The V.1.3.0 Land Auction Change made me think more critically

[C64 nostalgia]

Has anyone looked at the "what's still missing from the original" thread lately?
http://www.planetmule.com/forum?topic=746.0

The land auction debacle has made me think a lot about the original C64 M.U.L.E. The more Planet MULE's version deviates from the original, the more new "problems" seem to pop up. M.U.L.E. is classic for a reason. The core gameplay is extremely well-balanced. The gameplay should be paramount in a recreation. Getting that right means success.

The greatest improvement Planet MULE has brought is internet-based multiplayer action. But, this change is authentic to the original. The lack of human opponents is the biggest reason why playing M.U.L.E. with an emulator disappoints. Bringing people back to a MULE game earned my love for Blue Systems and Turborilla. (Thank you, again.)

However, Planet MULE's deviations (or as some call them, improvements) from the original are often creating more problems instead of "fixing" something. Please leave the original M.U.L.E. game mechanics as they were.

If you want to make changes, please put them in your new version. Doing your first MULE this way ensures a classic will live on in its glory (Yeah, a bit cheesy, sorry).

[Mt-Wampus]

Quit complaining about everything people! If i was in charge of the site i would just get tired of the crybabies and shut it down! let everybody go crawling back to there C64 and atari emulators and see how they like it!

[rodz]

personally i think the land auction change is the best thing since sliced bread.
you certainly have to be more strategic when bidding and thats not a bad thing surely as that is what this game is all about. sure it will take some time to adjust to but its a great improvement on the old version. well done guys, i for one am enjoying it more now

[Rhodan]

I disagree with rodz, it doesnt make it more strategic it removes strategic options and deviates from the original.

C64 is correct with his comments

The more I play, the more people are complaining about the timer... in general, it's become erratic -- way more than lag can account for.

In the original: Everyone moved much more slowly in auctions. Land auctions ended after a no sale. Land auctions could start in round one. The highest bidder blinks during the whole auction.

All of these, save the first, are a good idea. The first could be a good idea (I'm not sure.).

I have seen almost universal support for a way to make it hard to back out of an auction, but the current implementation is horrible. The elegant auction depiction has become mostly meaningless. The player not moving up and down in a consistent manner breaks the auction model that the rest of the auctions use (Plus, we can still out price goods and back out, which I still think is a great tool.). The "fix" has become counterintuitive, which makes the land auction much harder to understand especially for new players.

So again, speed up the timer, slow down the players, and/or increase the number range between the top price and the low price. These choices would ensure the graphical depiction is meaningful.

[Also, for auctions where no one has enough money to bid, skip them -- show something like "no money, no sale." This would be a logical way to save time.]

Well said C64. Finally someone that knows the original and knows what makes this version so good is that it is nearly same in game play and mechanics as the original.

To fix this I suggest changing the numerical increase, when running up, from $4 to $2 and don't change the timer nor the speed of the players movement. By reducing the value in half it reduces the maximum amount one can raise the sell price before the timer runs out and this  will bring it more inline with the original. If memory serves me right you could increase the price of land about 1k in the atari version before the timer ran out compared to over 3k in this version. This change would restore the bidding war and strategy of driving up the price of a plot for your opponent when you didn't want it. Remember last place wins tie breaker if bids are equal, auction ends if a plot doesn't sell.

[Death_Mule17]

To fix this I suggest changing the numerical increase, when running up, from $4 to $2 and don't change the timer nor the speed of the players movement. By reducing the value in half it reduces the maximum amount one can raise the sell price before the timer runs out and this  will bring it more inline with the original. If memory serves me right you could increase the price of land about 1k in the atari version before the timer ran out compared to over 3k in this version. This change would restore the bidding war and strategy of driving up the price of a plot for your opponent when you didn't want it. Remember last place wins tie breaker if bids are equal, auction ends if a plot doesn't sell.

Perfect, this sounds about right and alot easier then changing speed, pricing, and timer. Out of all the ideas ive read this one seems to be the best yet.

ps.add the blinking player in the lead too.

[rodz]

im sorry rhodan but i cannot see any strategy in just running up the price of land beyond what its worth to stop your opponent from buying. the strategy is to know when to stop raising price where you have to buy and he/she wont. the new system does this and ensures late land auctions are not meaningless.

keep up the good work team, no system is perfect but your getting close lol

[Rhodan]

im sorry rhodan but i cannot see any strategy in just running up the price of land beyond what its worth to stop your opponent from buying. the strategy is to know when to stop raising price where you have to buy and he/she wont. the new system does this and ensures late land auctions are not meaningless.

keep up the good work team, no system is perfect but your getting close lol

Maybe if I describe the scenarios you will see it.

Scenario 1  Late rounds:
Through luck or skill you have acquired 10 or 11 plots of land. Its the last land auction before the next round when all plots will get taken or it could be the auction thats selling the very last plot.
Before the auction change if by chance or skill you left yourself with enough money you could prevent this player from buying. Thereby acquiring most often 2 plots for the price one. He drops out of 1st, 2nd or 3rd to last and gets a free plot next round when there is 3 or fewer plots left. The game calculates plot worth at 500 so this scenario subtracts 1k from the price you just paid for that plot. Giving him the chance to develop 12 of any one commodity giving him the ability to easily out produce his opponents by 20 units or more. 20 units x 148 stite price for example and now you see why this plot is worth 4k plus to this player but its not even worth half that to a player that cant get 12plots . This is the no win scenario with this land auction change. Where as before the change you had a strategic option to stop this.
I have won a because of this change and lost. Both was very unsatisfying games.
 

Scenario 2 Mid rounds:
You have forsaken buying land to hoard ore and hit 230. Now you have more money then your opponents but possibly less land during the next land sell. You cant hit 12 so that land is worth more to your opponents. Before the change you could price block and deny your opponents land and the ability to out produce you with 12 plots in the later rounds   

Scenario 3

Will be continued at later date

[Mt-Wampus]

  Im sure Rodz is aware of all the possible scenarios for himself. Rhodan i dont understand your crusade to get everybody to side with you? Let the vote speak for itself. This panic to influence others and get your way is getting old!

[data2008]

Hello all there,
First let me say, this is a very good discussion and we are following it closely and listen to all sides.

My 2 cents:

The original probably underestimated land value grossly...
An indicator might be that a plot is valued 500, where the original manual states the developers estimating a plot much higher themselves at the start of the game and thought it looses value at the end of the game due to less remaining rounds.
Gut feeling is, that plots are the most valuable resource much like street plots in monopoly.
Most of the time, plots decide or influence the game quite heavily, thats why losing a plot early on due to a bad event is also debated here much.

So one question we ask ourself: was the original right to slow down land auction so much that a plot wouldnt sell much more than X, even if players would pay 4 or 5 times X for a plot of land because its really much more valuable? Or was that just an artifical limit or barrier?

Isn't a really free market for plots better now that it becomes clear that plots are in fact a major part of the game? If we would change back to the original mode, on one side a slower timer would make it harder to back out and at the same time artificially puts a limit max to the highest bid possible... what would that add to game strategy, assuming you are the player with most money and at least 1 more player with enough money to raise to the artificially X max amount in a slower or shorter auction time would battle for that plot? Explaining that would really help understanding the differences, so thanks for anyone analyizing this further...

[Blitzen]

Our problem with land auctions is deeply related to many other issues in the current game which all stem from the same mistake.  Because we have a modified step value for cash, total time to move, movement rate, etc... (even the dropping of Mules onto the house makes a big difference in mechanics).  But I digress, there are also suttle things which may differ beyond that...

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.

I have read A LOT of posts about people who are obvisouly new to Mule bitching about people bidding plots out of reach and then backing out.  This is the best cut-throat part of the original game and it should not be destroyed.  The real problem was how easy it was in 1.2.8.  This fugly tactic dominated the old 1.2.8 version and only EXISTED in rounds prior to 9 or 10 because of the changes to timing and step value.  It is truely rare for a plot to be too expensive on the c64 version.

In Mule it happens, guys block other guys, just never as often like it used to be in ver. 1.2.8!

And like Rhodan has said, there are negative consequences to blocking: instilling in an opponent a deep desire for revenge for one thing... karma IS a biatch.

When we "vets" of atari/c64 Mule ask for the original, we also point out certain obvious problems and a solution but we can't always point them all out perfectly.  Eventually if this project moves towards the original mechanics I think those can be worked out rather simply.  But continuing to move away from the original only complicates the entire project.

And rest assured the original tournament game was fun, it did have a learning curve, all great games do. But it provided by its complexities a variety of opportunities for competition and hence stimulation and challenge.  Pro players literally wipe the floor with one another from time to time and they do it by being merciless.  Although you don't want to kill the colony, it is in your best interest to hold other players down whenever possible.  It is also in your best interest to avoid letting anyone have the opportunity to hold you down ever.  All that being said most games aren't decided until very late when we play 4 player c64, with one guy usually completely out of it.

From the desire to be in 3rd or 4th most of the game, to letting go of all the Mules and praying for fires, land auction blocking is a big fun PART of Mule.  You just need to tame down its implimentation.

PS Too many crystite plots is also hurting the competition for plots and the need to assay and understand the crystite distribution.  If its too easy to switch plots around the decision to max out on smithore or crystite can be delayed an extra round.  If its too easy to let go of mules, smithore can become even more dominant as well in the later game.  The fact that four players can all have good crystite and only 2 or 3  will have great smithmore destroys the imbalance that existed to stimulate the production of crystite and the general desire to crash smithore by the competition.

[Rhodan]

  Im sure Rodz is aware of all the possible scenarios for himself. Rhodan i dont understand your crusade to get everybody to side with you? Let the vote speak for itself. This panic to influence others and get your way is getting old!

I am actually expressing ideas, facts and examples of how this change affects the game and offering solutions to the problem.  But, you on the other hand, can only offer your moonpie feelings of why you like this change.

The following chat log is a interesting read on this land auction fiasco.

http://www.planetmule.com/hi-score-game/game?game_id=30925

[Rhodan]

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.

I am pretty darn sure if the timer ran out with equal bids the lower ranked player won the auction.
Guess I will whip out the emulator and test it.

I finally broke out the atari emulator and tested the original mule.
The first player to the auction line would flash. As long as you were flashing you would win the the bid even if tied. Also the bottom starting bid would rise as the price went up allowing a player to back out of a bid. I am still testing to see how the programming picked who would flash if all 4 players reach the bid line first.  Regardless, this method wouldn't work in planetmule's  version due to internet lag. So I still suggest last player wins ties when that situation arises.

[piete]

Isn't a really free market for plots better now that it becomes clear that plots are in fact a major part of the game? If we would change back to the original mode, on one side a slower timer would make it harder to back out and at the same time artificially puts a limit max to the highest bid possible... what would that add to game strategy, assuming you are the player with most money and at least 1 more player with enough money to raise to the artificially X max amount in a slower or shorter auction time would battle for that plot? Explaining that would really help understanding the differences, so thanks for anyone analyizing this further...

This is an interesting and very valid point. I can't really comment the auction renewal after having played only 2 games though. However, I'm a dinosaur who would like to have gameplay 100% equal to the original (I have to admit that though I grew up with the C64 version I have started to like the Atari version more with the exception of limited maps).

I still enjoy this game, thanks to the developers for that but having the chance to have the original's gameplay I think I would even pay for it...

I don't remember if it was the open or playtester forums where I suggested Mule 1.5 that would also be close to the original but without the limits of those days' computers, e.g. simultaneous development to speed up the game. More on that on another thread...

[Keybounce]

A system that does not permit someone to adequately express their value of an item -- such as a land plot -- is not fair. That's not a good game mechanic.

You cannot run someone off the screen for any other good, other than land -- the seller can step in, and force the price to stay in range of the lower cash person. The only thing that the game enforces is a range -- if you sold to rich guy at X, you can only sell to normal guy at X-n.

Land is different. It's the only place in the old game where it was rare to be able to say what you thought it was worth, and normally "who was fastest to press their joystick up" got it. It's the only place in the recent game where someone could say "I'll price you out of the market and prevent it from selling".

Change the screen range from about $500 to about $10,000 -- make it go from $4 per move to about $100 per move -- and you solve the issue without changing the underlying mechanic. And when you look at that, you also see how stupid the argument of the "Let me deny! let me deny!" crowd really is. It's nothing more than "This was only possible because of the screen size and scale factor".

Letting people express their value of something is good. The new version does that.
Preventing shutouts is good. The new version does that.

Is the change in mechanic a good thing? It's not the only way to do it, but it's the only way to do it and keep the fine grain scale of the price adjustments.

Maybe a better solution is a corse-gain price adjustment. Maybe $25 or $50 per tick.

Forcing the leader to pay to keep getting plots is a good thing -- it forces them to give up the lead.
The whole "I'm in the lead, and I'll keep you from catching up" stank.

Let me buy my way up to 12 mining plots. The board averages 11 plots per person; 10 mining and a river. If I can buy up to 12, then I've done something right. Saying "No auctions, I'll slow the colony development because i've got money and I'm not using it" was just bad.

[C64 nostalgia]

First, let me reiterate: The current implementation of making it harder to "run up and back out" of a land auction is horrible. Consistency should exist among all the auctions. If you tinker with one, you apply the changes to all others. Having consistent behavior is one of the key aspects of designing a good user interface, be it a video game or an operating system. As it is now, the land auction (and only the land auction), sometimes (but not always) has a line at the bottom where we are given no graphical feedback, as in, your bid is changing but your character isn't moving up or down on the screen anymore. This is the part that really makes me HATE the new land auction.

Second: I don't think changing the rate at which we can move the price is inherently a bad thing. In the C64 version of M.U.L.E., price change is much slower. However, as both Rhodan and Keybounce suggest, the scale should be changed. The former suggests smaller ticks, the latter bigger. I now believe this is the best solution, but it has to apply to all auctions.

Third: I can fairly easily inflate the price of goods. Players are greedy as both buyers and sellers. So, I can first bid out the store -- make it disappear and eliminate sellers from a guaranteed buyer. Then I can make a unit of food go for hundreds of dollars. The counter argument to this has been, we always have a seller that can freely choose to sell. If that were true, you would never see a seller hit the bottom bid line with goods to sell that no one wants and/or can buy (not even the store). Land auctions and goods auctions are way more similar than most want to admit.

Fourth: In a truly free market, absolutely no limits would exist for the price of anything. Nothing is too cheap nor too expensive. So, this whole idea of limiting the bounds of the market to accurately price something is erroneous. I may really want to buy an island and call it Planet MULE, but I probably can't afford it. Just because we want something or think we're entitled to it doesn't mean we can or should have it.




[edit: minor revisions]