Acct sharing legal?

[silo32]

I know sooo many people sharing accounts at ruby bp and ms with proof

[Tecmos Deception]

The rules I've read and stuff from staff label it as a "proceed at your own risk" activity, but not as an illegal one.

[zodium]

it's basically legal and supported. despite the written word of the rules, if you share your account with someone and they steal your stuff and delete your dude, staff will generally restore it and ban the offender. the blue raid scene rests on an army of account shared characters lol.

welcome too p99

[Tecmos Deception]

I dislike the mechanic. It strikes me as a good example of when the staff should deviate from the classic mechanic/rule in favor of achieving a more classic experience, either by disallowing account sharing as much as they reasonably can, or by disallowing the creation of multiple accounts as much as they reasonably can.

Sure, some folks back in the day had multiple accounts and some people shared their accounts. But since people had to pay for their accounts, few did these things at all, and those who did barely did it (so they'd have like, 2 or 3 accounts, or like 1 person per server had a full group they boxed, not 1 per character like p99 raiders tend to).

Staff banned boxing here even though it was legal on live and done on live. I think this was because of negative effects it has on the game and how relatively rare it was during classic era. This seems like a pretty close situation to that, yet account sharing has been pretty integral to the raid scene since forever. And now on green and teal (maybe it was like this on blue too), it's integral for /lists and permacamping lore items and PLing alts and everything else, too.

[zodium]

tbf "no account sharing" isn't remotely possible to enforce and borderline unethical given the time-to-drop and how /list works, but seeing whole groups of shared bot characters restored after some nerd rage-deleted them all on blue, multiple times across multiple guilds, felt a bit much

edit: it's also Problematic because it incentivizes endless powerleveling. you can never have too much guild infrastructure that's never at risk and doesn't decay. it's why DN spiders are permadead on blue, because why not level a 22nd coth mage?

[Tecmos Deception]

tbf "no account sharing" isn't remotely possible to enforce and borderline unethical given the time-to-drop and how /list works, but seeing whole groups of shared bot characters restored after some nerd rage-deleted them all on blue, multiple times across multiple guilds, felt a bit much

If the staff made it official policy that account sharing or multiple accounts were illegal, then most people currently doing either would stop willingly rather than try to cheat the system and potentially get in trouble for it (again, pretty much just like the situation is with boxing). Only a minority would be using VPNs or whatever other nonsense intentionally to have multiple accounts or share, especially since with it illegal there would be whistleblowers around and it wouldn't be trivial to keep it secret that your alts are all on different accounts by any stretch, especially if staff looked into it even remotely ("oh look, a hardcore raider with only 1 character on his account").

But yeah, even if the staff didnt try to enforce it at all, and even if they didn't even make it illegal, just not actively supporting it any more would go a long ways. Tracking/port/rez/coth alts for guilds would no longer be widely shared or as-easily recovered. A small subset of players would arise who actively try to infiltrate guilds and rob people who trust them with account info (reminds me of eve online style thefts). Etc.

/shrug

[zodium]

yeah imo the issue with account sharing is more larger organized groups using shared accounts as industrial infrastructure than it is having a friend ad-hoc tag in on your guise or w/e so you can get some sleep like a normal human person, and you could mostly get rid of it by just enforcing the rule as written

[DMN]

[QUOTE=zodium;3063063 they steal your stuff and delete your dude, staff will generally restore it and ban the offender. the blue raid scene rests [/QUOTE]

WTF this better not be true. This was never done in original EQ unless they had evidence the accunt was hacked. From literally stacking the deck so only multi-users on one account can get legacy items to removeing all the supposed danger of having someone use your account if this is true, it appears p99 is going out of its was to be as unclassic as possible.

[Tecmos Deception]

you could mostly get rid of it by just enforcing the rule as written

Nah. The rule as written is permissive. The staff MAY punish the offender, MAY assist the victim, MAY penalize the account even when it wasn't under control of the actual owner. They could decide that the spirit of the rule is "let's deter account sharing" if they wanted, but the rule as written definitely doesn't do that more than very minimally.

[Tecmos Deception]

WTF this better not be true.

Speaking with a bit of experience, they definitely don't always help the victims.

(I wasn't the victim. Don't share your account info with me, although nowadays I probably wouldn't even accept it anyways!)

[zodium]

WTF this better not be true. This was never done in original EQ unless they had evidence the accunt was hacked. From literally stacking the deck so only multi-users on one account can get legacy items to removeing all the supposed danger of having someone use your account if this is true, it appears p99 is going out of its was to be as unclassic as possible.

i have bad news about the correlation between theory and praxis re: the rules

edit:

Speaking with a bit of experience, they definitely don't always help the victims.

(I wasn't the victim. Don't share your account info with me, although nowadays I probably wouldn't even accept it anyways!)

ha

[DMN]

i have bad news about the correlation between theory and praxis re: the rules

I have a theory about it raining and being pissed on.

[Tilien]

Honestly screen sharing apps make enforcement of account sharing impossible for anyone who cares. Your /list account in the manastone camp doesn't even have to log off to trade hands and no account info needs to be shared.

I think shared accounts for guild accounts isn't bad because it can help smaller guilds compete by ensuring they always have a good composition even when they have the bare minimum numbers. The problem is when the entire manastone /list is all shared accounts being used to block out others from getting onto the list by making it untenably long, or when shared accounts monopolize other content.

[zodium]

Honestly screen sharing apps make enforcement of account sharing impossible for anyone who cares. Your /list account in the manastone camp doesn't even have to log off to trade hands and no account info needs to be shared.

yeah is simply not enforceable.

I think shared accounts for guild accounts isn't bad because it can help smaller guilds compete by ensuring they always have a good composition even when they have the bare minimum numbers.

lmaoo tho, this is absolutely not how it works. here's how it actually works: the biggest and most powerful guilds, who have the most manpower and most purchasing power for their DKP, will print from thin air some of that DKP so their members devote their manhours to increase the advantage they already enjoy over the smaller guild you madly think this helps. cf. leveraging proceeds from sale of raid loot to buy legacy items such as lockets that also entrench their advantage.

[DMN]

Honeslty VPNs make detecting bots impossible, so that shouldn't be a rule either. A little bit of thought in execution goes a long ways. why are we this many months in and still the manastone monopoly is owned by people who would be considered cheaters in classic EQ.

[Tilien]

lmaoo tho, this is absolutely not how it works. here's how it actually works: the biggest and most powerful guilds, who have the most manpower and most purchasing power for their DKP, will print from thin air some of that DKP so their members devote their manhours to increase the advantage they already enjoy over the smaller guild you madly think this helps. cf. leveraging proceeds from sale of raid loot to buy legacy items such as lockets that also entrench their advantage.

My point is that there can be a benefit to it. Take Sky for example: If your guild can only muster a force for 20ish people to go to Sky, and your guild's only 46+ enchanter main is on vacation then having one of your melee dps play an enchanter bot can simply make the difference between raiding that night or not.

I don't think that Seal Team monopoly is going to be cemented by having every playing have a back up rez bot/port bot/(eventually)coth bot. They're going to have the numbers to ensure attendance and ensure FTE anyway. A 20 man guild would never be able to compete on zerg targets no matter how much gear or bots they had, but those things could make a difference for the 20 man guild doing Sky or eventually Halls of Testing or other casual raids.

Conversely: even if Seal Team didn't have bots and didn't have the best-of-the-best gear they would still get Naggy over the 20 man guild.

[TripSin]

yeah imo the issue with account sharing is more larger organized groups using shared accounts as industrial infrastructure than it is having a friend ad-hoc tag in on your guise or w/e so you can get some sleep like a normal human person, and you could mostly get rid of it by just enforcing the rule as written

Both are pretty silly imo. Would you really have these ridiculous 60+ hour camps (so I've heard) without account sharing?

[bum3]

I can tell you on live before daybreak took over... i couldn't figure out my info on an account. Chocked it up to owell i forgot it I guess... made a new one. Seen my max char running around so I petitioned. The GM gave me my account back... but reset all my characters on it to lvl 1 and naked and said "we do not tolerate account sharing"... dude I didn't share shit.

[zaneosak]

account sharing is normalized on p99, has been for many years, it's part of the raid game. Hardcore guilds are not made up of players/people but just available characters (as they evolve). I was in a very very casual raiding guild on blue for a short amount of time and it was totally normal to say in the voice comms "ill play the cleric today". Witnessed over 10 people playing that toon in the short time I was with them. I still never figured out if anybody actually had a claim to that toon or if it was just a epic clicker that was leveled by the entire guild in their free time, lol.

I was in oot the other day and someone in /ooc shout to some other guy to "log on the druid, my buffs faded" when being power leveled. It's more normalized behavior than it's ever been, just the way it goes.

[Tecmos Deception]

rules should NOT come down to MAYbe, they should be clear cut.

the ONLY reason to keep the rule grey is corruption/selective enforcement.

if there is another reason im lost to it? unless someone can explain why treating some different than others is good for anyone?

I agree with you. I was just talking about the rule we have.


account sharing is normalized on p99

What's your point?

I mean, quite a few big things have been normalized in the past on p99, and then been removed/altered by mechanic or rule changes. Invis pulling, raiding rotations/arrangements, account sales, etc. I think account sharing should be drastically limited like it was on live, even if the "how" of limiting it is different, just like is the case with boxing.

Official restrictions on account sharing (and multiple accounts imo), even if they aren't perfectly enforced, are in keeping with stuff like official restrictions on account trading (facilitated RMT here, was forbidden on live, wasn't always forbidden here) and boxing (screws with community, very limited in scope on live though permitted).

[korzax]

I know sooo many people sharing accounts at ruby bp and ms with proof

Proof, or stfu.

[Smellybuttface]

I can say definitively that my friends and I account shared often in the true Classic era to do things like PL or trade items to-and-fro etc. I can't see this being policed, nor believe it should be.

Account sharing shouldn't be the scapegoat for people's hate on the /list system. The drop rate of current items almost requires account sharing, since for the majority of people (presumably) spending 50+ hours clicking a button every 15 minutes is unreasonable. Not saying the /list system should change, just that by the very way it was built with the current drop rates in mind, i can't imagine the devs not taking account sharing into....dare i say...account.

[Polycaster]

WTF this better not be true. This was never done in original EQ unless they had evidence the accunt was hacked. From literally stacking the deck so only multi-users on one account can get legacy items to removeing all the supposed danger of having someone use your account if this is true, it appears p99 is going out of its was to be as unclassic as possible.


That must be really rough for you and other misanthropes when only people with friends can do some things.

[zodium]

I can say definitively that my friends and I account shared often in the true Classic era to do things like PL or trade items to-and-fro etc. I can't see this being policed, nor believe it should be.

Account sharing shouldn't be the scapegoat for people's hate on the /list system. The drop rate of current items almost requires account sharing, since for the majority of people (presumably) spending 50+ hours clicking a button every 15 minutes is unreasonable. Not saying the /list system should change, just that by the very way it was built with the current drop rates in mind, i can't imagine the devs not taking account sharing into....dare i say...account.

correct

[Tecmos Deception]

Smelly's putting the cart in front of the horse imo. It's not "account sharing is necessary to do these long camps" so much as "the camps wouldn't be so long if it weren't for account sharing propping up how long one character can remain on the list."

[Zekayy]

WTF this better not be true. This was never done in original EQ unless they had evidence the accunt was hacked. From literally stacking the deck so only multi-users on one account can get legacy items to removeing all the supposed danger of having someone use your account if this is true, it appears p99 is going out of its was to be as unclassic as possible.

It is true dude happened to Aftermath when Brujean deleted a shit ton of toons like guild mages guild clerics etc it really hurt us that day took the gms a good while to restore them

[Smellybuttface]

Smelly's putting the cart in front of the horse imo. It's not "account sharing is necessary to do these long camps" so much as "the camps wouldn't be so long if it weren't for account sharing propping up how long one character can remain on the list."

But should the camps be so long that people can't be expected to do them and thus are dropping like flies? I think the addage of 'work smarter not harder' is apt in this context given the fact that it's barely humanly possible for a single person to sit on a list the length of time it takes for one of these items to even drop. And if they can't stay on the list for the length of time it takes for an item to drop, then presumably no one would ever be able to loot one of these items.

[galach]

You are taking a risk sharing your account information with anyone. There's a possibility that if you get stripped you won't get your gear restored. It can take several months to get a character restored as well.


Using any program to control someone else's computer remotely is not allowed. Please post information of those doing that in the petition forum or PM a staff member privately.

[dspity]

Using any program to control someone else's computer remotely is not allowed. Please post information of those doing that in the petition forum or PM a staff member privately.

Can one use a program to control their own computer? Such as remote desktop?

[zodium]

let's be real about what's realistically enforceable in everquest here, last year a guy openly autofired lodizal for like six months straight and was only punished after video was submitted of him, hilariously, having fallen asleep and dying to AFK FTE. he earned millions of pp. i believe he got a month.

no one is getting substantively punished for account sharing or teamviewer use.

[Tecmos Deception]

Using any program to control someone else's computer remotely is not allowed. Please post information of those doing that in the petition forum or PM a staff member privately.

I'm genuinely curious what rule applies to this. I wouldn't have thought any of the ones in https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2651, for example, did.

[cd288]

You are taking a risk sharing your account information with anyone. There's a possibility that if you get stripped you won't get your gear restored. It can take several months to get a character restored as well.


Using any program to control someone else's computer remotely is not allowed. Please post information of those doing that in the petition forum or PM a staff member privately.

Out of curiosity, why is that not allowed? What's the benefit that they gain from controlling the computer remotely instead of just logging into the account?

[Tecmos Deception]

But should the camps be so long that people can't be expected to do them and thus are dropping like flies?

Are some camps and drops correctly classic such that a player isn't guaranteed to sit down for X number of minutes/hours and walk away with his item?

I hope you know the answer to that already.

[Tecmos Deception]

Out of curiosity, why is that not allowed? What's the benefit that they gain from controlling the computer remotely instead of just logging into the account?

The benefit is that the account is always logged in, and it's just who is controlling it at any given moment that changes. It may not be a huge deal, but it's a difference. You also could allow someone access to play a character but without giving them the account info itself, fwiw.

But yeah. I'm curious to see what rule forbids remotely controlling a client. It certainly isn't any of the ones I'm familiar with, which all just cover multiple clients per player, automated inputs, or altering of the client. Remote control is 1:1, manual control without altering the client. It's no different in kind than using a wireless keyboard and mouse to play from 15 feet away instead of a wired keyboard and mouse to play from 2 feet away.

I'm getting an erection at the thought of being able to control p99 on my desktop via my phone when I'm in the line at the grocery store.

[zodium]

it's the same unwritten rule that says log parsers are okay because they don't interact with the client, which a remote desktop app necessarily would do

which is totally academic since it is not actually enforceable

[Tecmos Deception]

it's the same unwritten rule that says log parsers are okay because they don't interact with the client, which a remote desktop app necessarily would do

which is totally academic since it is not actually enforceable

That's like saying my mouse driver is a third party program because it's not my finger that actually moves the cursor through direct physical manipulation. Lol.

[zodium]

how would that even work

edit: back in the 90s i taught old people to use computers and one of them, swear to satan, when I told him to move his mouse to the other side of the screen tried to pick up his physical mouse in order to move it to the left side of the keyboard

[Jubal]

Account sharing is not just legal and encouraged by the ruleset and /lists, you're at a massive disadvantage if you don't account share.

[Tiger_King]

it's pretty clear from just 5 mins of thought that remotely controlling a client from a separate computer is easily bannable because it allows 1 person to control 2 or more simultaneous logins on the same server at once... Which is the definition of boxing and strictly forbidden.

[Tecmos Deception]

it's pretty clear from just 5 mins of thought that remotely controlling a client from a separate computer is easily bannable because it allows 1 person to control 2 or more simultaneous logins on the same server at once... Which is the definition of boxing and strictly forbidden.

This is a logic fail.

[Tiger_King]

Let me break this down for you since you cannot seem to process what I said: remotely controlling a client from a is easily bannable as you are violating the ability for mods to verify that you are not playing on 2 characters or not.

This isn't to say you only control 1 doing it this way BUT for the mere fact that it's not verifiable leads to the bannable action.

There's no reason for mods/GM's to tolerate or even entertain dialog like "I told you I'm being honest mod and only playing 1 char you can't banz me!" Therefore, it is much easier to presume remotely controlling a client is for bad rather than the good. The bad (simplistically described) is that the only reason to remotely access to play is to multi-box weather you do or not!

[Tecmos Deception]

Ignoring the fact that you're getting snippy with me because you didn't actually say originally what you're trying to "break down" in your second post...

Lol. If everything that made boxing unverifiable without direct observation were bannable, we'd be banned from p99 for owning PCs.

[Tiger_King]

you just don't get it, and that's fine. Maybe if you think on it a bit more broadly in application what you're asking for then you'll understand.

[Smellybuttface]

you just don't get it, and that's fine. Maybe if you think on it a bit more broadly in application what you're asking for then you'll understand.

How does remotely accessing a PC result in two simultaneous logins? You’re still only logging in via one account, albeit from a different modality than being actually at your physical desktop. This doesn’t in any way infer that the user is using two separate logins, though.

[Smellybuttface]

Account sharing is not just legal and encouraged by the ruleset and /lists, you're at a massive disadvantage if you don't account share.

This.

You don’t want to trust your friends with your login information, fine. Your prerogative. Just don’t expect things to suddenly change to accommodate this choice. Sharing account information, anecdotally at least, WAS classic. Lists may not be, but people spending umpteenth amount of hours camping something sadly was classic.

To Tecmo’s point earlier, no I of course don’t think waiting on a list and getting a guaranteed item was classic. But back in true classic, with help, you usually ‘did’ have a pretty good chance of getting that item. It generally took longer than was reasonable for one person alone to camp, but with help, few camps were insurmountable. I think /lists is in keeping with the spirit of reliance on others that the original game required. Presumably the devs knew this, and as such the spawn rates for these items are almost artificially made longer than a single person could camp on their own, thus necessitating teamwork to acquire one.

Though I understand “reasonable” is entirely subjective....

[TripSin]

I can say definitively that my friends and I account shared often in the true Classic era to do things like PL or trade items to-and-fro etc. I can't see this being policed, nor believe it should be.


No shit you don't think it should be policed lol. Who wouldn't want to get away with committing crimes and doing shady business. You admit to doing this shit, of course you don't want it to be made against the rules. I'm sure none of the people who account share want it to be made against the rules. I'm sure murderers wish murdering wasn't against the rules or pedophiles wish abusing minors wasn't against the rules either.

[Izmael]

Staff probably isn't too happy with account sharing but as someone stated, there's no even remotely viable way to enforce otherwise. The false positives would be a CS nightmare.

[Tethler]

Let me break this down for you since you cannot seem to process what I said: remotely controlling a client from a is easily bannable as you are violating the ability for mods to verify that you are not playing on 2 characters or not.

This isn't to say you only control 1 doing it this way BUT for the mere fact that it's not verifiable leads to the bannable action.

There's no reason for mods/GM's to tolerate or even entertain dialog like "I told you I'm being honest mod and only playing 1 char you can't banz me!" Therefore, it is much easier to presume remotely controlling a client is for bad rather than the good. The bad (simplistically described) is that the only reason to remotely access to play is to multi-box weather you do or not!

I get what you're trying to say here about it being an option for hard-to-detect boxing, but this could be achieved much more easily by just using a VPN if 2-boxing was the only intent. Anyone doing this could still potentially have to submit to a box text if suspicious behavior was reported.

[cd288]

Let me break this down for you since you cannot seem to process what I said: remotely controlling a client from a is easily bannable as you are violating the ability for mods to verify that you are not playing on 2 characters or not.

This isn't to say you only control 1 doing it this way BUT for the mere fact that it's not verifiable leads to the bannable action.

There's no reason for mods/GM's to tolerate or even entertain dialog like "I told you I'm being honest mod and only playing 1 char you can't banz me!" Therefore, it is much easier to presume remotely controlling a client is for bad rather than the good. The bad (simplistically described) is that the only reason to remotely access to play is to multi-box weather you do or not!

I see where you're trying to go with this, but I have to agree with Tecmos that it doesn't seem like this would be enough for them to ban remote access and, if it is, it's somewhat odd. There are other ways to "violate the ability for mods to verify that you are not playing 2 characters" at once, but they're still legal. How is someone using a VPN on their second computer not violating the mods' ability in the same way? The answer is that it is, which is of course why they have the GM tests that are almost impossible to pass if you're boxing.

So why is remote access treated differently?

Also, I don't get why you came into this thread and immediately started being a condescending dick without anyone even having said anything to you.

[Smellybuttface]

No shit you don't think it should be policed lol. Who wouldn't want to get away with committing crimes and doing shady business. You admit to doing this shit, of course you don't want it to be made against the rules. I'm sure none of the people who account share want it to be made against the rules. I'm sure murderers wish murdering wasn't against the rules or pedophiles wish abusing minors wasn't against the rules either.

Committing crimes? Exaggerate much?

What crime is there for someone logging into my account, as long as it’s not more than one account logged in (i.e. boxing)? I’m not currently logged into it, and they’re not logged into an account they otherwise COULD be logged into. So it’s a zero-sum game.

I’ve never seen someone so nauseatingly use hyperbole to grasp at making a point.

[Benanov]

My concern with more aggressive "remote desktop" detection is that two things will happen:

1) time and resources are devoted to "anti-cheating" instead of making the game better and enjoying the hobby. Sure, sometimes that's needed - but it's easy to get rabbit-holed for months.

2) WINE users tend to get caught up in the detection routines.

[drdrakes]

P99 exists for RMT, otherwise things would be different. It's just that simple.

[TripSin]

Committing crimes? Exaggerate much?

What crime is there for someone logging into my account, as long as it’s not more than one account logged in (i.e. boxing)? I’m not currently logged into it, and they’re not logged into an account they otherwise COULD be logged into. So it’s a zero-sum game.

I’ve never seen someone so nauseatingly use hyperbole to grasp at making a point.

The crime, you daft criminal scum, is that you are getting away with an unfair advantage. Have any other dumb questions with obvious answers?

[Smellybuttface]

The crime, you daft criminal scum, is that you are getting away with an unfair advantage. Have any other dumb questions with obvious answers?

Is it only unfair because not everyone has friends to help them out?

[Grimgor]

Is it only unfair because not everyone has friends to help them out?

My only issue is that the /list system pretty much requires either account sharing or staying up for 2-3 days straight, which I'm not willing to do for pixels. Manastone is overrated anyway.

Also, Tripsin, calling someone daft criminal scum for doing something that's not even against the rules is pretty fucking pathetic. Grow up. You don't get to make the rules.

[zodium]

is it really an unfair advantage since everyone can just make some friends to--oh i see

[Frug]

The crime, you daft criminal scum, is that you are getting away with an unfair advantage. Have any other dumb questions with obvious answers?

*laughing* imagining this guy legitimately thinking he's the Empire dealing with Rebels.

[Videri]

Account sharing is the best. Back before Green Day, I was playing my wizard on Blue, and I asked in Discord if anyone would let me use their druid for buffing and PLing. One of my closer compadres sent me the info to his 57 druid. I got people dozens of levels in a few hours without having to spend a year leveling a freaking druid to 57. I also gave his druid some gear as a thank-you. Win/win.

Why make 100 people level druids when 50 of them can share with one partner? And COTH mages, and bards for PLing, and wizards for Hate and Sky ports, and so on. Imagine having to level up five characters to be able to accomplish those valuable things.

And anyone can accomplish account sharing.

Change your password every week or month if you want.

[Lemonhead]

Oh my. So this screen sharing thing... I picture the top guild requires it on 24/7 for all members. And a team of officers keep an eye on you at all times. Web cam, of course. They will be able to make "suggestions" on things like diet choices. After all, eating properly increases reaction time. And girlfriend choices. Things like that. You know when they ask you to step out of the room when she's around, you're in!

[Smellybuttface]

Oh my. So this screen sharing thing... I picture the top guild requires it on 24/7 for all members. And a team of officers keep an eye on you at all times. Web cam, of course. They will be able to make "suggestions" on things like diet choices. After all, eating properly increases reaction time. And girlfriend choices. Things like that. You know when they ask you to step out of the room when she's around, you're in!

err....wut?

[DisbeAsos]

Good luck with it. Back around Velious we had someone hijack about 8-10 guild accounts, strip and drain them, and bought a $12,000 car with the money he made from doing so. This was on Quellious server, Wraith Guild. Was a sad day for many...

[Bazia]

If you're not screen sharing you're going to lose

[cd288]

Account sharing is the best. Back before Green Day, I was playing my wizard on Blue, and I asked in Discord if anyone would let me use their druid for buffing and PLing. One of my closer compadres sent me the info to his 57 druid. I got people dozens of levels in a few hours without having to spend a year leveling a freaking druid to 57. I also gave his druid some gear as a thank-you. Win/win.

Why make 100 people level druids when 50 of them can share with one partner? And COTH mages, and bards for PLing, and wizards for Hate and Sky ports, and so on. Imagine having to level up five characters to be able to accomplish those valuable things.

And anyone can accomplish account sharing.

Change your password every week or month if you want.

Why would you give someone gear as a thank you for letting them use your Druid to powerlevel other people? This statement causes my eyebrows to raise since it seems like in reality you may have been using the Druid to powerlevel your own characters and therefore the thank you was warranted due to your personal enrichment. Why would you give gear in return for getting to use a Druid to PL random players?

[Asteria]

To the OP - IMHO...account sharing is very classic. The /list system is not though overall I approve of it. You made specific reference to the 2 most highly contested /list camps (I think)...so maybe your beef should be with the un-classic list system or just that neckbeards who put in alot more time than you and/or have a lot more neckbeardy connections w other addicted players are getting more "valuable" pixels than you.

In other words, lots of fun can be had on the servers without ever looting a manastone or Rubi BP. :) If one or both of those experiences is totally on your bucket list, do a /list camp by maybe losing some sleep on a weekend. OR you can try exping a ton at those camps while /listed feeling like "whatever" if you don't make it to spot #1 on the list when it's the normal tine to log.

A 3rd option exists, be alot more social, join a big guild, get really close to some people. Maybe within a couple months, you will share accounts with a new close friend or 2 and be ready to long-camp a manastone utilizing account sharing.

[Smellybuttface]

To the OP - IMHO...account sharing is very classic. The /list system is not though overall I approve of it. You made specific reference to the 2 most highly contested /list camps (I think)...so maybe your beef should be with the un-classic list system or just that neckbeards who put in alot more time than you and/or have a lot more neckbeardy connections w other addicted players are getting more "valuable" pixels than you.

In other words, lots of fun can be had on the servers without ever looting a manastone or Rubi BP. :) If one or both of those experiences is totally on your bucket list, do a /list camp by maybe losing some sleep on a weekend. OR you can try exping a ton at those camps while /listed feeling like "whatever" if you don't make it to spot #1 on the list when it's the normal tine to log.

A 3rd option exists, be alot more social, join a big guild, get really close to some people. Maybe within a couple months, you will share accounts with a new close friend or 2 and be ready to long-camp a manastone utilizing account sharing.

Option 3 seems the most reasonable, unless you're expecting the /list camps to magically change overnight, or you're hoping for RNGesus to be insanely in your favor. Granted you do run the risk of getting completely duped by someone in the process, but after a few months time and enough interaction i think most people's radar should be fairly well attuned to pick up douchebaggery of this sort.

Or stay up for 60 hours. But please for the love of god, stop begging the devs to:
1. Make my time cumulative!
2. Increase the drop rate
3. Make people help me
4. Make lists randomized

They get it. We get it. Nothing's changed so maybe they're thinking about it? But shoving it down everyone's throats isn't likely to garner any sympathy.

[zodium]

Option 3 seems the most reasonable, unless you're expecting the /list camps to magically change overnight, or you're hoping for RNGesus to be insanely in your favor. Granted you do run the risk of getting completely duped by someone in the process, but after a few months time and enough interaction i think most people's radar should be fairly well attuned to pick up douchebaggery of this sort.

Or stay up for 60 hours. But please for the love of god, stop begging the devs to:
1. Make my time cumulative!
2. Increase the drop rate
3. Make people help me
4. Make lists randomized

They get it. We get it. Nothing's changed so maybe they're thinking about it? But shoving it down everyone's throats isn't likely to garner any sympathy.

the devs have been telling themselves the "gambling addicts" hurting themselves at these camps and elsewhere are "toxic nerds" for a decade, the cruelty is intentional and necessary for maintaining the illusion to avoid bringing the whole prooject down

[aaezil]

Its legal but its trivializing /list giving people an unfair advantage over people who cant or wont acc share. Gross behavior thats againt the spirit of the mechanic but hey neckbeards do anything for pixels

[Smellybuttface]

Its legal but its trivializing /list giving people an unfair advantage over people who cant or wont acc share. Gross behavior thats againt the spirit of the mechanic but hey neckbeards do anything for pixels

See I think it’s the contrary. I can’t see how the devs didn’t account for the lengths people would have to go to get one of these items.

We know people will presumably stay on the list until they get the item they want. But the drop rates are incredibly low. Folks are waiting sometimes up to 60hrs for a manastone drop. Also presumably people wouldn’t want to put in 20 hrs for nothing, so they’d be willing to stick it out for another 10....then another 10....and so on until they get lucky. Either the devs assumed players would all be willing to stay up for 60hrs at a stretch to get one of these nonessential items, or they’d have to enlist the help of others to aid them in their quest (in the true spirit of an MMO).

So I believe it was all factored in long in advance of these things going live. Either a player was willing to poopsock, or they were willing to ask for help. It’s not against the spirit of the list at all, nor is it against the spirit of classic to do so.

[Videri]

Why would you give someone gear as a thank you for letting them use your Druid to powerlevel other people? This statement causes my eyebrows to raise since it seems like in reality you may have been using the Druid to powerlevel your own characters and therefore the thank you was warranted due to your personal enrichment. Why would you give gear in return for getting to use a Druid to PL random players?

He gave me info to HIS druid because I wanted to PL guildmates and all I had was a wizard. I thought it would be a good way to build the guild.

His druid had a Testament of Vanear or some other no-AC secondary item, so first I got him a sarnak battle shield so I could PL people better. :p Then I upgraded some other slots.

Anyway, it’s totally kosher for me to put gear on my friend’s char because he let me use it.