1.3.1 auction feedback

[data2008]

@Blitzen: I'll just leave it like that with your opinion about me and what you think we do.   

[GambitTime]

I have waited 25 years to play MULE again and I don't get all the hate for the people who put it together.
Of course the land auction isn't perfect.... so what?

It is still better than it was and I have never lost a game I felt was due because someone was able to cheat me during an auction.  I do like players not being able to just run up the bid of an auction and then back out and not buy it. 

[dynadan]

I would like to see the true original version out there also.  Not because I would actually play it, but so that people could play and compare the 2 versions side by side.  Planet Mule is already much better than the original in my opinion. 

We have all played this game endlessly in our youth, and all of our memories change with time.  The feel of Planet Mule is always going to be slightly different because we are not all sitting next to our friends competing.  Instead of trying to recreate the feelings we got from playing mule as children ( an impossible task) instead i feel like we should try to make M.U.L.E. the best game it can be.  I am not suggesting revamping the whole game (that should wait for Mule 2) but we should at least try to build on Mule's strengths and make it the best game possible.

The core question to me is what made M.U.L.E. such a great game?  This is a fairly complex question but i think i have narrowed it down to a few key components.

1. It was the precursor to the Real Time Strategy genre.  To me this is one of the main reasons MULE found such a following.  Many like minded people who up until MULE was released had spent their time playing board games finally had a reason to compete in the realm of video games.  This genre spread from MULE to games like Civilization. Command and Conquer, and eventually StarCraft.

2.  While MULE didn't invent the economic genre of video games, it was the first game to get it right.  To me the true magic of MULE is watching the free market work in the form of the different auctions.  When you think that the genre up until MULE existed of Lemonade Stand, it is no surprise that MULE became so popular.  This is the strength i saw in the 1.3.0 land auction method. (it gave the market enough time to accurately price the land)

3.  The invention of computer assistance.  People have described this in a lot of different posts (mostly calling it game "balance").  Essentially punishing the people in the lead and helping the people who are behind.  The majority of games use forms of this today.  But for 1983 this idea was revolutionary.  Many people think that the balance happened because of extensive game testing, but i think these are the mistakes that Dan was referring to that he wanted to fix.  The idea is to make the computer assistance balance a game out, so that if someone gets too far ahead or behind the game can even things back up.  However the game unfairly wields these powers and disrupts the luck/skill balance at times.  (losing plot on 2nd turn comes to mind)

Having created 3 unique video game concepts it is no wonder that M.U.L.E. became so popular and that we are still discussing and playing it today.  I love skill/luck mix games that allow for unlimited replayability because of incomplete information (stite formation) to me this is what makes a good game.

@Blitzen I believe you are totally wrong on the timer moving slower when more people are moving up.  And instead of issuing homework from the programmers to test out your memory.  why not test it yourself?

@GambitTime  I agree 100% with your post.  All the random hate thrown at the developers is what made me call out Blitzen to begin with.  We all agreed that there was a problem with the run up system (except Rhodan) which is why the 1.3.0 land auction was created.  To me the lag during auctions has never been a major issue. As I have maintained all along you can always defend against it by not hanging out near an opponents bid.  I still don't think there is anyway to get rid of the lag all the way, there is always going to be some delay when playing over the internet.

@C64 Nostalgia and any other "purists"
   I have enjoyed your posts C64 Nos, and I respect that you have a different viewpoint from mine.  Maybe one of the links Blitzen supplied will lead you to something closer to the original.  But I am glad that I don't have to play on the original graphics, the retarded ai's, and crappy sound effects.  Plus even if it was identical it would not play the same due to the latency issues inherent to the internet.  For MULE to live on we need to have a player base ready and willing to play all the time.  Planet Mule has been relatively successful, but i did have to wait 4 and a half hours to start a game last night.  It seems like a no-brainer that we should be trying to make the game better than the original.  If the original was really that good why aren't people still making money off it.  I know this probably hasn't changed your mind, but there are already emulators that give you the original, so invite some friends over and start MULEing.

@data2008
    Great job again on all the work you've put into this game.  I still believe that once you fix the land selection process (Awarding plots based lowest position to highest position as long as the button was pressed in the pre-selection phase)  it will fix 98% of all issues regarding lag and host advantage.  The small issue of graphical lag in the land auction had very little affect on game play, and as i have mentioned any advantage actually gained could easily be countered.  I know you are trying to please as many as possible, but almost everyone hates the 1.3.1 change and it is pretty close to the original (original would have a timer equivalent of about 12 seconds instead of the 19. And everyone says 19 is way too short.)  Likewise, running up the value of land and then backing off was never a strategy in the original game. (original only let you run it up by about $600 and still back off without buying)  So while i respect Rhodan as a player, I don't understand his crusade to keep this in the game.  Also please continue to have auctions if a plot goes unsold (this was only suggested as a fix if you were going to keep running up plot price in the game)  This would have been the easiest and simplest change to fix the run up problem, but with the 1.3.0 change it is unnecessary, and it removes some of the most fun gambits from the game

[Rhodan]

Your facts about the originals are wrong.
I played both the the atari and C64 originals when they first came out and I have played them in the last 2 weeks via emulator to compare them to the pm and its changes. 
Everything I have posted is fact and could happen in the originals and should happen in PM with the needed adjustments due to the internet.
I don't understand your crusade to take this version away from the original when all the changes you so desire is being work on for PM2.

[Rhodan]

I played the C-64 version with focus on land auctions, and here is my in detail analysis:

- The land auction has a $4-step value.
- The auction timer slows down while players move, but since everybody naturally moves from start to finish, it equals a slow timer running at constant speed for exactly 28 seconds max.
- During that 28 seconds, one can raise the price exactly from $160-$940 (first auction), meaning a maximum increase for each auction of $780.

These are the basic values of the original C-64 auction.

So now we have two conflicting messages regarding current auction:

We would like to keep the timer constant, as if we make it variable to slow and speed up again, it is one more component that introduces more unreliability or out of sync issues with regards to lag, as the counter then varies also for each player and tends to get faster out of sync.

Thats the reason we would prefer to have the land auction as a constant timer.

I wouldn't argue to make all auctions consistent, as land auction is already somewhat a bit different, as there is no seller or interaction for players, but a strict competetion for top price.

The faster running timer in the original can be related to ONLY speed up gameplay if no one would like to buy or sell something, so players dont get bored with enduring a full timer when nothing happens, it otherwise does not have any other direct functionality.

So if we assume in land auction, we can safely give it the full timer, as each player is likely to bid and run within his possibilities anyway, then we could not copy but simulate the original, where when everybody moved the timer was running constantly slow about 28 seconds, so it would make it possible to maximize the price.

Now for Rhodans idea, to at the same time reduce the step value to $3 or even $2 would negate the effect of a longer timer, so that does not make much sense...

So the question really bogs down to the max. price of a land auction:
Is there a strategical value of limiting the auction price by any method?

As far as I can see, a limit only introduces randomness in who gets a plot if all players are within the range to afford it and plot price value stays much more constant as opposed to a much more volatile market.

This should be debated, as its mainly finetuning the auction to the right values of timer, step value and movement speed, and it all results in the maximum limit or price cap with all its (after-)effects.

My idea is centered around compromise, keeping the playability and mechanics of the original with the speed of movement and price increases of PM1. You want to keep the longer timer because it gives that sense of play ,feel, direct competition with your opponents,  the playability of the game.  With a shorter timer you loose this. As another player so aptly put it, the excitement of the original land auction is gone in PM1.  Maintaining the timer length and excitement of higher bids but curbing the number of times this excitement abruptly ends with price blocking is the key.

So my idea doesn't negate the timer, you are still playing for 28 seconds against your opponent, which gives you time to think about the price you are willing to pay, the risk of making your opponent pay to much, getting stuck with a plot you paid to much for, etc. You are simply changing the range of the price. Which should be a range that can increase as players wealth increase. But doesn't sell land to cheap or to high except on those rare occasions when players have no money or to much of it.
I hope this better explains my idea.

I agree having the timer speed up when no one is moving (IE playing or competing) just shortens the game with no affect on play. But reducing the timer or speed while some one is moving does affect game play. If we have to compromise because of internet lag by all means make the timer constant for a full 28 seconds regardless if someone is moving or not.
We have to endure waiting thru the timer several times in a game anyway when players have no commodities or decide not to sell. So adding a few seconds to the games length at no sacrifice of game play would be something I think every one could live with in the game.

The above quote in bold best describes the effects of the land auction changes.
Do we want to reward the player who skillfully position himself to have more money for a land auction (which then forces players to counter this strategy) or remove this strategic depth from the game altogether by pricing land so low in auctions that everyone can bid regardless of how well they played the game? Then award the plot randomly or to the player in last?

Data2008 has hit the nail on the head. I have regained some confidence in your ability and knowledge of the original and how it affected game play to get this right despite the  few loud voices cheering for changes that takes us away from the original and its depth. 

[dynadan]

I still don't understand what you are suggesting Rhodan.  I would be fine with the 1.3.0 system and putting in a $3 step instead of a $4 step.  But i think this would only make all the auctions take longer.  I think we all like the original timer and would like to see it come back.  So that it goes slower if people are running.  So if we have the original timer and just change the steps people are just going to have to run longer to get to the price they want to pay.  This is true until you reach "the limit" where the time/step ratio is such that a common situation consists of people having enough money and the maximum distance they can run up gets them within a range where they still want to buy land.  These are the "tie" situations which are hard to resolve in a fair way.

Data2008 said it right when he said "a limit only introduces randomness in who gets a plot if all players are within range to afford it".  I agree with that statement and my opinion is randomness is inferior to letting people bid what they want to bid.
 
So ideally we want a system that doesn't create "tie" situations.  This is the problem with having planet mule land auctions work like the original (which created a lot of these "tie" situations).

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are proposing? 

[data2008]

There will be 1.3.2 update today, which will match the timer with the max. running time of the c-64 original (assuming players continually move up when they had enough money until timer would run out to buy the plot).

We hope this gets us closer again to finding the right balance between bidding within a limited time while not making it mostly random mid-to-late game when everybody likely has more than enough money to bid for land.

We generally focus on revising things with the 1.3 series and take the time to listen to all sides, so we are ready to adjust any mechanic and fix bugs asap.

The feedback proves to be very helpful in the process, so thanks to anyone who does voice in their opinion!

[Rhodan]

I still don't understand what you are suggesting Rhodan. 

Data2008 said it right when he said "a limit only introduces randomness in who gets a plot if all players are within range to afford it".  I agree with that statement and my opinion is randomness is inferior to letting people bid what they want to bid.
 
So ideally we want a system that doesn't create "tie" situations.  This is the problem with having planet mule land auctions work like the original (which created a lot of these "tie" situations).

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are proposing? 

NO you don't understand and I will attempt again in another post. But I do agree with your last two statements regarding randomness and ties

[C64 nostalgia]

I still maintain that all auctions should have consistent behavior. Furthermore, adding complexity to an otherwise very simple and intuitive auction depiction breaks the the essence of M.U.L.E.

"The design of the auction, with its ticking time limit, the moving bars marking sell price and buy price, the up-and-down teasing behavior that either buyers or sellers could use--all made for intense interaction that tickled the deepest levels of human intuition," says renowned game designer Chris Crawford. "That was the greatest design stroke of M.U.L.E., and few modern designers appreciate its significance."

[MuleyMan]

The land auction worked as follows in original.
Add 732 to start price to calculate selling price if noone stops.
Person in last always gets the plot if on the line when auction ends.

This did 2 things!   Helped last place or lower placed player to catch up.
And it kept the plot price from going stratospheric too quickly.

This critical point is missing from PM.  Currently, we play to get the most cash to get the next plot.
And most of us are willing to spend more than we should just to get out of first place.

[MuleyMan]

Oh yeah, 1 more thing!
If player in last starts running at the bell and gets to the line and gets it, they can run it up to all their cash and HOLD it!  noone else could buy it unless last place chose to let it go.