Printable View
Hello SEQ Devs,
I run multiple EQ sessions (via wine) and SEQ on the same PC. When multiple toons zone at the same time, SEQ picks a random session to follow regardless whelther session tracking is checked in the network settings. Is there any solution to this, or is it not feasible to discern one session from another when a group zones at once?
Thanks!!
Session tracking will help with SEQ losing the session due to other traffic mid-play, but from SEQ's perspective, you're getting a new session every time you zone. So if you zone a bunch characters at once, it's unfortunately going to be a free-for-all.
I have an idea that should fix this, but it's part of larger architectural changes so it's a long way off. Maybe SEQ7. More likely 8.
In the mean time, I think the most straightforward workaround is to make sure SEQ is locked onto the session you want, and zone that character first and wait for SEQ to lock onto the session in the new zone. Then zone the other characters. Assuming session tracking is working properly, it should stay locked to the first character even when the other characters zone. The key is to make sure the main session is locked before the others zone.
I know that's not ideal, but short of maybe doing some networking magic on your host (virtual interfaces, routes, netfilter rules) that would limit which EQ instances SEQ sees traffic from, I'm not sure there are any other solutions at the moment.
Thanks. I haven't missed anything then.
Is there an auth token that exists from login to logout that could be tracked? The server needs to know who is who.
Thank you for all your work keeping SEQ alive.
There is an auth token, but I haven't really poked at that part of the protocol yet, so unfortunately I don't know the details.
What I'd really like to do is modify SEQ to be able to track multiple sessions at once and let you display data from multiple different sessions simultaneously. (Especially useful if you have characters in different zones, say during recovery after a raid wipe). But that's going to require MAJOR changes to how SEQ works internally. And I have no idea if it would be worth it, or if it's too niche of a use case. But I think doing that would also solve your problem.