Forged Alliance Forever

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-18T11:12:46+02:00

This matter is not up to vote. Previously the rule was one account per PC to prevent smurfing. People asked for a way of switching computers, for family or friends playing exactly how you describe. So we gave them option to link their accounts to their steam accounts. Then you can switch all account on all PC without any issue.

Why steam? Because it's free to get a steam account, steam is probably the easiest way of getting the game now. If you have any vail key of supreme commander, you can enter it on steam and you'll get a golden edition of the game, so this solves the problem that ppl would have to buy the game again... they don't need to.

We are pretty happy with this system. And that's pretty much everything that can be said on this topic.

Spoiler: show

Statistics: Posted by speed2 — 18 Jun 2017, 11:12

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-18T09:05:28+02:00

dev_nulled wrote:
Yah... Not everyone makes it back home. I'll have some 18 people in my house, but not all of us can be on my local LAN. That means we have to figure out how to make it work over the internet.

You can use tunneling or port forwarding and use the multiplayer LAN mode or just make sure every guest has his own FAF acc. Assuming everyone brings his own laptop/PC you don't even have to link any account to steam at all.

dev_nulled wrote:
God - it would nice if they could just * ahem * Hail Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. *ahem * log into my computers with their FAF account. Is that so difficult? We already have a smurf detection - just ban the accounts actively smurfing and stop horking with the authentication system.

If they have a FAF account then they should have the game i assume. In that case it doesn't take much effort to link the acc to steam and you're all good.
No we do not have a smurf detection system. Guess why we have the UID check.

dev_nulled wrote:
Do other people just not own multiple computers?

Multiple computers is not a problem you can use your FAF account on as many of your machines as you desire.

dev_nulled wrote:
This is a feature that was put in without a user story, as far as I can tell. Or perhaps it was sitting on the top of the votes and I just don't see the demand. Seriously - who asked for this feature?

The feature is a good one in my humbly opinion.

dev_nulled wrote:
I've already lost my original steam account because a guest got the account VAC banned years back, so I might be a bit more gun shy then those who are willing to share computers.

VAC bans affect the multiplayer of the VAC banned game and all other games on steam with the same engine iirc. There is no reason for you to lose your account to such a thing entirely and frankly that is your problem not ours.

The more i read about complaints about the UID check the more i feel like it's just people who don't own the game complaining about having to do so.

Statistics: Posted by PhilipJFry — 18 Jun 2017, 09:05

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-18T01:58:56+02:00

400-600 or so folks in the lobby

we are getting back to our highest level of people in the game. (lost quite a lot when we were doing the server change)

http://imgur.com/xfPZEl8

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 18 Jun 2017, 01:58

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-18T01:48:04+02:00

Fixed my comment to something that will be more family friendly. I've already watched the current counsel folks tell others to pound sand on this... so fair enough. I see it show up, and there was no discussion or voting on this. With us down to 400-600 or so folks in the lobby, this is not seem like a great idea.

I've already lost my original steam account because a guest got the account VAC banned years back, so I might be a bit more gun shy then those who are willing to share computers. In all the years playing, I've never once laddered and avoid ranked stuff like the plague. Hell... we are trying to play the co-op - your baby. Anyhow, you are correct - folks trying to promote FAF hosting a "modern day" LAN party should look elsewhere. We are not friendly to that sort of usage.

Statistics: Posted by dev_nulled — 18 Jun 2017, 01:48

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-18T01:12:17+02:00

Its simple, you and your friends link accounts to your steam accounts before you start the party. If you dont want to do that, well tough life, but if you keep throwing fucks around it wont help your case at all.

Statistics: Posted by speed2 — 18 Jun 2017, 01:12

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-18T01:27:07+02:00

Yah... Not everyone makes it back home. I'll have some 18 people in my house, but not all of us can be on my local LAN. That means we have to figure out how to make it work over the internet. God - it would nice if they could just * ahem * Hail Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with thee. *ahem * log into my computers with their FAF account. Is that so difficult? We already have a smurf detection - just ban the accounts actively smurfing and stop horking with the authentication system. Do other people just not own multiple computers?

This is a feature that was put in without a user story, as far as I can tell. Or perhaps it was sitting on the top of the votes and I just don't see the demand. Seriously - who asked for this feature?

https://feedback.userreport.com/7a3715d ... as/popular

Statistics: Posted by dev_nulled — 18 Jun 2017, 00:25

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-17T23:52:16+02:00

If you want to play offline then you shouldn't connect to the server anyway and just play multiplayer LAN
not sure what the issue is unless you don't know how to connect via IP address in a local network

Statistics: Posted by PhilipJFry — 17 Jun 2017, 23:52

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-17T23:46:04+02:00

We could not get the off line game to connect over the net. Likely a problem between my chair and keyboard... but... this sort of feature is infuriating for those who don't play any ranked games.

Statistics: Posted by dev_nulled — 17 Jun 2017, 23:46

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-17T23:37:57+02:00

Launching offline definitely works. You don't lobby up through FAF, no login needed, but you get FAF's balance etc.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 17 Jun 2017, 23:37

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-17T23:30:56+02:00

Last holiday, we could not make it work. Be nice to have some sort of community vote for this sort of bullshit.

Statistics: Posted by dev_nulled — 17 Jun 2017, 23:30

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-17T12:02:33+02:00

C:\ProgramData\FAForever\bin\ForgedAlliance.exe

through there should work.

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 17 Jun 2017, 12:02

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-17T11:53:30+02:00

You can play lan on fa (with faf last balance, all your mods and maps) with your friend without faf. So this should not be an issue anyway

Statistics: Posted by jackherer — 17 Jun 2017, 11:53

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-17T06:17:48+02:00

Each player has a machine, but they are all my machines. Last holiday when my brothers came home, we had a devil of a time with this.

Statistics: Posted by dev_nulled — 17 Jun 2017, 06:17

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-17T02:42:59+02:00

If each player has the game, each player has their PC, and each player has a FAF account, LAN shouldn't be any trouble.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 17 Jun 2017, 02:42

Re: One-Account-Per-Computer rule a poor choice IMO

2017-06-17T01:47:34+02:00

Gah... I just saw the 'anti smurfing' notes on the new update. For those of us who toss lan parties, can anyone elaborate on what this means to folks who have multiple machines, multiple copies, and are trying to do co-op?

Statistics: Posted by dev_nulled — 17 Jun 2017, 01:47