Planet M.U.L.E.

   The old auction system you could run up the prices and drop off screen. The new system you cant anymore. What do you like better.

With "old auction" I refer to the original Atari/C64 auction regarding speed of time and bidding.

By old I also mean exactly what Piete said, c64 atari style through and through please.

You should be explicit in the poll options, ex:

- c64/atari style
- pm 1.2.8 style
- pm 1.3.0 style

I really don't see the value in counting useless votes separately, so a final option like

- i don't care / I am sick of hearing about it... i am a moonpie

Would suffice wouldn't it?  ;D

PS Please also realize that multiple free accounts can really mess up these kinds of things, take things people say with a grain of salt.

Note: I adjusted the options accordingly and allowed for a revote.

If this is a vote for what we will end up with we need another choice.

The movement speed increase in auctions in this version compared to C64/Atari was actually overall a good change without affecting the game play or tactics of the original C64 version.

It added the feel of quicker movement and average higher commodity prices between players. IE More excitement to the game. Its a lot more satisfying to deny a opponent food, energy or land that is offering $500 then $200 or earn that amount. Human nature I suppose :)   But the supply/demand and ruthless cutthroat game play of the original game was preserved with this change.
I don't see anyone complaining about using this speed change to hike energy or food then backing out.
Only the land which is a double standard and its purely physiological. You can loose the game if you don't get food or energy. You can loose the game if you don't get more land then your opponents.

Boohoo, I wanted it  but he wouldn't let me have it, whine, cry, I hate you, I could of won if you had let me buy that plot!

Savvy players know the value of land (this value can vary greatly between players depending on that player's situation, number of plots, type of plots he owns, early or late auction, etc) but players had the strategic option of blocking or raising the price to keep a plot from being sold.  With the change this option is gone.
Now, the plot that is worth 4k to one player and only worth 2k to the others will get that plot every time for the win.  You may ask how is a plot worth more to different players? Its the production bonuses. If buying a plot allows you to develop 6, 9 or 12 stite or ore then you will produce on average 20 or more units then you would have with 5,8, or 11 plots per round for the rest of the game.

Yet if you fool with the timer or movement speed you will loose this improvement or you will have two completely different feel/speeds between the land auction and the commodity auction which I think is bad.
 
So we need a voting option that preserves this change but leaves us the strategic option of raising the price of land high enough and still back out or down.

I disagree here in the sense that I often unfortunately leave myself at the mercy of my rivals and now have to bid $700+ to get the food/energy from my greedy rival who sells me at the end of time whereas on C64 I could get it for "only" $250...  ;D

In the original game, being in last helped you win every auction... EXCEPT the land auctions.  It was always random who would be considered at the line first for land.  Species had no effect either.

As a result, even if you weren't the current cash king you only had a 1 in 4 shot of winning the property a lot of the time.

Here is where time and step value come in: so long as you had the start price + ~1000 you were a contender.  This meant that plots became generally more expensive as time went on but in a gradual manner that usually shadowed the colony's general wealth.  Prices couldn't jump by anywhere near the amount they can still currently. So now you have a situation where the cash king always wins the first land and sets the price.  Before the cash king usually got the second plot if he was lucky and paid another 1k for it if the competition was heavy.

Sorry for posting this twice but I don't know how Rhodan can say it hasn't affected mechanics... consider this:

1) a player has a need for food
2) a player has food to sell
3) 2 other players want to make player 1 pay the max

On c64
4) Just before time runs out they let player 1 buy for 200 - 400 $

On planetmule
4)  Just before time finally runs out they player 1 buy for 1 - 2k

HOW HASNT THIS MODIFIED GAME MECHANICS???

And for the record what the fuck is all this "free market" shit, remake Mule then go make Mule II - Moonpie Edition for the love of everything good and holy.  :'(

This is for whoever voted/votes they are sick of hearing about it:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf

Take a gander at that and then tell me you honestly prefer real deep issues.

 :P

Hey Blitzen, you can't give us just a link. Adding the opening quote is so much better ;):

“Each individual possesses a conscience which to a greater or lesser degree serves to restrain the unimpeded flow of impulses destructive to others. But when he merges his person into an organizational structure, a new creature replaces autonomous man, unhindered by the limitations of individual morality, freed of humane inhibition, mindful only of the sanctions of authority.” Milgram, S.


And well... here is the conclusion; so as not to mislead you:

Many of these criticisms of the NIST report could fairly be dismissed if subsequent reviews had provided explanations of apparent contradictions and thus had produced a testable hypothesis that coincided with the real-world data. This has not occurred. Despite possession of all the resources available in the $20M study, NIST adheres to an explanation for the collapses which is basically circular and fails at critical points. It is unable to produce forensic evidence for the required high temperatures; the test results contradict its claims; it is internally inconsistent; it ignores many lines of contrary evidence; and it makes no attempt to search for an alternative explanation.

NIST has resisted attempts to have the report corrected, thus publicly implying that the HICT does not need revision. It is therefore clear that further investigation is urgently required and that it must be independent of the bodies involved in the previous studies.

Thanks for reading it!!!

And just to clear the second part up to the innocent 3rd parties - HICT is "heat induced collapse theory" and it is being discussed with respect to the World Trader Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 as it was the basis for the entire official explanation of collapse...

No change to mechanics just a change to the maximum value one can raise prices to.
The mechanic of buying, selling or price hiking is the same. IE You still run up to buy or run until timer expires or seller drops down. In atari version the max amount you could raise price before the timer expired for food or energy was about $175.
So if the store buy price was 215 you could get the price up to near 400 before the timer ran out. This was rarely higher then the player who needed food would pay where as now you can get the price higher then anyone may be willing to pay (1k or higher) to starve someone. But I have seen food sell for this price and the buyer has gone on to win. So mechanics are the same but the frequency of being able to completely starve a player by price hiking has increased.

I agree with Blitzen. A change in the maximum sell price of goods or land changes mechanics because other values have stayed the same. For example: top store prices for goods, price of mules, awards or penalties from player events, gambling, scorecard value of a land plot... While my examples can change, their range is based on assumed (much lower) price caps for goods and land. Some things can be worth much more. So their relative values have changed. Thus, the game mechanics have changed.

the new system is working ok i vote we leave it in.
 changing speed and other rubbish like that will confuse new players and even some of the old ones too lol

lol... The chief reason I hate the new land auction is it confuses me. It makes little sense to me compared to the other auctions. If I'm an "old one" being confused, I don't know how a new player has any reasonable chance to understand it.

This poll is phrased very poorly in my opinion.  Most everyone that posts here grew up playing M.U.L.E. when they were kids.  We all (Including me) have romanticized the original game.  So putting C64/Atari style as a choice it is going to win every time on any issue.  Instead all choices should be what could realistically be done.  

There seems to me to be major issues with trying to get auctions like the original.  And it is going to make the game less fun to play.  25 years ago when we were huddled around around a TV playing this game the auction system wasn't exactly fair but it was fun.  Mainly because you could punch your buddy in the arm because he randomly won the plot you were going for.  For those that don't remember auctions worked like this:  1.auction starts   2. everyone presses up 3. time runs outs 4. some random person wins plot.  Occasionally if land was high priced you would get to do the auction dance (up, down, up, down)  Now Planet Mule has given us the ability to play with our buddies around the world, but that means we all have different pings.  So if you tried to get back to original this is how auction would work: 1. auction starts 2. everyone presses up  3. lowest ping wins land.   And currently dance bidding is considered poor sportmanship because the host is the only one that gets accurate graphical information.  Even if we changed to server based hosting someone is going to have a lower ping than others.  I think everyone can agree that losing because of ping on anything is no fun.  And to be honest that is what this game is about....FUN.  

The recent land auction change has made the game more fun.  I have asked everyone i have played with and almost everybody seems to like it.  Lots of people talk about keeping the game the same as it used to be.  But you know what?  If we don't do everything we can to make this game more fun it will die.  Right now i have been waiting for 90 minutes for a game to start.  We all know playing against AI's is no fun, so I approve of any change that makes the game more fun because it will attract more players.  I find it funny that most of the people that want to have it be just like the old Atari/C64 version are people that don't play (I'm talking to you Blitzen).  The developers have done a fantastic job with this game so far and seem to be still trying to improve it.  Bravo to them!! You can't please everyone and some people are always going to not want change.  But please people at least give them constructive input on realistic stuff they can do to make the game better (more fun).

The only thing I agree with in the above statements is the comment on the poll.

Some might say the above example of how the original auction work is actually the negative aspect of it. This only occurred when the players had more money then the maximum amount you could raise the bid to before the timer ran out and only occurred with the starting bid was low. After a auction or two the starting bid would be much higher allowing players to out bid their opponents before the timer ran out. For better or worse it was programmed so that the first person to reach the minimum bid would flash indicating he would win if no one could out bid him. If everyone reached the bid line first then it would randomly pick who would flash. This implementation wont work here  because of the internet and host advantages. Was this even fair in a game that favors last place and hurts first to maintain game play balance? You wonder why the programmers didn't give tied bids to lowest ranked player to begin with?  Oversight on their part? A carefully considered choice for game play reasons?  I suspect it was done just to add excitement and frustration to the land auction process  under those conditions when no one was able to out bid the other.
The current change doesn't have this and unfortunately there is no way to have this aspect of the original back.



I think those in favor of this horrible land auction change has lost sight on what this version is suppose to be. Classic mule with internet play! Because of the internet and its lag we have to make compromises to preserve game play and balance. We need to return to making this version as much like the original that everyone admits to loving. Lets save the changes that head away from the original to the new planetmule 2 that hopefully everyone will love too.
I have suggested changes that will make it as much like the original as possible and restore the fun and strategic choices the original atari land auction had without giving advantages to the host or lowest ping.

Land auction ends if a plot doesnt sell.  This reduces the repetitive tedium of watching price hiking during those multiple land auctions when it occurs.

Reduce the current $4 bid movement to $3, $2 or $1 increases.   This lowers the maximum amount one can bid before the timer runs out. Just like the original game.  Having the effect of reducing the occurrences of pricing land out of reach of anyone. You will only see it in the later rounds after a few auctions have occurred and the minimum bid price has gone up. You may not see it all if a plot doesn't sell and the min bid price falls by half for the next auction. This will make those moonpies that like the current change to land auction happy!

Lowest rank player wins tied bid.  The compromise from the original. NO WAY around this due to host or lowest ping advantages.

Hey dynadan look at my records for yourself if you like please, because I played planetmule like crazy from the moment I discovered it until I figured out all its inadequacies.

I am currently waiting, as are at least 3 other guys I know, for a better game before I will play it again.

Sorry, byte me if you don't like it but that's the honest to god truth.

I am also betting a lot of vets feel the same way and can't be bothered to try and make some f@@ktard "decision maker" understand it.

But I will say it: pandering to the newbs isn't going to win ya more players or any of the existing ones you haven't been able to keep either.

And by the way, the game has already gone to centralized hosting ya moon pie mofo.  All they need to do now is figure out a better way to do real time multi-player.

I think they can do it easily and so what if some guy gets an extra 250 - 500 ms to get up and down commands in?  I personally can't ever time anything that tightly to the end of the auction cause of that damned ticking clock sound... and as I have said about the beginning of auctions, just assume all buyers are going to be running up right away until told otherwise.

But here is the bonus, if you guys are serious about a version II, you won't be able to avoid this issue forever, so eventually you will have to conquer the latency problem anyway... People have been playing real time games on cheap Nintendo DS systems, head to head, over Internet for like 5 years now.  Internet latency is also eventually going to improve globally from its current dismal state not get worse!

In this day and age to say that this commonly achieved feat is impossible is to simply curse this game into irrelevance, and worse to admit your company isn't capable of actually keeping pace with the current paradigm.

If you can't make your current game logic do it, throw it out and start over would be my business choice if I were at Turborilla.  Oh and, unless you know anything about programming, please don't call my suggestion unrealistic...

I think my suggestion is very viable, creative, and within their budget and ability.

Its worst quality may be that it is beyond the ability of the current platform of the devs: Java.  Aren't there some more court battles to be fought endlessly before MS will let Java run fast on their OS?

Honestly, its a fundamental game requirement now days that games support real time online multiplayer anyway...  :o

      If Planetmule made a exact clone of the 27 year old C64 version of mule then most would complain and want changes! The original mule had many flaws that most seem to have forgotten about. I have the C64 and Atari versions of mule and cant even go back and play them after Planetmule and its because of the gameplay and not just the graffics. Planetmule should just fine tune what they have and leave it alone. You will NEVER make everybody happy. 100 years from now people will still be complaining and requesting changes! At some point you have to just call it good and be done. I for one am just happy to enjoy the MIRACLE of M.U.L.E. played online! We are all imperfect people living in a imperfect world expecting perfection. Shame on us all !!!

Please take the time and enlighten us on what these flaws are in the original Atari/C64 version?

I have yet to see one fact on why you or the 4  others like the new change. I would like to read more then just your feelings on the matter.

I'm with Rhodan here! I remember that when I played Mule a lot on C64 with friends I remember complaining about one or two tiny details that I would change in the game, and they must have been minor flaws since I can't remember them now.

For single player action I still pick up an emulator (lately more Atari than C64, I'm starting to appreciate the Atari home computer more and more, I've read many forums where the discussion about the superiority of one computer is still heated up in 2010! I only owned C64, but regarding that Atari was a product of 1970's it was a marvellous piece of work, C64 came around only years later so it's obvious that it was superior in many areas!)

P.S. I now have 3 games with the new auction, I still don't know what the talk is about since there haven't been any retreats of bids, but in one game I passed the host's (rodz) bid with a small margin during halfway of the auction and stopped, and rodz still got the plot, he said I never passed him on his screen! BUG!

I agree with the two guys above me.

Does the Insert Quote button work in Firefox?

I am having an issue where I click it and it just sits there staring at me.  ???

Rhodan, I appreciate your comments.  You are at least giving it thought and adding something to the discussion.  So please listen to my responses with an open mind.

You have made 2 alternative suggestions to the new change.

1. Land auction ends if plot doesn't sell.

   This indeed fixes the problem of wasting our time as people run up multiple auctions late in the game.  However, It also erases some of the most enjoyable strategic gambling that takes place earlier.  For instance, sometimes players pass up an auction in the hope that there are 2 more auctions right after that and they can win both.  This is a fairly common situation.  And a rewarding gamble when it pays off.  Also sometimes if an auction is going to break you it is worth the gamble to not buy and see if there is another auction that you can buy cheaper and thus actually afford 1 or 2 mules to equip that turn.  Another situation that arises frequently is that a river plot comes up for auction.  River plots are not worth even close to the same amount as the rest of the plots in the game.  This creates problems when the average piece of land is going for 2k-3k and then a river plot comes up.  And one other situation comes early when you have the most money but the 1st land that comes up is in a bad location (corner plot with no stite)  it is often a good move (using the old system) to price everyone out and then still not buy land in hopes that another land will come up that is in a better location for you.

2. Reduce the current bid increment.

Again not such a bad idea at face value.  There are 2 problems i see with doing this.  
1. Your defense to keeping the old system has been that there is strategic value in running up land and then backing out.  lowering the increment would either prevent running it up high enough to do that.  And most importantly would still end up wasting everyone's time as we continually wait for people to run it up all so that it goes unsold and nothing happens.  Now lets say you adjust the increment so that running up and then backing of is no longer effective because the range of run up becomes too small then i think point #2 (below) comes into play.
2. Ok, we have adjusted the bid increment so that the amount you can raise bid is still realistic with what people want to pay for land.  So once everyone has money (3k+) when a land comes up for auction everyone starts pressing up at start of auction.  If we were all playing on the same computer at the same location this would be fine, and we could come up with a solution similar to how the original game worked.  Maybe letting lower placed person win ties or even making it random.  However we are playing over the internet.  This means that if 4 people all press up at the same time relative to them.  They will not be in the same place because it is dependent on what their ping is.  Thus the person with the lowest ping will be the highest bid when the auction ends.  This doesn't even take into account dropped packets and other latency issues that people have commented on being "glitches" with how we see the graphical representation in the bidding process.  There are no "easy" fixes to these issues.  And the people that suggest that there are without citing exactly how you would do such a thing is what is driving me crazy with this whole debate.

The current change may not be the very best system possible.  There are still issues with "auction dancing"  And so far responsibility still rests with the host to make sure that they do not abuse the fact that they can win almost any "auction dance" situation and so they must avoid getting into those situations.  But that is the same as it was with the last land auction method as well.

Well put Dan....

@dynadan

You know bud, you haven't been reading my posts if you don't think I have added anything to the discussion.  And I don't think the name calling I have done compares to your calling me a Troll and dismissing everything I have said but I am beyond caring what you think.

And for a guy with 11 posts you have a lot of nerve.  Click my name and then actually read my posts please.

I stand by what I said you really are a griefer by your stats and a fine example of the kind of guy they should NOT be listening too.  By your own admission you love the current game and play it all the time... is that because you love taking advantage of all the bugs?

Hows that for a contribution?

PS To anyone who was deeply hurt for being called a Moonpie I sincerely don't apologize. I was only acting like a 5 year old to blow off steam, but if you were actually hurt you really are a Moonpie... a poopy head too.

@Blitzen (and others):
Please check if your posts contribute anything to the topic...?
If not, make use of the Personal Message button, to keep the discussion from purely personal speculation or name calling. Thanks.

@ data2008, since dynadan is calling me out in public I feel its only right to meet the charges in public and sling a little more back at him.

Obviously I haven't played in months and it looks more and more like I won't ever feel the need to.  If you don't want me around, and can't handle my lovable quirks and notions of right and wrong - ban me.  Save me from caring any further by all means.  :o

For once I agree with Blitzen.  Please help save him. :)

I knew that if I just talked sense long enough even you would see the light.   :D

No it doesn't erase that strategic gambling of acquiring 2 plots. It moves the decision from passing up a plot in hopes it will sell a 2nd or 3rd half off(which is rare) to deciding not to horde commodities for a higher price so you will have enough money to buy two or three plots at the price set by players demand for land in the preceding auction. Its wrong for one player to devalue land for personal gain that was set by all the players demand in the preceding auction. Its not like the original. It doesn't relate to how economics works in the real world.

Why do you and the other few want to devalue land so much in the game? So you can acquire it cheaper to be able to win more often?  Because you cant stand to be denied your candy by mommy?

Lets change this back to the original or as close as we can get it.
Land is the most valuable commodity in the game yet you want changes that allows players to get it cheaper then the actual value.

This is play balance issue too. Usually its the Leader(player in 1st) that has the most money or commodities to sell and possible command of the land auction if there is one.  Your way allows this player to get more land even cheaper maintaining his lead by passing up land to grab the next 2 at half off.  In the original this player had to pay more for that land making it harder to keep or regain the lead from his opponents that gambled there would be no land auction.


I don't feel running up the price of a plot is waste of time unless its done twice in the same auction.

Once again there is absolutely no difference between a player running up the price of energy or food from running up the price of land. Yet its okay to do it to food and energy but not land.

Don't try the argument there is a seller, that doesn't change the mechanic(strategic option) one iota. All that means is two players just colluded to deny you food, energy or land so you should  be more pissed then if it was only one player that denied you something.


I disagree with you on river plots, I have won games by buying river plots late in the game for 2k or more. They would be even more valuable if they would fix the food and energy pricing especially last round food.


Wrong it will reduce the frequency that this tactic is usable. But it will still be there as a choice when its needed.  In games were the players have made a lot of money(usually early on ore) and a few more auctions then usual have occurred(raising the starting bid of land higher)

And it will be higher because we took care of that in point one by keeping the value of land higher by having the auction end when a plot doesnt sell!

Players will have a shot at 12 plots.  Land is very valuable to these 12 plots guys. Twice the value then it is to a player that cant get 12.  We need to keep a strategic option to block a player from land  when it becomes so much more valuable to one player then another thereby restoring game play balance.


There is a fix to this. After the auction has ended there is code that calculates every ones last received bid when their timer ended.   If bids are equal the game awards the plot to the lowest rank player. We loose the random selection of whoever reached the minimum bid line that was in the original. But we gain play balance by the land going to the player that possibly needed it the most or at least strategically put himself in that position.  This doesnt solve the graphical misrepresentation of who is in the lead due to lag which is a major problem but it will correctly award the plot to the winner.


[/quote]

Atari bugs:
crystite price should be 50-150 as in documentation - lack of memory, rounding error.
bots - basic idiots - limited memory.
final results - some players considered jacking up tite price for a great colony total on rd 12 a legitimate move but is illegal and defaults the game - do totals at beginning of rd 12 after production.
Collusion - never worked except to cheat
first port preference - if 2 people hit button same time for a plot, person plugged into port 0 could win even when other player was behind in the current rankings.

Auctions:
Lag issues changes everything so a good compromise is needed that keeps the original game flavor.
Plot comes up for auction, cowbell, and 4 people run up to line, person in last has it and flashes to show it.
Add 732 to price and you know WHILE running what top price will be and that helps you decide if you can afford paying top price.  If all 4 have enough cash, person in last will STOP when start price +732 is reached.  As long as that player keeps pushing up, they can hold and keep the plot till end of auction and get that plot.  If no one buys a plot, land auction ends.

So strategy is very different in Atari version compared to PM.  If you had a lot of cash and were in last, getting 2 plots was pretty easy to a point.  The price of auction plots went up at a relatively steady pace.

My 2 cents:
We don't want PM to copy the original game exactly but to make it close as possible, fix bugs, and perhaps add a little for a more fun game.
Having 4 tite plots avail. instead of 3 is a good example of this.  Multiple land auctions with no fixed limit is a major difference. Running up the price 4 times faster with no limit is majorly different than original game.

I like how the auctions work now. Works better than the way it was when a person could run the price up out of reach to take advantage of a bug.  It isn't perfect but with the extra cash that flows in this game, it makes sense.  On Atari, reaching 100k was not always easy. Making a 130k colony was almost impossible.

So it gets down to the question once again of Do we want the original as close as possible?
I want better bot ai, more fun added, with plenty of variety.  So fix the bots, lower the increment on auctions to 2 or 1 at a time.

Oh yeah, and find us or make us a good group audio chat so I can hear you scream when I take your precious plot.

When you say 4 crystite is better than 3, I disagree MuleyMan.  I pointed out in another thread maybe that this creates a potential for everyone to be equal in crystite, thereby making it all about smithore.

Whereas with less plots in the original game, and less highs it was far more likely someone would have better crystite and be trying very hard to crash smithore and keep it crashed. Crystite was much more important in the originals.

Also, last place had nothing to do with who got the plot on c64 anyway, it was random.  I heard they didn't have random maps in the Atari version either, maybe the random generator code wouldn't fit or maybe they realized that it was overpowered to always give land auctions to last.

Interesting to hear about first port preference as someone just pointed out that they thought the "spacebar" on the c64 had a preference to the other keys.  I have to say that I never realized it was going on and certainly never got beat more or less than anyone else, the odds of two people hitting the button at the exact same time must be incredibly small.  Do you have any informative links please?