Should host pass on final land grant?

[kipley]

During the final land grant in a recent game of mine, only two plots of land were up for grabs.  So, I did the usual trick of holding down the spacebar to see if I could get one.  I shouldn't have gotten one, because I was in the lead at the time.  However I did wind up getting one, probably because of the infamous bug where the host, due to his short lag, can sometimes win these land grants even though he's in first place.

Another player in my game suggested that it was unethical for me to take advantage of the bug, and that I shouldn't even try to claim a piece of land in that situation.  I must admit, the idea of not even trying to take a free plot of land hadn't ever occurred to me until then.

I'm curious what the community consensus is on this idea.  Should the game hosts refrain from trying to claim a piece of land in the final land grant, if their ranking is such that they wouldn't normally get one if all network issues were equal?

And since the host's superior lag gives him more benefits than just the above case... are there other activities an honorable host should refrain from to make things more fair?  For example, off the top of my head... is it unethical for a host to try and snipe and buy a piece of property in a land auction at the last minute, because of the advantage of his superior lag?  Any other instances?

[Bumbes]

No you shouldn't. I regret stirred up this, same will even happen with dedicated servers due better ping.
It's M.U.L.E and it's your right to do everything to win, in the original i.e. land auction winner is random as well.

My apologies all, I had a hard time to learn but  finally I'll press button... at least sometimes =)

So be sure I'll never dare to complain again about that issue, I was wrong I admid.

Happy land grant, dif-tor heh smusma.



edited typo

[kipley]

Well, hopefully Planet MULE will eventually implement an improved land grant algorithm, one which awards the contested pieces of land to whoever is in last place at the time, regardless of their ping.  If/when they do... this whole issue will be moot!   

[C64 nostalgia]

I'm curious what the community consensus is on this idea.  Should the game hosts refrain from trying to claim a piece of land in the final land grant, if their ranking is such that they wouldn't normally get one if all network issues were equal?

I've thought about this too... Eventually, I decided to not claim land if I'm hosting, in first, and less than 4 plots are available (Unfortunalely, sometimes I forget.).

While this is my choice, I do not think hosts are obligated to refrain.

[trouba]

Stay cool, calm, collected, and above all, greedy. Nobody ever said the First Founder was a nice guy!
http://strategywiki.org/wiki/M.U.L.E./Walkthrough

Exactly my thoughts

[C64]

I don't think host should get the 4th position in Round 1, given that there is a small advantage to being host.  Although I haven't ever seen that advantage personally, haha.

[Blitzen]

Personally I think it is always the games, and by extension the programmer's responsibility to ensure it is fair for all players and no player has an unfair or unbalanced advantage.

This is true, since you cannot rely on other players to play by your same "code of honor," if it is in the game you must take advantage of it or be beaten by it.

I don't see how you have any other choice other than simply not playing the game at all until it is fixed......

Think of it this way, if you were a seven foot tall basketball player and could dunk without any effort, I might admire you for not "cheating" but you could forget about that fat NBA contract... in reality they should just raise the bloody net.

Along those lines Turborilla really just needs to raise the bloody bar.

[C64 nostalgia]

The rational people are giving for hosts exploiting pings is troubling. Lag was never an issue in the original versions of MULE (Everyone was playing on the same computer/console.). No rules or codes existed to correct lag because it wasn't there.

Think of it this way, if you were a seven foot tall basketball player and could dunk without any effort, I might admire you for not "cheating" but you could forget about that fat NBA contract... in reality they should just raise the bloody net.

Your metaphor is flawed. The MULE host advantage is more akin to one team having a lower hoop. All teams have access to extremely tall players. But, teams do not have access to an unfair advantage exclusive to one team.

MULE may be cutthroat. However, thinking hosts should make use of all options available is obviously not fair. Host advantages are beyond the rules. Rules crafted to create balanced game play. Luck and skill are primarily the determiners of winning. But using the host advantage to break the rules, is by definition, cheating (To violate rules deliberately, as in a game). I guess, if justifying "cheating" makes you feel better about your wins, so be it. Far more obscene methods to cheat exist. Regardless, it still quacks like duck, even if it's not as loud.

[Recently, a seasoned host in first beat out lesser placed players buying ore (everyone was at the line). This deliberate violation of rules won him the game. Snapping up land in a grant, I can overlook. Buying resources you shouldn't be able to is unfair, especially when knowing the rules well and having time to bring yourself back in accordance to the rules. A win for the host may have been recorded, but in my eyes, it was a loss for all who played.]

[data2008]

Rest assured: This and other host-related issues will be fixed with the major updated version. We almost have it feature complete now (still lacking A.I.)... 

[Blitzen]

I was referring to the seven foot tall player's advantage over the more common 5 and a half foot tall player... Mule is not a team sport so please don't confuse the issue!

My point is that the game needs to enforce the rules and challenges, not the players. 

[C64 nostalgia]

My point is that the game needs to enforce the rules and challenges, not the players. 

"The game needs to enforce the rules and challenges, not the players." is a good ideal. However, we are not talking about players, we are talking about hosts exploiting lag. The frequency of players complaining about hosts isn't small. When a player enters a game, they have to place trust in their host -- the host won't maliciously kick players, the host won't kill a game because they are losing... When hosts circumvent the rules using host advantages, the host is breaking the trust between themselves and the players.

Put simply: I believe a good host has a responsibility to be fair. A host exploiting lag isn't fair. They are intentionally and knowingly breaking the rules. The host, by definition, becomes a cheater. In the end, not only are their wins marred, but their behavior mars hosts as a whole.

[kipley]

C64 nostalgia... here are three quotes I've pulled out of your three posts on this subject:

Eventually, I decided to not claim land if I'm hosting, in first, and less than 4 plots are available (Unfortunalely, sometimes I forget.).

While this is my choice, I do not think hosts are obligated to refrain.

Snapping up land in a grant, I can overlook.

A host exploiting lag isn't fair. They are intentionally and knowingly breaking the rules. The host, by definition, becomes a cheater.

These quotes seem a bit inconsistent, in that I can't tell whether you think the act of a host grabbing scarce land is:
1.)  merely regrettable, or...
2.)  outright cheating.

Just out of curiosity, which do you think it is?

-Kip

[C64 nostalgia]

These quotes seem a bit inconsistent, in that I can't tell whether you think the act of a host grabbing scarce land is:
1.)  merely regrettable, or...
2.)  outright cheating.

Just out of curiosity, which do you think it is?

Yeah, the topic grew and drifted a bit, didn't it?

Should the game hosts refrain from trying to claim a piece of land in the final land grant, if their ranking is such that they wouldn't normally get one if all network issues were equal?

I think it comes down to intent and weight. What started as a simple question led me to the definition of cheating. A host knowingly, snatching scarce land is, by definition, cheating.

To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.
---The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Whereas the land snatch is cheating, I view it as "merely regrettable". The instance that resonated with me was my earlier example:

[Recently, a seasoned host in first beat out lesser placed players buying ore (everyone was at the line). This deliberate violation of rules won him the game. Snapping up land in a grant, I can overlook. Buying resources you shouldn't be able to is unfair, especially when knowing the rules well and having time to bring yourself back in accordance to the rules. A win for the host may have been recorded, but in my eyes, it was a loss for all who played.]

The above is outright cheating. Much of my discourse had this example in mind.


Nonetheless, I think a host has two roles: one) as host, to provide a fair game; and two) as player, to win using whatever means within the rules. These roles are separate. To think they are the same is to abuse authority.


That is my stab at unifying my views... Thanks for the question, Kip.



edit: spelling

[Blitzen]

What is more idealistic (and therefore completely impossible), that the game should enforce the rules or that players should self-enforce...

It isn't cheating if the game allows it; it is a broken game.

Period, end of story, get REAL dude! 

[C64 nostalgia]

What is more idealistic (and therefore completely impossible), that the game should enforce the rules or that players should self-enforce...

It isn't cheating if the game allows it; it is a broken game.

Period, end of story, get REAL dude!  

Remind me to never let you be banker in a game of Monopoly.

But seriously, we are both advocating ideals. You think a computer game should be immune to cheating. I believe hosts have a responsibility to provide a fair game. Some things a computer programmer can't fix -- lag will almost always exist even if a game is hosted from a non-player server. Some things a host can't self-enforce -- who is really at the top in a land auction?

I guess I'm taking my ethics from most games. Games where people actually touch stuff... We could go to a casino to play Go Fish. The probability we would have a honest dealer is quite high. But at this point, is it the game's rules providing fairness, or the players acknowledging the potential of a dealer's abuse? Wouldn't it be easier to play with people who honored the assumption a dealer should deal with integrity?

Your counterpoint is computers can force players to be honest. Furthermore, a well-written computer game should make cheating impossible. Computers can bring us vastly closer to this ideal. Computers allow for amazing stuff.

Ultimately, I think either ideal is near impossible. A player can almost always cheat, and a computer game can almost never be without flaws. In the end, I'm happy we can debate this in a forum. Again, computers allow for amazing stuff...



edit: expanded my thoughts