Options for dealing with multiple Users on the same IP

Game of universal domination. New dice available free upon request.
Post Reply
User avatar
n00less cluebie
Lux Cantor
Posts: 8375
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:55 am
Location: At the Official Clown Reference Librarian Desk--'All the answers you weren't looking for.'
Contact:

Options for dealing with multiple Users on the same IP

Post by n00less cluebie » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:46 am

The Grimoire, lists a number of pairs of players who use the same IP (and may or may not be Baden) and who have the potential to abuse the system (whether they do or not is mostly unknowable).

It would be good to have a feature to close this loophole, while not being too harmful for those are playing legitimately. Here is a spectrum of potential solutions from the most invasive to the least:

I) Allow only 1 User from any IP to be connected via LuxTracker. (This would eliminate people playing multiple games at the same time as well; most probably too invasive)

II) Allow only 1 user from any given IP to connect to any particular Host. (Again fairly invasive, as it eliminates any legitimate competition from users on the same IP)

III) Allow only 1 user from any given IP to connect to any particular RANKED Host. (This is a bit better, as one can still have LAN parties just unable to compete in the RAW chase, still may rankle a few of the legitimate multireg families out there)

IV) Allow any user to connect to any Host, but don't allow multiple players from a single IP to PLAY in the same game (this can be for ranked or unranked games) This allows family members to kibbitz on their families games, but just be unable to play. The shufflebot would compile a list of IP's as it creates the new player order, and if notices that a player has the same IP as another player already chosen to play, it will skip that person and choose another.

V) Create some sort of announcement to the room if someone joins with an IP address of someone else in the room, and let the players decide for themselves what to do

E.g.
✱ WestSideKiller has joined ✱
✱ WARNING! WestSideKiller shares the Same IP address as UrbanSpaceman ✱

User avatar
crimsonhosking
Luxatoobaphobia
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:28 pm
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by crimsonhosking » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:56 am

I like III and V combined.
I think that multiple IP's should be allowed to play unranked games. Why not let them have some fun with the public. But at the same time make other players aware of the duplicate IP.

The duplicates are something the community should be made aware of.
Great ideas N00less

User avatar
-NN-Grim
Luxidermy King
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:41 am
Location: Planet Earth

Post by -NN-Grim » Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:20 pm

all seem like good ideas to me. 8)

User avatar
Darkworlds
Luxer
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:30 am
Location: London

Post by Darkworlds » Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:17 pm

crimsonhosking wrote:I like III and V combined.
I think that multiple IP's should be allowed to play unranked games. Why not let them have some fun with the public. But at the same time make other players aware of the duplicate IP.

The duplicates are something the community should be made aware of.
Great ideas N00less
I agree

User avatar
The Wontrob
Ninja Doughboy
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: The Pan-Holy Church, frollicking
Contact:

Post by The Wontrob » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:05 am

I am somewhat against this. Bought my brother Lux for Christmas and we are now a multi-reg household.

This kind of block would not be so bad for me, I am at school 60% of the year, and even when my brother and I are together we have yet to play in the same game. But just in case, I would like to be able to play in the same game. I think a warning about the same IP would be fine, but completely blocking them from playing together... not so much.

I think an obvious abuse of a shared IP is a problem. Even subtle abuse of a shared IP is a problem. But there should be abuse. Well, there shouldn't be abuse but... YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

User avatar
n00less cluebie
Lux Cantor
Posts: 8375
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:55 am
Location: At the Official Clown Reference Librarian Desk--'All the answers you weren't looking for.'
Contact:

Post by n00less cluebie » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:42 am

The Wontrob wrote:I am somewhat against this. Bought my brother Lux for Christmas and we are now a multi-reg household.

This kind of block would not be so bad for me, I am at school 60% of the year, and even when my brother and I are together we have yet to play in the same game. But just in case, I would like to be able to play in the same game. I think a warning about the same IP would be fine, but completely blocking them from playing together... not so much.

I think an obvious abuse of a shared IP is a problem. Even subtle abuse of a shared IP is a problem. But there should be abuse. Well, there shouldn't be abuse but... YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
Against which of my proposals, Wontrob? ALL of them?

User avatar
crimsonhosking
Luxatoobaphobia
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:28 pm
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Post by crimsonhosking » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:01 am

Wontrob I know exactly what you mean, and I feel the same way. Though with Lux I don't have the issue of having two regs in the house. But when I play many other games, like Starcraft (Way back when) warcraft, call of duty or all of those other games, being in the same room or vicinity helped.
I like option three because it only allows 1 player coming from the same house/location to connect to a ranked room at a time. So you could BOTH be playing ranked games, just different games.
I also believe that you should both be able to join the same UNRANKED game and that an announcement should be made to all other players that you two share an IP or location.

This would eliminate any visible collusion between players. It's bad enough when people team and make it visible by their text, but at least that can be seen. It is when games start being thrown from collusion which cannot be seen.

Most irrelevant example I could find with the most applicable and relevant concept is online gambling. Two players from the same IP/Location cannot join the same poker table or blackjack table. Other players are unaware of such action, hell even colluding at the table or on a chat client while playing in the same room is pretty well illegal if you are caught.

It is far too easy to use such close proximity to throw games, and while I have no reason to suspect you would do such a thing wontrob, there are lots of folk out there who would.

User avatar
The Wontrob
Ninja Doughboy
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: The Pan-Holy Church, frollicking
Contact:

Post by The Wontrob » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:17 pm

n00less cluebie wrote:
The Wontrob wrote:I am somewhat against this. Bought my brother Lux for Christmas and we are now a multi-reg household.

This kind of block would not be so bad for me, I am at school 60% of the year, and even when my brother and I are together we have yet to play in the same game. But just in case, I would like to be able to play in the same game. I think a warning about the same IP would be fine, but completely blocking them from playing together... not so much.

I think an obvious abuse of a shared IP is a problem. Even subtle abuse of a shared IP is a problem. But there should be abuse. Well, there shouldn't be abuse but... YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
Against which of my proposals, Wontrob? ALL of them?
I would say I am against I-III. Though my brother and I have yet to play each other, we HAVE been in the same room for chat and joking around and such. And I can see the use of not letting us play in the same game (I am usually at school and a different IP so it wouldn't be a problem most of the time), but I would rather be able to play him when I liked. I have no objection at all to V. Anyone not abusing the system should not want to hide the fact that they are playing from the same location.

Post Reply