One main account per IP

[Forboding Angel]

Would you lobby devs do this? Add email address to list of requirements, store ip last used with account, and make it so that you cannot register a new account from the same ip?

Sure it can be circumvented, but it makes it a lot more difficult.

In place of that, allow multiple accounts that are attached to the main account.

So you end up with:

[Evo]Forboding_Angel
|
- [POD]FA
- Forboding_Angel
- Dos_equis

Etc etc etc?

This would be a massive improvement to the current system.

[Neddie]

I would like the attached account idea because it would allow MeltraX to master multiple names to a single ladder account. That would be highly useful, as I have a number of autohosts and active accounts.

[AF]

A separation of username and visible name would be more useful, sort of like msn accounts versus msn display names

[Teutooni]

What about address translation? One account per IP would kinda suck imo. Tying multiple nicknames to a single account, on the other hand, could be useful.

[AF]

dynamic IP ranges would mess the system up anyway

[Gota]

dynamic IP ranges would mess the system up anyway

True dat

[Forboding Angel]

No all I meant was that you couldn't register half a billion names while on the same Ip.

Basically if you register a name, you IP gets appended, and you can only register another name as a sub, not as an entirely different entity.

It's meant to prevent multiple account creation in one setting, not for future settings.

[Peet]

So what happens when a user gets rotated to an IP that was used by another user? What happens when multiple users are behind NAT? What happens when a user has multiple IPs?

[LordMatt]

I think this is a bad idea.

[ZellSF]

I agree with requiring email addresses, and hopefully allowing password recovery as well, helping against the smurfing problem, as "I forgot the password to my main account" won't be a reasonable excuse to avoid getting kicked out of rank limited games any more, but one username per IP sounds just stupid..

[det]

I honestly don't think you can stop people who want to be anonymous or evade bans in a free game. IP and email addresses are seriously easy to come by. A paid for game can because new accounts cost money, and griefing or smurfing is not usually worth $20 to the culprit. The only solution that I think can really work is a web of trust reputation system. This would probably obsolete the need for moderators as well, which I think is a good thing.

[AF]

There is a need for a system where accounts can be managed by an ID or email, however the reason for this is not to prevent smurfing, but for lobby development reasons.

For example better user management would make things like avatars and password forgotten and ranking systems more feasible than they currently are by removing the problems /rename causes by totally changing the online identity within the system.

[Forboding Angel]

I honestly don't think you can stop people who want to be anonymous or evade bans in a free game. IP and email addresses are seriously easy to come by. A paid for game can because new accounts cost money, and griefing or smurfing is not usually worth $20 to the culprit. The only solution that I think can really work is a web of trust reputation system. This would probably obsolete the need for moderators as well, which I think is a good thing.

This isn't about evading bans. It's about making it tougher for ppl that want to register half a billion accounts one right after another.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that the ip would get wiped after the lobby was closed. If anything at the very least it would slow creation down. Who wants to have to reopen the lobby everytime the make a new account? At any rate, it just slows the person down, and in many cases would stop it entirely because that person prolly wouldn't know or think about it. Requiring a valid email address should be a requirement tho. DO it like a phpbb style thing with activation link emailed.

That would actually be more effective in the first place.

[SwiftSpear]

I like it. Me and aegis were discussing ways of making greifers lives harder that could be implemented to uberserver earlier. Since he's said it will be possible for moderators to allow acceptions to any account per IP restriction we place, it doesn't really effect lan parties adversely either, since you just ask a moderator to allow more account creation for a short period of time.

[det]

Sounds like there are two issues being addressed here.

1) Griefing using multiple smurfs.
Better to just let users ban by IP and/or smurf check.

2) Accumulation of a accounts that are never used.
Just purge accounts that have less than a certain average of playtime over its total lifetime.

Having to contact a moderator to host a lan party sounds really awful to me.

[Teutooni]

One (main)account per IP would at best just slow smurfing down, and might cause trouble for normal users. A more effective way to slow smurfing could be the email registration mentioned before. It could be one account per email address, makes more sense than per IP imo. With dynamic IP's and address translations, IP is not a personal identifier. Neither is email, but at least they don't change automatically.

[Regret]

I like it. Me and aegis were discussing ways of making greifers lives harder that could be implemented to uberserver earlier. Since he's said it will be possible for moderators to allow acceptions to any account per IP restriction we place, it doesn't really effect lan parties adversely either, since you just ask a moderator to allow more account creation for a short period of time.

You're kidding, right?

[Lolsquad_Steven]

If this is implemented... it will be a skidmark on the underpants of TASpring

[Gota]

I think this is bs as well.
So what if someone smurfs once ina while.Big deal Its not THAT much of a problem.

[Pxtl]

So if I live with anybody else who also plays spring, they're stuck with my account?

How about no.