• Hail, we're RedGuides. We want you to play six (yes, 6!) EverQuest characters at once. We have scripts and a friendly community to help, please join our playstyle and say hello! 👋
  • We've added LLM sections to our Terms & Rules and Resource Rules, for everyone's sanity & in-game safety.
    Read more
    a. Do not replace your voice with an LLM. This goes for your posts and your scripts. Drafting and editing with a tool is fine, but don't take you out of what you share.
    b. Do not replace your EQ character's voice with an LLM. We don't want scripts that speak over /ooc, /shout or other public channels. This has been an unwritten rule that's kept casino scripts off the site for decades, but we're now compelled to make it clear: keep automated communication private.

    Why Does RG Review Scripts?
    Nearly every LLM-written Lua script we see is making your character do impossible things, and rarely in a way that's beneficial to you. We've seen heavy server hammering, /target over impossible distances when /nav spawn would passively accomplish the same thing, a spawn search that fires 20+ times per second, and other pointless actions that are likely annoying GMs.

    You are welcome to use LLMs as a tool to structure, draft, and edit your work, but please read critically before hitting /lua run

Question - EQBC or Dannet?

I've been using EQBC from the start but I've recently seen (noticed) some useful things that are Dannet specific. Is there a reason or particular benefit to running one rather than the other?

Thanks.

~S
 
Solution
Dannet has been the default for a while now.

Many scripts are going to want dannet to get information from other toons.

Dannet or actors innately has stuff that eqbc doesn't, but eqbc has traditionally little easier to do some things.

I personally use both.

If you don't have a preference I suggest using dannet
Dannet has been the default for a while now.

Many scripts are going to want dannet to get information from other toons.

Dannet or actors innately has stuff that eqbc doesn't, but eqbc has traditionally little easier to do some things.

I personally use both.

If you don't have a preference I suggest using dannet
 
Solution
My only preference is to be able to use as many useful scripts and macro's as possible. If that means dannet then that's fine. But you said some things are easier with dannet; is that easier for users or developers?
I'm a CWTN/Sic and RGMercs user. Outside of that I'd like to use the auto-mission scripts and anything else that makes things simpler.
 
My only preference is to be able to use as many useful scripts and macro's as possible. If that means dannet then that's fine. But you said some things are easier with dannet; is that easier for users or developers?
I'm a CWTN/Sic and RGMercs user. Outside of that I'd like to use the auto-mission scripts and anything else that makes things simpler.
Many of those things use dannet (which is a reason dannet is the default), plus mostly outside automatically loaded and usable without having to run a server and setup a bunch of stuff
 
There's also MQRemote which uses the actors subsystem Sic mentioned. Its pretty new so I don't think any public automation is currently using it but I could be wrong. This is an aside - not a suggestion or recommendation.

For simplicity, in October of 2026, chances are your life will be easiest and most anything you want to use, will use and work with Dannet.
 
I use both just because I'm too lazy to change out my original hotkeys. I will if forced to do so I suppose, or could just change aliases, but I'm waiting for the next big thing before I put any effort into it. Works just fine running both side by side.
 
As the title says:

How to ditch that rubbish EQBC and get with the times with the sexy MQ2DanNet​

 
I didn't think about all the hotkeys I have that are EQBC specific. Oy.

I only run on 1 computer and it seems to have enough horsepower to handle all of it plus the other stuff I do in conjunction, so I'm not worried about any additional load a server service places. For it (was) just about being able to use things like mission automation though now it's also about the re-working of hotkeys.
Probably not a big deal, I'll be reading red's article post, just always something else to consider I guess.

Thanks everyone.
 
I have noticed when I use a VPN EQBC doesn't care,. but it can bork dannet.

I don't normally use a VPN often (more for avoiding regional restriction than security) but when I do forget to turn it off before EQing, none of the group window buttons will work, and dannet doesn't see other clients. (yes I know many VPN have options to allow non restricted LAN, mostly for the premium versions.)

Just adding this observation to the thread incase someone is trouble shooting later.
 
I use EQBC because it just works, every time, always.
I also box on separate PC's, which most people don't do.

Dannet can be difficult to set up and get working as I have 2 PC's that refuse to communicate/see the other PC's on Dannet, after over a week of troubleshooting and not playing I gave up on it

Dannet does have superior functionality, no question.

So if you box on 1 PC, Dannet is the way, if you use multiple PC's like me, try Dannet, if it works, great, if not, EQBC is for you.
 
for you multicomputer users that also use a vpn

/multiline ; /dnet interface "2" ; /plugin mq2dannet unload ; /timed 10 /plugin mq2dannet load ; /timed 20 /dnet interface

replace the "2" with whatever the ethernet device is when you do /dnet info

unfortunately this is session dependant as far as i can tell so its a big PITA but it does make it work... If anyone knows how to force dnet to save a interface choice that persists across sessions im all ears
 
I use both and recommend having both available. You can use EQBC to reload/reconstitute dnet and vice versa if you have connection issues. Also if you travel and need to use a remote pc to run some portion of your toons, EQBC is the only option that works over ip.
 
I used EQBC for years and finally had to navigate to Dannet because EQBC is not very friendly when you are using 40 or more accounts. The connection times got bad and wouldn't connect to some toons. Since I started using Dannet, I have not had the problems like I did with EQBC. Having to change all my hotkeys was a pain but worth the time.
 
Started with eqbc, switched to Dannet a few years ago. Ran both for a while, while getting hotkeys and such swapped over, once those were all done, stopped running EQBC. Dannet makes it a whole lot easier to control different groups of toons, such as priests, casters, melee, and tanks with the built in channels. I'm running 12 accounts across 4 computers, and it works just fine. The only thing that you can do with EQBC that Dannet can't do is span networks - something which really probably won't be an issue for most people.
 
I used EQBC for years and finally had to navigate to Dannet because EQBC is not very friendly when you are using 40 or more accounts. The connection times got bad and wouldn't connect to some toons. Since I started using Dannet, I have not had the problems like I did with EQBC. Having to change all my hotkeys was a pain but worth the time.
There was a problem for a while with EQBC server slowing way down if it didn't have process priority set high enough and you had a lot of EQ instances competing with it. I believe Knightly fixed that a while back. It has been a long time since i've seen any slowness out of it.
 
I used EQBC for many years and ported EQBCS to an ARM Linux box that allowed a buddy to connect so when we grouped we could remotely control each other’s characters. It was a fun project (porting EQBCS) to run on Linux and cool to use until my buddy quit, So, I migrated to DanNet and never looked back.

If someone wanted to compile/run EQBCS on a Linux server, I posted my porting notes on the macroquest2.com forums back in the day.
 
Question - EQBC or Dannet?

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
Cart