Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
boatsb4hose

Something definitive regarding multiple accounts on 1 IP

Recommended Posts

I've wanted to run several accounts on one IP for obvious reasons but I also haven't for obvious reasons. But does anyone have confidence that running multiple accounts on IP at the same time doing the same thing won't lead to more bans (up to a point). If not or if so, give me some of your anecdotal experiences with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory is running accounts on different IPs reduces the amount of chain bans. Chain bans is the idea of if one account is caught, all the others botting at the time on that associated IP will also be banned. This has been twisted throughout the years and many people will claim if you get banned on an IP, that IP is now flagged and you have a higher chance of being banned if you continue to bot on that IP. In my experience and many others, this is not true. 


With that being said, I have ran multiple accounts on the same IP and had only one of them banned and not all of them chain banned so it pretty much comes down to your own experiences and what you think is truth or not.

Edited by Encoded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Encoded said:

The theory is running accounts on different IPs reduces the amount of chain bans. Chain bans is the idea of if one account is caught, all the others botting at the time on that associated IP will also be banned. This has been twisted throughout the years and many people will claim if you get banned on an IP, that IP is now flagged and you have a higher chance of being banned if you continue to bot on that IP. In my experience and many others, this is not true. 


With that being said, I have ran multiple accounts on the same IP and had only one of them banned and not all of them chain banned so it pretty much comes down to your own experiences and what you think is truth or not.

I've encountered that too, had 4 accounts on the one computer and only one got banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, boatsb4hose said:

does anyone have confidence that running multiple accounts on IP at the same time doing the same thing won't lead to more bans (up to a point)

The more accounts that connect from the same address, the higher the probability that the said network is used to run a bot farm. We cannot know for sure which factors are taken into account for identifying bots, but it's safe to assume that the number of accounts per address is definitely one of them. It's the easiest thing to track (besides the average time spent in game), and it could also provide useful insight because after a certain number (i.e. 50), it becomes painfully obvious that you are running a bot farm.

That doesn't mean that you will get banned solely for this, but every additional account that you run from the same address is taking you further and further away from the average legitimate RuneScape player that only runs 1 account for no more than 2 hours every day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowledge about account suspension procedures is an internal Jagex secret, nobody here will give you a conclusive answer. All we can do is speculate and run empirical tests.

In my experience, there are multiple simultaneous factors that go into increasing account ban risk. While accounts probably don't get banned solely on IP blackmark, it does increase the likelihood of chain bans. As most people have experienced, bans don't always get chained, but they do happen more often on one-IP farms, especially if that IP is hosted in a datacenter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have multiple potentially sick people (bots that could possibly get banned) in the same room (IP address), the possibility of an outbreak (chain ban) increases as you add more people. Splitting the people into different rooms (using multiple IP addresses) reduces the risk of an outbreak as the number of rooms increases, until there's no risk of outbreak at 1 person per room.

@boatsb4hose

Edited by IceKontroI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IceKontroI said:

If you have multiple potentially sick people (bots that could possibly get banned) in the same room (IP address), the possibility of an outbreak (chain ban) increases as you add more people. Splitting the people into different rooms (using multiple IP addresses) reduces the risk of an outbreak as the number of rooms increases, until there's no risk of outbreak at 1 person per room.

@boatsb4hose

Very colorful analogy, but it works in this case.

How's the weed? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Our picks

    • This update features:

      Fixed broken hooks from today's update


      Fix wilderness level with RuneLite (Thanks @Todd)


      Add support for Kotlin .class files in scripts (Thanks @wastedbro)


      Overhaul Inventory API (Thanks @wastedbro)


      Add List support for common methods


      Change method grouping to make more sense (by functionality)


      Refactor methods to utilize Java 8 streams instead of cumbersome loops




      Recognize chatbox minimization (Thanks @JoeDezzy1)


      Fix Screen#isInViewport when NPC chat is open (Thanks @JoeDezzy1)


      Fix login bot bugs (Thanks @erickho123)


      Fix hint arrow return values (Thanks @Encoded)


      Fix depositAllExcept functionality (Thanks @wastedbro)


      Change containing box interface bound and adjust for Y values (Thanks @erickho123)
        • Like
      • 150 replies
    • This release will:

      Fix prayers and world hopper API (Thanks @JoeDezzy1 and @erickho123)


      Improve banking API (Thanks @Encoded)


      Adds methods for returning and using Java Lists, rather than arrays


      Slightly randomizes some hardcoded behaviour


      Removes sleeps from waitConditions; the efficiency saving potential is negligible in these use-cases, therefore cleaner code is preferable


      Other back-end improvements





      Note: If you are using LG, please restart both the RS client and TRiBot.
        • Sad
        • Haha
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 90 replies
    • This release will:

      Add new internal framework for capturing exceptions


      Fix issue with not selecting the last column in world hopper (Thanks @Todd)


      Add a message about pin usage in Banking#openBank (Thanks @Todd)


      Disable the firewall by default (Thanks @Todd)


      Fix handling of the welcome screen after login (Thanks @Encoded)


      Fix wrong amount bank withdrawal (Thanks @Encoded)


      Fix Screen#isInViewport


      Fix Game#isInViewport (Thanks @Encoded)


      Call onBreakEnd for ListenerManager Breaking Listeners (Thanks @Encoded)


      Fix Prayer#getPrayerPoints NumberFormatException (Thanks @JoeDezzy1)



      Note: If you are using LG, please restart both the RS client and TRiBot.
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 28 replies
    • This release will:

      Fix LG for both OSBuddy and RuneLite


      Fix issue where the resizable client isn't able to be made smaller (Thanks @JoeDezzy1)


      Fix detection of the logout game tab when resizable mode and side panels are enabled (Thanks @JoeDezzy1)


      Add initial support for Sentry to allow us to identify and easily debug exceptions happening with all TRiBot users


      Add methods to determine if the bank is actually loaded, and not just the overarching interface (Thanks @wastedbro)



      Upcoming updates:

      Improved CLI support


      Full Sentry support


      Much more
        • Like
      • 64 replies
    • This release will:

      Fix NPE in Camera API (Thanks @wastedbro)


      Update deposit box interface ids (Thanks @Encoded)


      Add various bank methods (Thanks @wastedbro)


      Banking#getWithdrawXQuantity


      Banking#getDefaultWithdrawQuantity


      Banking#arePlaceholdersOn




      Fix resizeable minimap bug (Thanks @wastedbro)


      Remove Java 8 requirement


      Please note: TRiBot is not yet fully compatible with Java 10+




      Fix the break handler issues by ensuring the break handler thread never gets paused


      Fix broken settings hooks



      Upcoming updates:

      Improved CLI support


      Much more



      Note: If you are using LG, please restart both the RS client and TRiBot
        • Like
      • 68 replies
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...