters logged on at the same time.

All I was saying is, there ARE accounts on the various boards of people who
CLAIM to have been banned for running multple accounts.
I do not know if they are telling the truth or not, and neither do you.
The ONLY way to be reasonably sure, is send a question to UO via their web
site, and ASK them. Even then, if the reply says it's not a bannable
offence, you might still run into a GM who thinks it is...
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 6:20:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

Alergic Alchemist wrote in
news:417818ad$0$27536$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk:

*snip*

>
> All I was saying is, there ARE accounts on the various boards of
> people who CLAIM to have been banned for running multple accounts.
> I do not know if they are telling the truth or not, and neither do
> you. The ONLY way to be reasonably sure, is send a question to UO via
> their web site, and ASK them. Even then, if the reply says it's not a
> bannable offence, you might still run into a GM who thinks it is...
>
>

What you were saying is someone with TWO (or more) different accounts and
they are playing them at the same time, whether it's on a LAN, or a same
HOST or through a MULTITASKING machine... that they can be BANNED for
that? If that's the case I am surprise there are no class action suits
coming. Hell, they have been sued for a lot less...

Greytone


--
*****
"He is richest who is content with the least,
for content is the wealth of nature."-Socrates
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 6:46:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:20:46 GMT, Greytone <Greytone@Greytone.com> wrote:

>Alergic Alchemist wrote in
>news:417818ad$0$27536$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk:
>
>*snip*
>
>>
>> All I was saying is, there ARE accounts on the various boards of
>> people who CLAIM to have been banned for running multple accounts.
>> I do not know if they are telling the truth or not, and neither do
>> you. The ONLY way to be reasonably sure, is send a question to UO via
>> their web site, and ASK them. Even then, if the reply says it's not a
>> bannable offence, you might still run into a GM who thinks it is...
>>
>>
>
>What you were saying is someone with TWO (or more) different accounts and
>they are playing them at the same time, whether it's on a LAN, or a same
>HOST or through a MULTITASKING machine... that they can be BANNED for
>that? If that's the case I am surprise there are no class action suits
>coming. Hell, they have been sued for a lot less...
>
>Greytone

I think it's just one player can operate one account at a time. If you
have 4 eyes and 4 arms and can operate two accounts (and prove it by
responding to GM questions simultaneously) then you ought to be fine.
They don't give a flip about IPs or LANs or multi-tasking. So those of us
who skirt the rules and run two accounts simultaneously for a few minutes
are definitely in or past the the grey zone. The TOS do not directly
address running multiple accounts simultaneously.

Hehe, I freaked out my brother by using a second account to attack my
first char in my house while he watched. (Both guilded the same.) He
didn't know what was going on. It was hard carrying on multiple
conversations at once though because I had to keep switching between
accounts.

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 8:34:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 02:20:46 GMT, Greytone <Greytone@Greytone.com>
wrote:

>Alergic Alchemist wrote in
>news:417818ad$0$27536$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk:
>
>*snip*
>
>>
>> All I was saying is, there ARE accounts on the various boards of
>> people who CLAIM to have been banned for running multple accounts.
>> I do not know if they are telling the truth or not, and neither do
>> you. The ONLY way to be reasonably sure, is send a question to UO via
>> their web site, and ASK them. Even then, if the reply says it's not a
>> bannable offence, you might still run into a GM who thinks it is...
>>
>>
>
>What you were saying is someone with TWO (or more) different accounts and
>they are playing them at the same time, whether it's on a LAN, or a same
>HOST or through a MULTITASKING machine... that they can be BANNED for
>that? If that's the case I am surprise there are no class action suits
>coming. Hell, they have been sued for a lot less...
>
>Greytone

As far as I know running multiple accounts is only illegal if you use
an illegal 3rd party program to do it (like MultiUO). I distinctly
remember them saying that it was OK to run multiple accounts when you
did it by logging in more than one Windows XP user and switching
between them.

I used to do that once in a while for switching around houses and that
kind of thing although it stopped working for me after AoS came out
for some reason.

Reg LeCrisp - Atlantic
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 2:25:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

Polychromic wrote:

> Hehe, I freaked out my brother by using a second account to attack my
> first char in my house while he watched. (Both guilded the same.) He
> didn't know what was going on. It was hard carrying on multiple
> conversations at once though because I had to keep switching between
> accounts.
>

Those who are truely scitzophrenic would use a second computer.
Real easy to do in this day of broadband connections through Linksys
home routers.

--
YOU are the real piece of work in this post. I think you are
a couple of drumsticks short of a picnic there bud. - SVTKate
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 3:18:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Greytone" <Greytone@Greytone.com> wrote in message
news:Xns958AE3A51E260RELTYMPOR@167.206.3.3...
> Alergic Alchemist wrote in
> news:417818ad$0$27536$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk:
>
> *snip*
<more snip>
> What you were saying is someone with TWO (or more) different accounts and
> they are playing them at the same time, whether it's on a LAN, or a same
> HOST or through a MULTITASKING machine... that they can be BANNED for
> that? If that's the case I am surprise there are no class action suits
> coming. Hell, they have been sued for a lot less...
No, I didn't say that at all.
I didn't say a word about HOW they were using their multiple accounts, I
said that there have been MENTIONS on various forums of people being banned.
I also said, if you want a reliable answer, go and ASK at www.uo.com.
I also said, my personal feeling is, where there's smoke, there's usually
fire, and there are also dozens of accounts of GM's banning people over
misunderstandings, incomplete knowledge of the 'rules', etc, etc. Given all
of that, I'd advise the OP to find out from the source before attempting it.
Polychromic has it right - if you can convince the GM that you are actually
two people, then you're safe. If you can't (even if you ARE two people),
then you stand a fairly high chance of being banned, fair or not.
As far as the lawsuits go, um... link? proof? case numbers? Did the players
win?
Not saying I don't believe you, I'd just have thought things like that would
have come into common reference by now - e.g. 'Brown vs EA, Feb 2003
resulted in GMs needing to present the customer with a form 17b detailing
their breach of policy, blah blah,blah, and EA instituting a proper appeal
process, blah, blah, blah'.
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 7:38:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:25:13 -0500, "WindsorFox[SS]"
<windsorfoxNO@SPAMcox.net> wrote:

>Polychromic wrote:
>
>> Hehe, I freaked out my brother by using a second account to attack my
>> first char in my house while he watched. (Both guilded the same.) He
>> didn't know what was going on. It was hard carrying on multiple
>> conversations at once though because I had to keep switching between
>> accounts.
>>
>
> Those who are truely scitzophrenic would use a second computer.
>Real easy to do in this day of broadband connections through Linksys
>home routers.

So I'm schizo now, am I? ;PPP

*confused* Do you really think that Linksys is the only way to set up a
home network? I've been networked since before W95.

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 11:27:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

Polychromic wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:25:13 -0500, "WindsorFox[SS]"
> <windsorfoxNO@SPAMcox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Polychromic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hehe, I freaked out my brother by using a second account to attack my
>>>first char in my house while he watched. (Both guilded the same.) He
>>>didn't know what was going on. It was hard carrying on multiple
>>>conversations at once though because I had to keep switching between
>>>accounts.
>>>
>>
>> Those who are truely scitzophrenic would use a second computer.
>>Real easy to do in this day of broadband connections through Linksys
>>home routers.
>
>
> So I'm schizo now, am I? ;PPP
>
> *confused* Do you really think that Linksys is the only way to set up a
> home network? I've been networked since before W95.
>

Yes, both of you are...

--
YOU are the real piece of work in this post. I think you are
a couple of drumsticks short of a picnic there bud. - SVTKate
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 3:47:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

Alergic Alchemist wrote in
news:417a3011$0$27542$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk:

> As far as the lawsuits go, um... link? proof? case numbers? Did the
> players win?
> Not saying I don't believe you, I'd just have thought things like
> that would have come into common reference by now - e.g. 'Brown vs
> EA, Feb 2003 resulted in GMs needing to present the customer with a
> form 17b detailing their breach of policy, blah blah,blah, and EA
> instituting a proper appeal process, blah, blah, blah'.
>

Ah! the lawsuits, hmmm.. anyone else remember them... it's seems so long
ago. A little bit of digging provided me with couple of links, but they
are just comment/summary, nothing detail. Any one else have anything
better please provide.

The first one:
http://www.cdmag.com/articles/016/120/uolawsuit.html

and the other:
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2004/04/uo_lawsui...


Greytone

--
*****
"He is richest who is content with the least,
for content is the wealth of nature."-Socrates
October 24, 2004 11:05:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:47:07 GMT, Greytone <Greytone@Greytone.com> wrote:

>Alergic Alchemist wrote in
>news:417a3011$0$27542$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk:
>
>> As far as the lawsuits go, um... link? proof? case numbers? Did the
>> players win?
>> Not saying I don't believe you, I'd just have thought things like
>> that would have come into common reference by now - e.g. 'Brown vs
>> EA, Feb 2003 resulted in GMs needing to present the customer with a
>> form 17b detailing their breach of policy, blah blah,blah, and EA
>> instituting a proper appeal process, blah, blah, blah'.
>>
>
>Ah! the lawsuits, hmmm.. anyone else remember them... it's seems so long
>ago. A little bit of digging provided me with couple of links, but they
>are just comment/summary, nothing detail. Any one else have anything
>better please provide.
>
>The first one:
>http://www.cdmag.com/articles/016/120/uolawsuit.html

I do not have a link, but I do remember it. You can probably find more
if you search google history files for 1998-99. It was talked about a
lot here in this group.

As I think most people know UO was released very unfinished. I would
venture to say, it was still in "alpha" when it was released.
I just looked through my "Charter Edition" literature and there are features
that have to date, never been introduced.

That's what the first law suite was about.

Two of the people that filed the suit were lawyers, and one was a NJ
police detective. I do not know the others that were involved, but I
knew 3 of them quite well.
>
>and the other:
>http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2004/04/uo_lawsui...
>
This law suite came about after AOL was sued by its "volunteers".
Some of the "volunteers" decided they should have been paid.
If they wanted to be paid, they should have NEVER volunteered.
Some how I think they misunderstood the meaning of the word
"volunteer". Just MHO.
>
>Greytone
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 2:07:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Ice" <Ice@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:417d5454.2132899@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:47:07 GMT, Greytone <Greytone@Greytone.com> wrote:
>
>>Alergic Alchemist wrote in
>>news:417a3011$0$27542$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk:
>>
>>> As far as the lawsuits go, um... link? proof? case numbers? Did the
>>> players win?
>>> Not saying I don't believe you, I'd just have thought things like
>>> that would have come into common reference by now - e.g. 'Brown vs
>>> EA, Feb 2003 resulted in GMs needing to present the customer with a
>>> form 17b detailing their breach of policy, blah blah,blah, and EA
>>> instituting a proper appeal process, blah, blah, blah'.
>>>
>>
>>Ah! the lawsuits, hmmm.. anyone else remember them... it's seems so long
>>ago. A little bit of digging provided me with couple of links, but they
>>are just comment/summary, nothing detail. Any one else have anything
>>better please provide.
>>
>>The first one:
>>http://www.cdmag.com/articles/016/120/uolawsuit.html
>
> I do not have a link, but I do remember it. You can probably find more
> if you search google history files for 1998-99. It was talked about a
> lot here in this group.
>
> As I think most people know UO was released very unfinished. I would
> venture to say, it was still in "alpha" when it was released.
> I just looked through my "Charter Edition" literature and there are
> features
> that have to date, never been introduced.
>
> That's what the first law suite was about.
>
> Two of the people that filed the suit were lawyers, and one was a NJ
> police detective. I do not know the others that were involved, but I
> knew 3 of them quite well.
>>
>>and the other:
>>http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2004/04/uo_lawsui...
>>
> This law suite came about after AOL was sued by its "volunteers".
> Some of the "volunteers" decided they should have been paid.
> If they wanted to be paid, they should have NEVER volunteered.
> Some how I think they misunderstood the meaning of the word
> "volunteer". Just MHO.
>>
Very interesting - thanks, both of you!
Without having much more than those pages to go on, I agree - they do seem a
bit... silly, especially the volunteer suit. And as far as releasing
'unfinished' software goes, well, we'd all stll be using DOS 3.3 if that
made much of a difference to anything. (picture UO made up of ANSI graphics,
*shudder*)
But then, just this month, I've seen people who volunteered to beta test
Samurai Empire dropping large, unsubtle hints that they 'should' get
something 'special' as a reward for their testing... um, hello? The benefit
of seeing and experiencing it before anyone else? The ability to possibly
shape the product? Being part of a very small group of people who actually
got this opportunity? And yet, they want rares... Someone even asked for a
beer mat. Sheesh.

Incidentally, I HAVE posted the question about multiple, interacting
accounts to UO - 48 hours and waiting... I'll bug them again Monday night
if I haven't had a reply by then.
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 3:31:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

Ice@noplace.com (Ice) wrote:

>>and the other:
>>http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2004/04/uo_lawsui...
>>
>This law suite came about after AOL was sued by its "volunteers".
>Some of the "volunteers" decided they should have been paid.
>If they wanted to be paid, they should have NEVER volunteered.
>Some how I think they misunderstood the meaning of the word
>"volunteer". Just MHO.

Having been an AOL volunteer back when... It's far, far, far more
complicated than that.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 3:31:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

Derek Lyons wrote:
> Ice@noplace.com (Ice) wrote:
>
>
>>>and the other:
>>>http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2004/04/uo_lawsui...
>>>
>>
>>This law suite came about after AOL was sued by its "volunteers".
>>Some of the "volunteers" decided they should have been paid.
>>If they wanted to be paid, they should have NEVER volunteered.
>>Some how I think they misunderstood the meaning of the word
>>"volunteer". Just MHO.
>
>
> Having been an AOL volunteer back when... It's far, far, far more
> complicated than that.
>
> D.


Quite. I got out before things got really nasty and they fired
all of the "paid" help.

--
YOU are the real piece of work in this post. I think you are
a couple of drumsticks short of a picnic there bud. - SVTKate
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 3:34:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Alergic Alchemist" <allyTchemist@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But then, just this month, I've seen people who volunteered to beta test
>Samurai Empire dropping large, unsubtle hints that they 'should' get
>something 'special' as a reward for their testing... um, hello?

um, hello? Don't confuse a minority with the majority.

>The ability to possibly shape the product?

ROTFL. Not *one* bug reported by the beta testers was fixed before
the LS publish. Not one.

>Being part of a very small group of people who actually got this opportunity?

ROTFL. Thousands of people got this 'opportunity'.

>And yet, they want rares... Someone even asked for a
>beer mat. Sheesh.

No 'they' don't want anything. Some few want something.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 2:07:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41823b62.10647501@supernews.seanet.com...
> "Alergic Alchemist" <allyTchemist@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>But then, just this month, I've seen people who volunteered to beta test
>>Samurai Empire dropping large, unsubtle hints that they 'should' get
>>something 'special' as a reward for their testing... um, hello?
>
> um, hello? Don't confuse a minority with the majority.
>
I'm not - you're misreading my post. I saw 'people' - I didn't specify how
many, or how few. Note the 'someone asked for a beer mat' - not 'hundreds of
people demanded beer mats' :) 
(If beer mats are rares, then there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with the
world!!! Still can't believe that one. Beer mats...)

>>The ability to possibly shape the product?
>
> ROTFL. Not *one* bug reported by the beta testers was fixed before
> the LS publish. Not one.
Not according to what I heard. Apparently quite a few were fixed - go dig
around on Stratics.
Besides, if they get fixed in the launch, or in a patch that's ready for the
day of the SE launch, is there really much of a difference? Sure, a launch
day patch may look less professional, but to say that not *one* bug was
fixed is a bit harsh.
>
>>Being part of a very small group of people who actually got this
>>opportunity?
>
> ROTFL. Thousands of people got this 'opportunity'.
>
>>And yet, they want rares... Someone even asked for a
>>beer mat. Sheesh.
>
> No 'they' don't want anything. Some few want something.
Yes, that's what I said. Glad you agree with me. 'they' was the 'people'
referred to above. No numbers given.

*beer mats... mutter, mutter, mutter...*
October 25, 2004 2:07:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:07:19 +0100, "Alergic Alchemist"
<allyTchemist@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:41823b62.10647501@supernews.seanet.com...
>> "Alergic Alchemist" <allyTchemist@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>But then, just this month, I've seen people who volunteered to beta test
>>>Samurai Empire dropping large, unsubtle hints that they 'should' get
>>>something 'special' as a reward for their testing... um, hello?
>>
>> um, hello? Don't confuse a minority with the majority.
>>
>I'm not - you're misreading my post. I saw 'people' - I didn't specify how
>many, or how few. Note the 'someone asked for a beer mat' - not 'hundreds of
>people demanded beer mats' :) 
>(If beer mats are rares, then there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with the
>world!!! Still can't believe that one. Beer mats...)
>
>>>The ability to possibly shape the product?
>>
>> ROTFL. Not *one* bug reported by the beta testers was fixed before
>> the LS publish. Not one.
>Not according to what I heard. Apparently quite a few were fixed - go dig
>around on Stratics.
>Besides, if they get fixed in the launch, or in a patch that's ready for the
>day of the SE launch, is there really much of a difference? Sure, a launch
>day patch may look less professional, but to say that not *one* bug was
>fixed is a bit harsh.

Not "harsh" when your talking about EA. I beta tested for the original
release and two of the later releases. I know that not one of the bugs
I reported were fixed before release. They were major bugs also.
I am sure I was not the only one that reported them.

I do not have the time now (with a husband in bad health), that I had
back then, but I would not beta test again for EA if I had the time,
because they do not use the data you turn anyway. A large percent
of the people beta testing are just there to find exploits to use until
EA gets around to fixing them "after" release.

Ice
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 9:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Alergic Alchemist" <allyTchemist@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>The ability to possibly shape the product?
>>
>> ROTFL. Not *one* bug reported by the beta testers was fixed before
>> the LS publish. Not one.
>>
>Not according to what I heard. Apparently quite a few were fixed - go dig
>around on Stratics.

Then you heard wrongly. Every single bug listed as a problem in the
LS and Asuka launches was reported in the Beta. Not one was fixed.

>Besides, if they get fixed in the launch, or in a patch that's ready for the
>day of the SE launch, is there really much of a difference? Sure, a launch
>day patch may look less professional, but to say that not *one* bug was
>fixed is a bit harsh.

Yes, there is a great deal of difference. LS isn't a beta shard, but
a production shard. That means buggy code directly affecting play for
days (or weeks). Launch day patches mean the bugs effect the player
base for a few hours at best.

'Not one' may be harsh, but it's the truth.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 2:36:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Alergic Alchemist" <allyTchemist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:417b70bf$0$27540$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> "Ice" <Ice@noplace.com> wrote in message
> news:417d5454.2132899@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 23:47:07 GMT, Greytone <Greytone@Greytone.com> wrote:
>>
<snippage>
>
> Incidentally, I HAVE posted the question about multiple, interacting
> accounts to UO - 48 hours and waiting... I'll bug them again Monday night
> if I haven't had a reply by then.
>
Well, that took long enough. I finally have a rather vague reply.

-------------
Greetings,

At this time, being online with two accounts at the same time is not an
issue that we encourage, nor action players for. If this or any other issue
were to be changed in the future, it would be listed on our website located
at http://www.uo.com

Take care and good luck!
-------------

Oh...kay...
So... they don't want you to do it, but they won't take action.
That screams 'one out of three GMs will ban you' to me... how about you?

And, changes all listed on uo.com... HA!!! Nice one. Remind me not to drink
coffee while reading replies from support again. My poor keyboard...
November 2, 2004 2:08:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

fairwater@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in message news:<41823b62.10647501@supernews.seanet.com>...
> "Alergic Alchemist" <allyTchemist@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >But then, just this month, I've seen people who volunteered to beta test
> >Samurai Empire dropping large, unsubtle hints that they 'should' get
> >something 'special' as a reward for their testing... um, hello?
>
> um, hello? Don't confuse a minority with the majority.
>
> >The ability to possibly shape the product?
>
> ROTFL. Not *one* bug reported by the beta testers was fixed before
> the LS publish. Not one.

15 out of the 20 bugs that I reported were fixed before they even went
to open beta. Most of the other testers I have spoken to (and I mean
people actually testing, not people who just logged on just to stress
the server) had similar ratios of bugs fixed/reported.

<snip to end>
Anonymous
November 2, 2004 10:42:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Two accounts
>From: "Alergic Alchemist" allyTchemist@hotmail.com
>Date: 10/21/2004 12:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <417818ad$0$27536$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>

<snip>

>hey, I'm not really arguing the point. My wife and I are also on a LAN, and
>we've had no problems. I'm simply raising the point that others have claimed
>to be banned in the past for being 'found out' as having two accounts logged
>on at the same time - although I suspect it probably went something like
>this:
>
>GM (after being tipped off, or watching from a hidden position for a while):
>Hi guys.
>Character A: Oh, hello, whazzup?
>Character B: *stands there doing nothing, as player is startled at the GM's
>arrival*
>GM: not much, I was just in the area. What are you two doing? Training?
>Character A: Uh.. yeah, me and my friend here *franticly scrabbles for
>switch box controls*
>GM: What skills are you working on? Maybe I can give some hints
>Character B: *accidentally lists character A's skills, scrabbles franticly
>for switch box*
>Character A: *long pause, random keystokes* uhhh... magic resist..
>GM: You two are the same person, aren't you?
>Character A: No, of course we're not! *frantic scrabbling for switch*
>GM: ok, do me a favour - both walk in opposite directions, away from each
>other.
>Character A: I think I'm losing connection... bye...
>GM: no, looks fine to me, you've got a good ping rate. I know you're both on
>the same IP address. If one of you was losing connection, the other one
>would probably go as well. *zap* off to jail...
>
>Personally, I feel where there's smoke, there's fire, so my advice is not to
>risk it. The question wasn't about a husband/wife team playing together -
>lots of people do that. It was about having a single player with multiple
>characters logged on at the same time.
>
>All I was saying is, there ARE accounts on the various boards of people who
>CLAIM to have been banned for running multple accounts.
>I do not know if they are telling the truth or not, and neither do you.
>The ONLY way to be reasonably sure, is send a question to UO via their web
>site, and ASK them. Even then, if the reply says it's not a bannable
>offence, you might still run into a GM who thinks it is...
>

I have asked EA, and was told that it is legal to run two accounts
simultaneously by switching XP users on the fly or by using multiple computers.
It is illegal if you are using EasyUO, Multiplicity, MultiUO, etc; but that is
because you are running an illegal program, not because you are using two
accounts.
Anonymous
November 2, 2004 6:52:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

Nevyn wrote:
> fairwater@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in message news:<41823b62.10647501@supernews.seanet.com>...
>
>>"Alergic Alchemist" <allyTchemist@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>But then, just this month, I've seen people who volunteered to beta test
>>>Samurai Empire dropping large, unsubtle hints that they 'should' get
>>>something 'special' as a reward for their testing... um, hello?
>>
>>um, hello? Don't confuse a minority with the majority.
>>
>>
>>>The ability to possibly shape the product?
>>
>>ROTFL. Not *one* bug reported by the beta testers was fixed before
>>the LS publish. Not one.
>
>
> 15 out of the 20 bugs that I reported were fixed before they even went
> to open beta. Most of the other testers I have spoken to (and I mean
> people actually testing, not people who just logged on just to stress
> the server) had similar ratios of bugs fixed/reported.
>
> <snip to end>

Could you name them?

This is completely the opposite of my experience with OSI. I spent most
of my first couple of years playing Test Center more then the regular
shards and in my experience any bugs reported by volunteer testers are
ignored. It was so bad that I got the impression they don't even read
the bug reports. I can only think of 2 or 3 bugs I reported that
happened to get fixed and I attributed that to chance.

That is, if 10 of the 15 bugs you reported got fixed, it was because
they were so obvious that OSI in house testers caught and reported them
rather then they read your bug reports.

There are still some pretty grievous bugs/exploits I reported 5 years
ago that aren't fixed.
Anonymous
November 2, 2004 6:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

On 02 Nov 2004 07:42:44 GMT, pl722@aol.comnospam (Paul W. Lints)
wrote:

>I have asked EA, and was told that it is legal to run two accounts
>simultaneously by switching XP users on the fly or by using multiple computers.

One has to wonder if the person who told you that knew for
certain, or was interpreting the rules.

> It is illegal if you are using EasyUO, Multiplicity, MultiUO, etc; but that is
>because you are running an illegal program, not because you are using two
>accounts.

I had to have both accounts present on two occasions last month,
and in both cases I moved quickly, and did it at a time when I
figured GMs would be busy elsewhere.

I had very legitimate reason to have both accounts logged in at
the same place and time, and I was not worried about the rules.
I was worried about being spotted by a nosey GM, who was going to
apply his own interpretation, and ban me.

Right and wrong have nothing to do with it. The GM is
autonomous, and there is no appeals court.
Anonymous
November 3, 2004 1:36:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Jaeger Prelac" <jprelac@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:6o0go095i6r0detiq93sv4cv38lhrsgm00@4ax.com...
> On 02 Nov 2004 07:42:44 GMT, pl722@aol.comnospam (Paul W. Lints)
> wrote:
>
>>I have asked EA, and was told that it is legal to run two accounts
>>simultaneously by switching XP users on the fly or by using multiple
>>computers.
>
> One has to wonder if the person who told you that knew for
> certain, or was interpreting the rules.
>
>> It is illegal if you are using EasyUO, Multiplicity, MultiUO, etc; but
>> that is
>>because you are running an illegal program, not because you are using two
>>accounts.
>
> I had to have both accounts present on two occasions last month,
> and in both cases I moved quickly, and did it at a time when I
> figured GMs would be busy elsewhere.
>
> I had very legitimate reason to have both accounts logged in at
> the same place and time, and I was not worried about the rules.
> I was worried about being spotted by a nosey GM, who was going to
> apply his own interpretation, and ban me.
>
> Right and wrong have nothing to do with it. The GM is
> autonomous, and there is no appeals court.

To repeat...

I sent a question via the UO web site, and here's the response:

-------------
Greetings,

At this time, being online with two accounts at the same time is not an
issue that we encourage, nor action players for. If this or any other issue
were to be changed in the future, it would be listed on our website located
at http://www.uo.com

Take care and good luck!
-------------

About as useful as a chocolate teapot, but at least I have the email to wave
at them if I ever do get banned for training myself via split personality...

So, they don't like it, but you shouldn't get zapped for it, either. Note,
'shouldn't'... :) 
Anonymous
November 3, 2004 3:18:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

Nevyn.UOPG@gmail.com (Nevyn) wrote:

>15 out of the 20 bugs that I reported were fixed before they even went
>to open beta. Most of the other testers I have spoken to (and I mean
>people actually testing, not people who just logged on just to stress
>the server) had similar ratios of bugs fixed/reported.

Not one single one of the bugs I reported was fixed, and I know that's
true of other testers as well. (I mean testers, I.E. folks actually
testing and working, not just logged on to stress the servers.)

*Every single one of the bugs reported after the SE server publish
were discussed on the beta boards and reported to the dev team prior
to the end of the beta.*

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Anonymous
November 3, 2004 8:16:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Two accounts
>From: Rick Cortese ricortes@earthlink.net
>Date: 11/2/2004 7:52 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <I2Ohd.1809$O11.1519@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
>
>Nevyn wrote:
>> fairwater@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in message
>news:<41823b62.10647501@supernews.seanet.com>...
>>
>>>"Alergic Alchemist" <allyTchemist@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>But then, just this month, I've seen people who volunteered to beta test
>>>>Samurai Empire dropping large, unsubtle hints that they 'should' get
>>>>something 'special' as a reward for their testing... um, hello?
>>>
>>>um, hello? Don't confuse a minority with the majority.
>>>
>>>
>>>>The ability to possibly shape the product?
>>>
>>>ROTFL. Not *one* bug reported by the beta testers was fixed before
>>>the LS publish. Not one.
>>
>>
>> 15 out of the 20 bugs that I reported were fixed before they even went
>> to open beta. Most of the other testers I have spoken to (and I mean
>> people actually testing, not people who just logged on just to stress
>> the server) had similar ratios of bugs fixed/reported.
>>
>> <snip to end>
>
>Could you name them?

Here are the first 15 I found going through my old lists. There are at least a
few more.

1. Riding an ethereal kirin makes your head equipment display as "a ship".
Riding an ethereal unicorn makes your chest/arm equipment display as "a ship".

2. Special moves for the Kama, Nunchucku, and Daisho give the error message
"You must have 50 Bushido or Ninjitsu to perform that attack", even if you have
GM/elder/legendary in both.

3. Running through a moongate with Mirror Images in tow can make it so an ogre
graphic appears at the moongate (and stays there).

4. Characters from the new player Ninja quest are glitched due to the fact
that they start with 30 stealth and lack the requisite 80 hiding to be able to
gain stealth in the first place. This results in always succeeding at
stealthing.

5. After joining a faction, characters lose faction status after logging out
and back in a couple times.

6. Footwear disappears on your paperdoll if you are wearing female leather
armor.

7. Mirror images are blue flagged, even if the caster is red or gray.

8. Can't loot party members in Trammel, even if they have the option selected
to allow guildmates to loot.

9. When you miss with claws or sais it still sounds like you hit.

10. You can remove the shuriken from another player's ninja belt, and the
darts from another player's Fukiya.

11. Armor ignore + Ki Strike = 1 hit kill.

12. Using mounted swipe on a guildmate or warred guild member in a Trammel
guardzone will get you killed by guards.

13. You cannot declare war on a guild that is on the second page of the list
of guilds.

14. Killing yourself (or getting killed by your guildmates) while in a
guildwar counts as if you had killed a member of the opposing guild.

15. Animal forms lose their speed bonuses if you log out for a fairly small
chunk of time (~10 minutes, that I noticed).

<snip to end>
Anonymous
November 3, 2004 10:18:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

"Paul W. Lints" wrote:

> 4. Characters from the new player Ninja quest are glitched due to the
> fact
> that they start with 30 stealth and lack the requisite 80 hiding to be
> able to
> gain stealth in the first place. This results in always succeeding at
> stealthing.
>

IIRC they lowered the Hiding prerequisite to 50 a few days ago. Dunno if
that will make a difference but it's not impossible that this fixes this
particular problem IMO. Certainly I've managed to make a new character on
Europa with 50 Hiding & 50 Stealth and I very rarely manage to hide or
stealth.
Anonymous
November 4, 2004 12:18:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 19:18:33 GMT, "The Unbound" <non@valid.email> wrote:

>"Paul W. Lints" wrote:
>
>> 4. Characters from the new player Ninja quest are glitched due to the
>> fact
>> that they start with 30 stealth and lack the requisite 80 hiding to be
>> able to
>> gain stealth in the first place. This results in always succeeding at
>> stealthing.
>>
>
>IIRC they lowered the Hiding prerequisite to 50 a few days ago. Dunno if
>that will make a difference but it's not impossible that this fixes this
>particular problem IMO. Certainly I've managed to make a new character on
>Europa with 50 Hiding & 50 Stealth and I very rarely manage to hide or
>stealth.

I've gotten hiding and stealth up to GM a couple times now. Each time I
have eventually given up on stealth because of the "take 10 careful steps,
stealth again, take 10 steps" tedium. I didn't mind the walking but it
got real old having to keep track of the steps for some reason. I wonder
if that's changed? I should go read up.

I'm still working on my Armsman. Got to GM today killing a Earth Ele
paragon and got some kind of magical bracelet in my pack. It would be
good I guess on one of my old forgotten magic using characters.

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 9:53:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Two accounts
>From: "The Unbound" non@valid.email
>Date: 11/3/2004 11:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <daaid.4422434$6p.728008@news.easynews.com>
>
>"Paul W. Lints" wrote:
>
>> 4. Characters from the new player Ninja quest are glitched due to the
>> fact
>> that they start with 30 stealth and lack the requisite 80 hiding to be
>> able to
>> gain stealth in the first place. This results in always succeeding at
>> stealthing.
>>
>
>IIRC they lowered the Hiding prerequisite to 50 a few days ago. Dunno if
>that will make a difference but it's not impossible that this fixes this
>particular problem IMO. Certainly I've managed to make a new character on
>Europa with 50 Hiding & 50 Stealth and I very rarely manage to hide or
>stealth.
>

*nods*

They changed that before the public stress test. I was simply copying fixed
bugs from my lists that I kept during beta, as someone else requested.
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 9:57:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Two accounts
>From: Polychromic macecil@comcast.net
>Date: 11/3/2004 1:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <2jiio01pr4l39m1tgcnflrgb8ckdg1ubou@4ax.com>

<snip>

>I've gotten hiding and stealth up to GM a couple times now. Each time I
>have eventually given up on stealth because of the "take 10 careful steps,
>stealth again, take 10 steps" tedium. I didn't mind the walking but it
>got real old having to keep track of the steps for some reason. I wonder
>if that's changed? I should go read up.
>

Yes, that has changed. It was replaced by a new tedium, but one that you are
not required to use. Now, every time you run out of steps your stealth skill
is instantly checked again. If you pass the check (if you wear meddable armor,
you succeed 100% of the time at 80 Stealth) then you stealth again. There is
no skill delay for this passive stealthing ability.

There is also a new ability for stealthers: they can run. The number of steps
you can take while running is half the number you can take while walking, and
if you run out of steps while running you cannot restealth. But, say if you
have 100 stealth (20 steps/2 = 10 steps running), you can walk one step, run 9
steps, walk two steps (restealths you), run 9 steps, etc. Not necessary to do,
but it can be fun and it is nice to move that quickly while stealthing.
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 10:07:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.computer.ultima.online (More info?)

On 05 Nov 2004 06:57:12 GMT, pl722@aol.comnospam (Paul W. Lints) wrote:

>Yes, that has changed. It was replaced by a new tedium, but one that you are
>not required to use. Now, every time you run out of steps your stealth skill
>is instantly checked again. If you pass the check (if you wear meddable armor,
>you succeed 100% of the time at 80 Stealth) then you stealth again. There is
>no skill delay for this passive stealthing ability.
>
>There is also a new ability for stealthers: they can run. The number of steps
>you can take while running is half the number you can take while walking, and
>if you run out of steps while running you cannot restealth. But, say if you
>have 100 stealth (20 steps/2 = 10 steps running), you can walk one step, run 9
>steps, walk two steps (restealths you), run 9 steps, etc. Not necessary to do,
>but it can be fun and it is nice to move that quickly while stealthing.

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

--
Michael Cecil
http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/
!