Playing two accounts at the same time?

[jmstrings]

Ok, I have two accounts. I have two computers. I am trying to play the accounts at the same time to no avail.

I can play account A and account B from computer 1. I can play account A and account B from computer 2. But i cannot play both accounts at the same time.

When i log the second character into eq it kicks me back to the server select screen I am using a cable modem with a linksys router (already used EQ's router TS guid). Any help provided would be great!

[seqmage]

Since this is not SOE help board.. you sould really take this question to them. I did and look what they have just in the FAQ. on their support page.. amazing..

Here is the solution: EverQuest: How do I setup my Linksys router specifically to play EverQuest?
1. Click on start and then click on run and type iexplore http://192.168.1.1/filters.htm in the address box, and press on OK. This is the default IP address so if you have changed it use the new one.

2. You will be prompted for a username and password. By default there is no username, and the password is admin.

3. Once you've gotten past the log in you should be at the filters tab.

4. Go to the Forwarding tab, and then click on the Port Triggering button.

5. Once you've done this, a new window will appear. Here is an example of how to fill out the ports:

Application Name= EverQuest
Trigger Port Range= 1024-65535
Incoming Port Range= 1024-65535

http://help.station.sony.com/esupport/esupport/consumer/esupport.asp

Please go ask THIS question over there...not here!!!!

[jmstrings]

ive done all that stuff and it still does not work

[seqmage]

I did again and found this little gem..
http://boards.station.sony.com/ubb/everquest/Forum3/HTML/034534.html

Seems they can help you.. Please go to their boards and ask!!!
This issue is not even related to SEQ!!!

[Catt]

Can I flame him now?

[high_jeeves]

You have my permission, Catt :D

--Jeeves

[bonkersbobcat]

Originally posted by Catt
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0;I feel obliged to point out that using "select *" is bad form because if there is a change in the database schema, the number and data types of columns may change and the client may not be coded to properly handle this change. One should always specify the names of the columns to be returned to the client. If the goal is simply to return a count of matching records, then "select count(*)" is an acceptable syntax, as it is defined as returning a single integer column and row.

This message brought to you by the complain about something mostly irrelevant department

[high_jeeves]

Perhaps something like



SELECT users.DUH, users.HUH, users.WHA, users.ISSHOWEQWORKING FROM users WHERE clue > 0;


would be more appropriate?

--Jeeves

[casey]

select clue, count(*) from users group by clue

i like to see how many users fall into each level of cluefulness

and i agree, select * is bad form, esp in that query, all you really would want is

select username from users where clue > 0

to get a list of users with a clue.

[Catt]

Hey, wait, we are flamming HIM, NOT me!

:p

Bad form as it may be, it's simple enough to convey the idea.

Select * simply pulls the full record (all fields), without concern of the structure of it.