Talk:Multi abuse

Found this really obvious guy...

• http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1749192
• http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1796390
  

Can't find a list of known zergers, tho, so I'll just throw it here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monstah (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Resenz is the best place to be putting this. 23:19, 26 September 2010 (BST)

Same IP at creation, but not in the use

Hello everyone. I hope someone will be able to anwser me. Here the thing : TIME 1 : 2 accounts created using the same computer TIME 2 : during 6 month, the 2 accounts were used with separate computers in separate cities, and played in separate suburb TIME 3 : if they still be used with separate computers in separate cities but in the same suburb, are we going to be punished ?

To sum up, if 2 accounts share ONLY the same computer for the creation but are used with separate computer in separate towns, are those 2 accounts going to be punished ?

Thx ! --GoLookAndKill ^THC_CFT 17:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

TinyURL

The TinyURL for this page is http://tinyurl.com/2c8a5o It always seems ugly to me to see those on the main page so I'm making note of it here.--Mister Nathan Marbles 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Q: Housemates

i live with two other guys i got into UD and we lead pretty separate existences, im in caiger, ones in shearbank and ones i think Ruddlebank. since the big bash has got all uppity in the south. we decided to head to fort perryn which a likely place they are gonna end up, so while im in pole mall slowly being pushed about by the big bash the other 2 have headed down to perryn. but ofcourse i forgot since we all use different machines but ofcourse same I.P. (yeah i know nothing about computers) its gonna look like we are the same person. would it be best to tell the other two to just go away and not risk the chances of one of us being deleted? would using different computers make a diffference?--Kung fu cat 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be splitting up if I were you guys. The automatic zerging countermeasures won't be able to tell (nor will they care) that you are separate people using the same internet connection -- boxy • talk • 01:17 21 November 2007 (BST)

Revives

You can't heal yourself, but you can revive yourself? - Pardus 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about healing yourself, but yes you can revive yourself. Also I do believe you can't heal a char you healed with another account, just like with combat. --Karek^maps?! 18:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out something absurd. - Pardus 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! I hadn't played for years, got back on, and revived one of my characters with another. Then I suddenly remembered there were rules about alts cooperating and was worried. Tried to move the character that revived as far away as I could with remaining AP.Ronarprfct (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Q: Fighting against your own character:

I have a zed and a survivor. If they fight each other is that suspicious? I had the zed as part of a mob attacking a building one block away from the survivors shelter. I didn't evenrealize they were that close until after my zed left the area.

• The point of the game is to have fun. People are forgiving when your characters end up close together entirely by accident. If one of your affected alts immediately spends a day moving several suburbs away, then it is very easy for you to demonstrate that you are playing by the rules in good faith, having made an honest mistake. Anti-cheater groups are concerned with systematic intentional abuse of the rules, for example attacking your own alt to harvest risk-free experience. --Tycho44 ^W! 18:33, 28 April 2006 (BST)
  • So If the attacked character fights back it's cool? -WildKard84 01:23, 29 April 2006 (BST)
    • Nah, once you realize you're fighting your own character, I'd say run away and get out of town. The game has 50,000 active players in 100 suburbs, so it's pretty lame to waste your AP interacting with yourself. But again, this is just my opinion. Within the UD game, Kevan has implemented countermeasures that should make it difficult for you to successfully hit or heal yourself. I think he has said that the countermeasures will ban characters whose violations are extremely egregious and systematic, but very few characters are known to have been banned. --Tycho44 ^W! 04:36, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Q: UD's In-Game Penalties

I had a run of bad luck on one character (even though I don't have any character in any adjacent suburb, I do have one just beyond, so someone could have walked from one to the other and I might have had the bad luck to start shooting at the same zombie) and it made me wonder: if I did somehow get flagged for possible multi abuse, what would I need to do? Does it end at server reset? --Dan 21:00, 18 March 2006 (GMT)

• From everything I've seen posted, it ends at server reset. In any case the multi-abuse prevention only prevents you from harrassing a common target. The more likely explanation is a run of bad luck. Given that there are thousands of people playing Urban Dead, on any given day someone who reads this wiki has had 30 consecutive attacks without a single hit, or searched 30 consecutive times in a Police Department without finding a single item. If you play several characters, one of them will probably miss 15 times in a row (despite 65% chance to hit) one of these days. That's how randomness works. You'll make up for it by finding 5 First-Aid Kits in a row in a Hospital someday, without even realizing how outlandish lucky you just got (1 in 18,593). --Tycho44 09:24, 21 March 2006 (GMT)

Q: Documenting Abusers

Does anyone have a problem with this page being used to document groups ("parties") who do this excessively? Tonight I found pretty damning evidence that the Pegton Heroes may only exist because one person has no qualms about using a large number of characters cooperatively. So, like any good investigative medium, why not make known those who are clearly guilty of it? --Mihama 02:49, 4 April 2006 (BST)

• First, take a look at the Anti Cheater Alliance and the Zerg Liste and see if those address your concerns. Also, be sure to collect copious quantities of screenshot evidence (using Print-Screen and paste into Paint, explained elsewhere or ask for details). --Tycho44 02:48, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Q: Coordinating characters but not to attack, revive, heal, barricade, etc.:

Question: If you are coordinating characters to do one thing in the same burb but it's not attack people, revive your own characters, heal them, barricade, etc. In fact, it's nothing that affects gameplay... is that multiplayer abuse?

The truth is, I keep all my characters in the same building because it's just easy to remember where the hell I am and what I am doing. But they don't work together at all. If they get hurt or killed, I have them handle it on their own. I guess when I barricade, it's for all of them but it's for the other people in there too and I could just as easily pick a building already barricaded (which is 99.99% of the time - I rarely ever HAVE to barricade). The argument could be made that even though they are in the same block, they are technically living seperate lives.

Maybe a better question is "What really constitutes 'suspicious behaviour' aside from the obvious?" Does scavanging for supplies in the same building (which yeilds the same odds) count?

Answer: Yes.

As in, yes, that is multi abuse. Other players, including your adversaries, are trying to enjoy this game as well, and it is your responsibility to make the game fair and fun by not cheating. You wouldn't play in a casino or a bridge tournament and ask to see all the discards because that way it is just easier for you to remember what the hell cards have been played already. Playing two characters in the same building or doing the same stuff is exactly what Kevan prohibits. Part of the challenge of playing multiple characters is remembering what is going on in two entirely different suburbs of Malton. Everyone else who isn't cheating has to remember that and work that stuff out -- if you don't want to, then please play only one character in Urban Dead. There are a bunch of other free MMORPGs out there -- such as www.shartak.com -- if you need more things to do.

Perhaps part of the reason that your area of Malton appears very safe is that you only have to put up half as many barricades and find half as many safehouses. Oh, the Mall's been overrun? Better not send my other characters there. Oh, Heavywall Bank is safe? My other alts will come sleep here. Added information obtained from playing two characters completely changes your gameplay. Meanwhile, smaller hordes and ferals will migrate away from intimidating barricades "topped off" by multiplay, but once barricades start wearing away from attrition, hordes return with a vengeance and overrun the place. Try separating your characters and see if you still always find barricaded safehouses.

To answer your second question, Kevan's countermeasures are known to penalise interacting characters (including two of your alts attacking the same opponent) but do not yet appear to penalise joint barricading and debarricading. Meanwhile, in-game vigilante justice enforcers will bountylist multiple alts who are present in the same building, or even who consistently rely on all the same resource and sleeping locations. Of course, in-game vigilante punishment is limited to the bounty hunters and sociopaths preferentially attacking you.

Please be considerate of other players, and operate each alt in a different suburb.

This is just my opinion. --Tycho44 02:48, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Follow up question...

So what if I'm not attacking zombies or survivors, not reviving people, not healing people... not taking part in standard game play at all? What if I'm doing something that is not sinister but unlike anything anyone else is doing and it requires a coordinated effort? Because I'll tell you, if my characters were spread out all over the game board, what I'm doing would still be four characters working together for a common goal.

You use the analogy of cheating at poker. What if I'm over at another table playing slots in the same casino? Because that's what's going on. I'm playing a different game then the rest of you are. I'm just using the same board you happen to be using.

THAT is why I ask. And I have not had problems with anything yet.

But to be more fair, I have split my characters up. They are in the same 'burb but in different buildings and not even adjoining buildings. At least seven or eight buildings apart.

It sounds like you're trying to use your cards to play poker, but at the blackjack table. "I'm playing a different game then the rest of you are. I'm just using the same board you happen to be using." Mobsters aren't going to break your kneecaps, but if I were you I'd still try to make sure that your activities make the game fun for everyone.

I appreciate your courtesy and your willingness to keep your characters separated. --Tycho44 00:42, 20 April 2006 (BST)

What about if you have three characters, which are not intereacting with each other but are working together. For example, you have 2 in opposite corners of a suburb, and another suburbs away. The first scouts the suburb and kills zombies in the buildings, taking note of barricade levels and generator fuel. The second refuels generators and barricades weakened buidlings, without even "seeing" the other one. Finally, the third one uses the radio to transmit to others the state of the suburb and what is left to be done. They all work together, but they do not interact and they do it for the inhabitants of the suburb and not themselves. Is this considered cheating or against the spirit of the game? 'Cause I use info gathered by my alt the same way I use info gathered from my friends, I see little difference exept for the level of detail my info has. -17:44, 18 June 2006 (BST)

Q: is there a way to know....

is there a way to know when you are getting penalized for multi-character abuse? i play several characters, and they have occasionally been in the same suburb momentarily (not directly interacting). i'm fairly certain that this has never adversly affected my odds, but there is that occasional bad streak that leaves me wondering.

i was just trying to find out if there was any sure-fire way of telling whether you have made the abuse list or not.

Alts in the same group

How kosher is it to have alts in the same group, provided they maintain the prescribed distance from each other and what not?--Jiangyingzi 05:04, 24 August 2007 (BST)

It really depends on the group and on individual experience. Some groups, such as the DEM and Extinction, allow for multiple characters within the same organization. However, I would say that the practice is looked down upon by the majority of the citizens/zombies of Malton, including myself. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 05:15, 24 August 2007 (BST)

It comes down to an issue of how you define "separate existence". What you'll see is some groups try to define that broadly by saying "pretty much any zombie or survivor is working toward the same goal, so having two or three zombies/survivors under the same organization is no worse than that". Which is bollocks, but it happens. Less coordinated groups like the Feral Undead, it's not as big of a deal outside of the stats page since there's no organization to speak of. A lot of survivors in one mall probably have an alt that defends another. But I think there's reasonable distinctions to make between playing characters with a shared game philosophy and playing characters with a shared hierarchy. If the "Perryn Defense Force" was composed entirely or of a majority of CDF alts and it had the same leader andd structure for both forts, I don't think you can claim both groups have a separate existence, regardless of what the name is, even. Interpreting the letter of the law while making an unreasonable interpretation of its intent may not be cheating, but it's highly unethical, and worse, unnecessary. There's a whole topic as it relates to Extinction about this on the Barhah forums. Unfortunately, they ended up deciding not to change their policy after their leader said he wanted to, and it degenerated quickly after that.--Insomniac By Choice 05:32, 24 August 2007 (BST)

An extremely interesting link there, thank you for posting it. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 05:49, 24 August 2007 (BST)

Renewed Question

Hi! I have a very similar (read: almost identical) question, but I wanted to see if the response is any different five years on. If a player has two or more characters in the same group, but those characters do not go near each other (so not triggering anti-zerg measures) nor work for the same goal, is this considered multi abuse? (I'm not talking game mechanics, I'm talking community view.) This question came to mind because I recently started a group called Malton Taoist Temple, in which members (although sharing a similar philosophy) do not work together at any point, and may be variously survivor, zombie, pker, etc. players. I think a similar question arises around groups like Dual Nature, which also have no internal co-ordination or hierarchy. Is it appropriate to have two or more characters listed with Dual Nature? Thanks! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You'll likely get varying answers to this but I think the majority of players (especially old school players) think having alts in the same group is considered multi abuse (not zerging, which is a whole other thing). There have been groups which have toed the line, most notably DEM which have skewed the opinion of a lot of people. As for your Dual Nature example, that seems clearly to be a philosophy while MTT calls itself a group. If you're concerned how people will view you having two alts with MTT tags, it would be best not to do it since there will be some people that will call it multi abuse and you've now called attention to it. You could always join 15A with one of your alts since they share a similar philosophe . ~ _{20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)}

Thanks! I'm not actually thinking about having two alts in MTT (I personally love having just one alt in the game) but was trying to figure out if the group should have an official policy on it. If others want to chime in, definitely do so. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I used to have two alts in the one group (although always at opposite ends of the map) when I first joined the game, but after reading up on multi abuse, I let them go their separate ways, and encouraged others in the group to do the same. Having alts in the same group, even if leading totally separate existences, still inflate your group numbers if nothing else -- boxy 08:24, 24 January 2013 (BST)

I think its a given for most players but a policy doesn't hurt. A simple "No zerging/multi abuse" policy pretty much covers your bases. ~ _{15:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)}

Attacking your own alts

It it illegal to attack your own alts while standing in the same square? (just yes or no) --Urban Alive 18:03, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Yes --Toejam 21:47, 28 April 2008 (BST)

I once registered a consumer and two cop in Monroville with the same ip (they both spawned in the same square and the system doesn't do any thing (i forgot their passes and no email) ( it just reduced the search rates)

So it does not recognize when two accounts registered by the same ip and one used by another ip in the same square? --Urban Alive 10:35, 29 April 2008 (BST)

It's left intentionally vague, but that should set off a flag. Best to just keep your characters apart.--Karek^maps?! 10:58, 29 April 2008 (BST)