Planet M.U.L.E.

There has been a lot of debate on this issue, so thought a vote may be interesting for everyone.  And hopefully we can at least get the debate centralized here instead of all over the forum.

If this was a totally new game I might have a different opinion, but since I've accustomed to playing Mule for a couple of decades I'd like to see a similar version to the original. But of course it is about all the events, not only lose/gain plot.

Whatever the result, I will keep playing this fine multiplayer game that resembles very much the original.

You may be surprised to know I agree that events should start in round 1 (like the orginal 1983 version).  This creates a more dynamic and exciting game from the very beginning.  Since land auctions have been added to round 1 the game has gotten more interesting, but it has also become very formulated.  (everyone has decided that $972 is the maximum it is wise to bid)  If 1st round events were put back in, this number would not be nearly so static, and people in higher place would be gambling with their "game" by bidding high, and lower placed players could conceivably bid all their money and still have a chance to have an event give them enough money to afford a mule.

However the take away plot/free plot event does not work like all the other events in the game.  These events work opposite of how the other events work.  Events early in the game award/steal less money than events near the end of the game.  Land however, is much more valuable early than it is late in the game.  So maybe we should propose losing 3 plots of land or gaining 3 plots of land if it happens near the end of the game to even it up with how the other events work?  If you look at it like this I don't see why it is such a stretch that people are suggesting making the plot events happen later in the game only, and possibly to find a more fair way to implement them.

I just don't see the logic of having early events punish a maximum of $100 or so, while the take away a plot event punishes a player by roughly $3000. ($500 for the plot plus the value of everything that can be made on that plot)  Honestly if we were going to make it come into line with the other events you should only be able to lose/gain a plot starting around round 9.

I too love the game of Mule, but I would much prefer playing the best version we could make of the game while still staying true to the gameplay mechanics that made the game great.

I honestly 'feel' like the lose a plot happens way more than that I remember when I played it in the 80's on my C64 but I don't know for sure... I think the gain a plot happened more often than the lose a plot did but this is just a feeling :-)

Maybe I am alone in this thinking, however, I find much more harsh a punishment to lose a plot laster on in the game vs at the beginning.

If you lose it early, you have a longer time to get it back either through luck (BONUS PLOT) or get the cash together to buy 1.

Lose a plot late and odds are someone else will get it through the land grant and you will not have a chance to get it back.

I have recovered and won games when losing a plot before round 6 BUT I have NEVER won a game losing a plot after round 6.

From the games I have played in (and only Brad, rodz, and Rho have more games) I have seen many instances where players have recovered from early plot loss to finish 1 or 2 but RARELY have I seen a player lose a plot after round 6 and finish 2nd and only seen 1 win.

Also, as I believe piete stated in a different thread, it is the psychology of it all.....

The gain/loss just helps make the game a little more interesting - and are we not all here to have some fun.

Lose a plot 1 game, gain a plot in another, play long enough and it should all balance out ;D

@Leahcim99 .... I agree that it all evens out in the end.  However, I must strongly disagree with the assertion that a plot taken away/given late in a game is more valuable than early on.  Although i would welcome any evidence you have to back it up besides purely subjective experience.  I know I have won many, many games losing a plot late in the game (It may just be the nature of the different strategies we are using).  Losing or gaining a plot does have unique psychological components, but the nature of the event just does not fall in line with the other events....I could understand it being the most costly event by a factor of 2 or 3....but not by a factor of 30 like it is now.  I bet if you were to go back thru your games you would find a lot more winners that had plots taken away late, they probably just don't stick in your memory because early plot take aways are much more noteworthy.

This is my vote, "events should start in round 1 (like the orginal 1983 version)".

i had posted this in the Last Place Descrepencies Thread, but was asked to move it here so we could continue the debate.  Also adding a little bit at the bottom.

I have spent the last couple of days researching exactly how the programmers felt about the game of M.U.L.E., and I have learned quite a few things i didn't know before.  At this point i realize that the battle lines have been drawn, and there is no way we are going to convince each other to change our opinions.  But here I go anyway.

First off, to restate the arguments for keeping the plot take away event in the game early :

1. Life isn't fair
2. The programmers could have changed it between the atari and c64 version if they didn't like it.
3. I have seen someone make a comeback after seeing it happen in round 2.
4. The original game of Mule was perfect and the programmers walk on water.

so here are my counter arguments:

1. Life isn't fair but the games we play should be.  We play games to either escape from real life or because we are not stimulated enough in real life.  Either way we play games because it is decidedly not like real life.
    Here is an interesting article on The Importance of Play written by Dani Bunten http://www.anticlockwise.com/dani/personal/biz/whyplay.htm

2. Both versions of the game were released the same year very close to each other.  And because they were both written in different programming languages there was simply no time they could have gotten input from their customers in time to make any changes.  In fact they tried to make the same version but it still had many changes that were different between the atari and c64 versions due to programming differences.

3. Yes it is possible to still win after having a plot taken away early.  A lot of us could still win losing our 1st 3 plots if we were playing against beginners.  However against opponents of equal skill it lowers your odds of winning considerably.  In the first couple of turns players have very little control on rankings.  Luck on production, and who started the game in which position and thus could buy land for $972 and drop to last seem to be the driving force on who is in what place the 1st 3 rounds.  These events just seem to work opposite of how the other events work.  Events early in the game award/steal less money than events near the end of the game.  Land however, is much more valuable early than it is late in the game.  So maybe we should propose losing 3 plots of land or gaining 3 plots of land if it happens near the end of the game to even it up with how the other events work?

4. I think the programmers would be the first people to admit that they were not perfect.  (reading about Dan Bunten's quest to become Danielle Bunten was very eye opening) But they did discover the importance of play testers to development teams.  We are the best Mule players to ever have lived.  As a community we have played the game more than anyone else.  I think we would be honoring the programmers by doing our best (as continuing play testers) to improve upon their creation.  I think they would be sad to see the argument that the game was "perfect" as the reason for not discussing how it would improve/unimprove the game by making these slight changes.
   "This was the game that taught me the value of play-testing where you watch and talk to real people about the game while it's under development. After all, games are a form of communication that can only be confirmed by checking whether it works against an audience. "       Excerpt from Dani Bunten's Memoirs.


Here is my reasoning for moving the plot events to round 4:  In the early rounds players have very little control over who is going to be in the top 2 positions, this has become much more pronounced with the addition of the 1st round auctions.  The biggest factor by far is what position you started the game in.  Consider these common examples:
A.  There were 2 land auctions in round 1, and both sold to the bottom placed people for $972.  Round 2 comes along and one of the guys who started the game in 1st or 2nd place loses a plot (remember they will be both be guaranteed to be in the top 2 spots).  Now instead of being of being 1 plot down, he is 2 plots down.  He has done nothing wrong, and within 5 minutes of starting the game his odds of winning drop by probably a factor of 5-10....i.e. A player that normally wins 50% will win 10%-5% of the time from that point forward.  Does he still have a chance? Sure.  Is it a fair chance considering what has happened so far? I don't think so.
B.  There were no land auctions in round 1.  All 4 players develop their plots, get the wumpus and visit the pub.  In this case it comes down to who produces the most units.  Thru random luck and having no bearing on how the game has developed so far, your odds of winning have gone down by about a factor of 4 -8 times.  (not quite as much as previous example because you are only 1 plot down)

I feel that it takes roughly 3 rounds for the game to develop and for players to make their strategic moves enough to escape the positions that everyone started in.   That  reason, plus the fact that in the 1st 3 rounds the Land Event is more powerful than the 2nd best event by a factor of 30! (If we moved it to round 4 it would still be 10-15 times as valuable as the 2nd biggest event!)   And also the psychological effect of having to play for another 90 minutes knowing that your chances of winning are now 1/10th of what they were when you started the game 5 minutes ago.  So that's my argument in a nutshell. 

Thanks for taking the time to read this and please consider my thoughts with an open mind.  I welcome anyone to try and sway me to a different viewpoint.  I set the poll so we could change our votes :)

1. True
2. True
3. Been there, done that. And it makes the victory much more satisfying.
4. Since you expressed the hypothesis this way, I'm inclined to believe it unless proven otherwise. Like in "I, Robot" that I just watched:
"A robot can no more commit murder than a human can walk on water.

Well, you know there was this one guy a long time ago."

Seriously though, you have a good reasoning, dynadan. I don't, and I don't even like it when someone buys the plot on r1 and leaves me with a chance of losing one of my fewer plots, but for some reason it makes the game more interesting for me. Maybe I just like the extra challenge.

Loosing a mule due to plot loss, radiation, meteor or quake(quake has less impact because it happens after production) has far greater impact in the later rounds say around 8 or 9 and later then the early rounds.

The reason?

In the last rounds players finally have enough plots to start hitting the production bonuses that 6 plots (2 units per plot) , 9 plots (3 per plot) and 12 plots (4 per plot) give. 
Loose a mule and you lost the cost of the mule, plus its production and the bonus production on the rest of your plots. PLot loss event adds another $500 loss
So a player in first or second producing 9 stite takes one of the random events, he looses between 9 and 16 units of production at a average price of 100 per unit.

Now if we didnt have these random events players who jump to a early lead 1st or 2nd would always win.
They would hit their production bonuses with no fear of loss and there is no way to catch them unless you had acquired more land then them and develop it accordingly.

Random events provides balance, excitement, expectation, disappointment, hope, etc. to the game!
Get rid of one or change it to only happen during x rounds will ruin the game.

Probability of events has already changed since the last version or two and no longer match the percentage of chance the old C64/Atari version had or even earlier PM versions. This has greatly reduced my enjoyment of the game and further tinkering with them would have a detrimental affect on every player.

Please ignore the requests to change these events and work on finding out why the probability of these events are now different. 

My vote for the classic variation here, all events in #1. Why? It's just more exciting and bad news do hurt all the game anyway.


There's a different algorithm regarding the losing plot event, classic will always take the plot most down and right on the map, PM takes a plot just if there's no mule installed.
In the endgame I often recognized that radiation or quake as 1st and losing a plot next turn even in 2nd position is connected, just because there's no mule installed.

Btw the chance to lose a land in round #1 is 0.3% in C64 and 0% in the Atari version.

http://www.smithore.com/eventstats.php

@Piete
        I know you were just messing with me.  But you may have invented a new debate technique of just agreeing with your own arguments.


@Rhodan
        Not one person has advocated removing the random events that helps even out the game by hurting the top 2 places.  As you stated it is a great part of the game and should remain.  So I don't understand who you were talking to.  Also, I don't think there has been any adjustments at all to the various percentages of events within the last 5 months (Only the developers know for sure)  So quit playing if you choose but don't make up reasons.  Also, the c64 and atari versions didn't even have the exact same percentages so I am not sure how you want the developers to make it the same.  Even if there had been a change there is no way you could have noticed it, since it would take 100's and possibly 1000's of games and perfect record keeping to give an even semi-accurate view of the random distribution of the events.

Also, Leahcim and I were talking about the plot take away event, not the meteor, radiation, or quake.  And more specifically if the plot take away event was more costly to the player at the start of a game or at the end.  A plot taken away early will still end up costing you your magic 9 bonus for at least 1 round at some point, but will also cost you a magic 6 at some point and a magic 3 also.  The number of infrastructure (food and energy) plots you need does not usually change when you lose a plot.  You do bring up an interesting point about the bonuses though, so I am changing the valuation of a plot take away to $500 plus the value of whatever you can make on that plot for the rest of the game plus the value of all the bonuses you would lose for the rest of the game.  With that addition losing a plot early on is even more costly than losing it late in game.


@ Bumbes
         Wow what a great link that was.  Thank you very much!!!  Were you advocating making the lose plot event predictable (most bottom/right plot) like apparently the original did?  I too have noticed an apparent correlation between the losing a mule the round before and then losing a plot the next round later.  This correlation only seems to happen later on in the game.  Not sure what causes it, it might be how the developers have programmed the odds to be calculated.

@everyone
          I still haven't seen a compelling argument for why the lose a plot event earlier than round 4 makes the game better.  All the other events start small and get bigger, but the lose plot event starts at devastating (when margins are smallest) and gradually drops to huge (when margins are biggest).  I understand the desire to make planet mule as close to the original as possible.  I just think on this one issue the original got it wrong.

The events in M.U.L.E. were modeled after the Chance and Community Chest cards from Monopoly. They are intended to be random without regard to when drawn during a game.

If you look at all the player events and when they are most helpful or hurtful, you can quickly set aside the monetary events and the 2 unit smithore gift. When you are very poor they make a difference. Otherwise, they typically don't help nor hinder much in the last half of the game.

The remaining player events can make a big difference. A package from home and Glac-Elves eating half your food can be great, but often times they don't make big differences. The final player events... award or loss of a plot. Out of 22 player events, only 2 (maybe 4) matter... I find this funny (and warrants a whole other thread or two of discussion).

I like the random. Random is awesome. The fact only 4 events out of 22 have a meaningful impact, gives me good odds. So, give me all the events starting from the very beginning. I'll take my luck and... Spin the wheel, roll the dice, let me hit it big!

You haven't provided any logic of why to restrict the plot loss event.
Plot loss in early rounds has a far lesser impact then in later rounds and can actually be helpful.
Loosing a plot early immediately puts you in last were you have choice of plot selection, first to buy out ore, food or energy and the chance to have good random events happen to you, etc.
I have seen good players purposely loose money, limit production or buy/sell goods to loose more points then plot loss takes away to drop out of 1st.
Your logic to change this event is based solely on the emotion it causes when it happens to you.

I am not alone in regards to the feeling that the probability of events has changed. I am sure it wasnt done intentionally but code has been changed and added to make these new versions so its quite possible a bug has occurred to make this happen. PM saves all the game logs so if someone had the time and knowledge to crunch this data we could find out for sure. As to the old C64/Atari games this data has been crunch and the percentages posted. The old game code as also been posted which can tell us the percentages that events occur.

@Rhodan
       I have given pages of arguments on why plot loss before round 4 makes the game worse.  So either you haven't read my posts or you are "loose"ing your mind.  Good players DO purposely sandbag to drop in position but can you honestly tell me you have seen someone not choose a plot to drop in position?

My reasoning has nothing to do with emotion or how it makes me personally feel when i lose a plot.  I adjust my strategy to deal with whatever rule set is in place.  My reasons for wanting to change the plot loss event is purely to make Mule a better game.  If I have selfish motivations it is the desire to have more mule players by improving the game.

As far as the event probabilities changing.  Compile history or it didn't happen :P  Honestly, there is no way you, me, or anyone else can subjectively keep track of the odds of the events without long term methodical record keeping.  It's just not possible unless you contract Rain Man, and even then not one of us has played enough games since the last couple patches to accurately say through subjective experience.  I am not interested in spending anymore of my time refuting your claims, so if you want people to take you serious compile the last 1000 games.  This reminds me of the internet poker is rigged arguments that appear on the poker forums when someone gets their aces cracked.

@C64Nostalgia
      I must disagree that the monetary events are unimportant.  I have seen many games decided in the 12th round when someone gets $800 for their personal computer or a dead relative.  Or someone elses mining mules break down.  When looking at the dollar amount of these events the plot take away event later on in the game seems much more in line.  I do agree the 2 bar of smithore event is pretty weak.  It should be 8 bars of smithore by the end of the game to be in line with the other events.  Again, taking a plot away in the 2nd round from a player who is ahead $1-$300 is punishing that player $3000 or more when the 2nd most powerful event is valued at $100 is not a good element in the game.  There is a reason the Monopoly chance cards don't have one that causes you to lose a property, or a lose all your money card, or a destroy all your houses card.  The random elements should help play a part in who wins, but a single event should not have as large as an effect as the losing a plot event does in round 2 and 3.

@Mute
      Congratz on your win.   It does feel good to comeback from having a bad start.  I totally think you probably deserved to lose your round 4 plot, after all you were in 1st or 2nd.  I think there is a big difference between round 2 and round 4 though.  And yes it's still possible to win losing a plot in round 2.  

   I dont understand how some of you think losing a plot later in game is worse than losing it 2nd round.  I have witnessed many times where a person (and myself) spends the famous 972 for a plot.  Your thinking yahoo, I got 3 plots and things are looking good, wtf I lose a plot, ok I still have a chance....wtf radiation thats it.  Now I only have 2 plots w/no money,food,energy,smith,tite how can i possible catch up?  The bottom line is that you cant. 

  I normally play w/vet players and the things that they do will make sure of it.  Buying out ore/energy causing price to rocket up leaves little hope.   In most cases it will take till rnd 6 or 7 before you can even mule a plot. Im sure most of you will say," Oh your in last place events will help you."  I played 2 games the other nite, no good events happened to anyone for 7 rnds.  The other game i was in 1st and lost a plot, no big deal it was like rnd 7 or 8.  That of course put me in last and the next rnd the 1st place guy got the free plot...wtf?

I have read all the posts. Changing this event will hurt the game.
You stated above what all players need to do when this event or any other action by program or player occurs. And this is also the reason why it shouldn't be changed.

I'll temporarily concede the money events as I'm interested in the big picture not just the plot talk. But, since this is your thread... I'll follow you a bit, too.

If you want to delay an event, why not have a specific time-table for all events or even more specifically, make them unique to that individual's situation? Only allow a second round plot loss if the player has 3 or more plots. This particular example is reasonable, but others could very easily be pathetic. So, I guess I'm not sure where the limit is...

M.U.L.E. is a very simple game by modern video game standards. It had to be during a time of much more limited computational resources. Applying what we now have available, to the game mechanics seems like a recipe for something mutated with two heads -- a much less elegant version of its previous self. When Chess (Yes. I realize the vast difference.) met computers, no long standing changes were made to its rules. The changes were made to the computer player. It became "smarter," quicker, and less predictable. The computer over many years and through advances in computers became an outstanding Chess player. From this model, I truly believe the only good changes we can make to M.U.L.E. are the ones where our computers have significantly progressed. Graphics, Sound, the computer player's Artificial Intelligence, and the addition of the internet to multiplayer games. But mucking with the fundamentals, isn't worth our time. This game is an anachronism. It doesn't live in today nor should it be expected to...


It's funny. For all the games we have played on Planet MULE, we have never ever played a game of original Atari/Commodore 64 M.U.L.E. Saying we are the best players or the greatest play-testers doesn't mean a thing because as Planet MULE players, we have never played the game Dani Bunten made. Furthermore, Dani Bunten is not a developer of Planet MULE. So all our wisdom and insight from playing thousands of games, she will never hear it. Dani will never be able to take our feedback and make her game better. I think with the exceptions I made earlier, the original M.U.L.E. is as perfect as it can be. The original vision and talent are lost... no one can be expected to fill those very big shoes.

As I understand it, currently only the money events scale based on location in the game.
I agree that they all should.

How about the land event scaling as:
0, 1, 2, 3 plots
as the money scales around
$100, $200, $300, $400?

keep the free plot wherever you like but as far as im concerned the take away plot seems to happen a lot to 2nd place early in the game and 1st late in the game.
i have seen it happen many times to 2nd place in round 2 and from memory only ever seen anyone win once. it is devastating when early on and i personally think it should happen on or after round 4

I agree that in Mule2 these issues should be examined.  I put the 5th choice on in the poll specifically to see if anyone wanted a more complicated system for plot loss.....apparently they don't heh.  I agree with you when you say simple is best.  But you guys need to stop being so overly dramatic.  Changing the plot loss event to start in round 4 instead of 2 is not a big change in the game.  It's simple, it's elegant, and it improves the game.  That's the same reason I think the rest of the events should start happening in round 1. (except the glac elves)  Not because that's how it was in the original, (which it was) but because it will improve the game by making things a lot more dynamic.


Again moving one event to start in round 4 instead of round 2 is not the creation of a mutated two headed monster.  More like creating the beast with 2 backs.....which is just freaking awesome!  There are many differences between planet mule and the original atari/c64 versions.  Many of them much more noticable to game play.  This would be a miniature change compared to the last one I suggested and which the developers implemented.  Making the land selection based on position.  (the original didn't have this)  I think everyone agrees the game works a lot better now.  Not all change is bad. 

I didn't really understand the whole chess AI comparison.  I know we were talking a lot of chess in the ranking thread, but chess is a terrible game to compare with Mule.  One is 100 percent skill and the other has huge elements of luck involved.  The only comparison I see is trying to get land loss moved to round 4 is much like the fathers of chess battle to implement pawns can move 2 square rule, or castling, or en passant.  You know these rules evolved over a long period of time, all of them to make the game better.  This was not disrespect to the creators, rather it was essential for chess, as a game, to survive and continue to thrive.



Hmmm, are you telling me you never played the orginal?  I have played many hundreds of games on my commodore 64 and played the game regularly for many years.  (with 4 human players) I'm also pretty sure most of the people that find this site have played many, many times on the original machines.  Specifically the people that play a lot on planet mule were most likely the best Mule players on the planet back when it was in play.  A high percentage of Mule players are in their late 30's and have grown up in the video game era.  We have become much more sophisticated at gaming and I dare say are as a group much better gamers.  Combine that with the fact that we have played 1000's of games on planetmule, and yes I think that qualifies us, as a group, as the best mule players on the planet.

I am not trying to convince Dani Bunten of anything.  I totally respect the mind that created Mule and 7 cities of gold.  But again asking for an very insignificant change is not the equivalent of stomping on her grave.  We can't convince her with our 1000's of hours of play testing, but hopefully we can convince Turborilla to make Planet Mule the best it can be.  Honestly, if Dani Bunten was still alive, which points do you think she would find more interesting.  Arguments that discuss the pros and cons of changes or simply saying make it like the original?

Lets change this in the real world too while we are at it.
Dynadan will let nothing bad happen to you until age 5. 
You will never fall off your first bicycle, candy will never be denied you, You will win every cute contest Pappa Dyna enters you in, No toy will ever be taken from you until Dyandan says so at age 5.


From the day you are born there is risk, From the moment mule starts there should be risk.
This makes the game dynamic, exciting, unpredictable, etc and provides balance because at some point in the game 1st and 2nd will have a bad event to help balance the game and give the other players a chance.

This change will not make the game better it will make it boring and more predictable.
If anything add a second plot loss to the game. Other events  can happen more then once.
I am sure Dynadan fell off his first bicycle more then once


Its a perfect world until dyndan says bad things can happen to you!

Once again this is a example of why I say the probability is off compare to earlier versions of PM and to the original mule.

Real grown up of you Rhodan.  I think your post says a lot more about what type of person you are than it says anything about me.   So I am just going to ignore your childish banter and instead use logic to once again try to explain why your reasoning is flawed.

Early on in the game, (round 1-3)  the true leaders of the game are the ones who have been able to buy land.  This also has the effect of dropping them to the lowest places.  The other side of the coin is that the people who are behind will be in the top 2 places.  Taking a plot from either of the top 2 spots in rounds 1-3 tends to cripple the people who are already behind and help the people who are already ahead.  Add in the fact that with land auctions in round 1 there is no actual game play involved to determine who is in the top 2 spots, it merely reflects what place people happened to start the game in, and thus if they were able to buy land for $972 in round 1.  As the game progresses this is no longer the case, and the lose plot event CAN help even out the game by punishing the top 2 slots.  Except for the fact that the lose plot event had already happened in round 2-3 (to punish the people that were behind) and so can no longer be used to even up the game.   Your suggestion to add multiple plot loss events to the game is actually a good one. ( or as least just make the percentage it can happen static and not take it off the list if it happens once)  Contrary to whatever stupid comments Rhodan makes, I am not against bad events.  I am just against events that cripple the people who are already losing the game within 5-15 minutes of the start of the game.

My original reply post is moving to a new thread: [fill in blank]




The more I ponder this thread the more I think a unilateral change is being confused with House Rules. Taken as an ideal unilateral change, Only one side ultimately matters and that side is the smartest, most capable, and most qualified entity. Taken as House Rules, "Hey, it's your house, and we're playing in it. It's your rules." The bar for one is much higher than the other. One change is permanent, and the other is elective -- easily used or discarded as the particular players of a particular game choose...


My focus on chess AI is simple and clear. The mass advances in computational power were ideally suited to making a $50 home PC program that will crush most grandmasters [1]. If the M.U.L.E. AI moved from where it was in 1983 to today at the same pace as chess' AI's, the modern M.U.L.E. AI would annihilate us. These are the realms where making changes actually improves a classic. In fact, this AI example is the cleanest example because nothing in the whole game changes except the AI.


[1] paraphrased Garry Kasparov from The Chess Master and the Computer (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-chess-master-and-the-computer/?page=1)

  Back to the REAL world for a moment.  We all know it takes about hour and a half to finish a game.  We also know it can take up to a hour just to play a game.  :(  I surely dont enjoy wasting this much time on a game that can be over for you in 5 mins.  How many of our new players have we lost? 
 
  With any game that we play we know of certain elements that will happen, good or bad we choose to play.  Entertainment is what drives us to continue playing.  With that said its not fun or entertaining to be vertually eliminated from play for doing nothing  >:(

Speaking of straying from the issue at hand.... but i feel the need to respond anyway.  The reason the advances in computing has been well suited to making a good computer chess player is because chess is a complete information game with a limited number of available moves.  This enables a computer program to consider every possible move, and every possible move after that, etc.  Given enough time, or a fast enough computer, it is able to compete with humans using brute force computation to examine every scenario and come up with the best move.  Mule is a completely different animal (pun intended).  Mule is an incomplete information game, with lots of different elements of luck.  A much better comparison than chess would be poker. (although poker is many, many times simpler than Mule)  People have been working on perfecting a poker bot that can compete with the best players for decades and they still haven't succeeded.  (Although they are getting pretty close with limit texas hold em bots.....but limit poker compared to no limit poker is like comparing checkers to chess).  So no, I must disagree, If all of us had put our heads together and worked for the last 27 years to make the best Mule A.I. we could, it would still not be able to regularly beat the best human Mule players.  So having said all that, I still don't see how this was relevant to this thread.  Chess was never supposed to be a 1 player game, and Mule wasn't either.  So while I agree having better AI players would be nice, it really just doesn't matter much, since most of us don't play with AI's anyway, and even if they did make them better having them be as good as a human player is an impossible task.


@htman_2000
   Thanks for being brave and inserting some common sense into this thread.  You will most likely be ridiculed for your effort, but I for one agree with your sentiments. 

Plot loss = won the game   http://www.planetmule.com/hi-score-game/game?game_id=33563
Plot loss = won the game   http://www.planetmule.com/hi-score-game/game?game_id=33552

Plot loss is not the worse event that can happen. If you can simply get pass the psychological trauma of it, stop whining, man up and play the game you will find you can win most games that you loose a plot in just like the above examples.

I guess I'm missing the point, dynadan. You started this thread as a poll asking, "How should the plot take away/free plot event be implemented?" As of now, people voted not to change it to round 4. Asked and answered, right?

I really just wanted access to your transplanted post, the one with the Dani Bunten quote. I had hoped this could be a good thread to flesh out your counterarguments. I'm obviously wrong. Sorry for polluting this thread, with thoughts on the game as a whole in the context of history and other games...


To finish on-topic: after reading this thread again, I still believe starting all events first round is the best choice -- full of luck, randomness, and original M.U.L.E.ness.

You are in bad need of humor in your life. Your above quote compared to my humorous real life comparison of the plot loss change shows who is not grownup.  I had no derogatory comments about you or your ideas while above I am called stupid and lack of being mature.
Mr. Dynadan, You owe me a apology.

Your strategy above about land in 1-3 is wrong. Lets not use the word wrong, its one of several strategies that can be played and countered.

You can buy one land early on and be strapped for cash or you can hold and get two in one auction or successive auctions later on for example. You can even win with 9 or 10 plots without ever buying land at auction.

Your logic is flawed because your argument is based on how you play the game and the strategy you use.

My earlier post showed two games that were won after a player experienced a plot loss. One in round 1-4 and the other in 9-10.

Your argument and facts boil down to you don't like the event and you think you cant win after it happens to you or anyone else.

We don't need to dumb down the game or make it easier, we need to raise everyone's level of play.

Accolades to C64nostalgia and is fostering of new players. Something I don't have the patience for but should.

Ok, this debate may have gone too personal already...

I have one question that is somewhat related to this issue, maybe someone here knows the answer or how to try to get the answer from the original developers (a spiritist means is accepted, too ;)):

Why doesn't the planetquake move mountains in the C64 version? Was it a technically too difficult to implement given the short deadline, or was it a decision made on experimenting the "punishment" being too harsh? If the latter, both sides of the argument gain support here:

1) After further playtesting/experience, a decision to improve the game was made. But, on the other hand:

2) This playtesting didn't deem losing a plot event severe enough to be modified.

As I stated already earlier, I don't have a problem playing a slightly modified Mule, I have been doing it for almost a year already. But my dream would be to play the original version (either Atari or C64) or a version as close to the original as possible (including the events, since they have a magically perfect balance) over the internet, but with an easier setup that Kaillera offers us.

Planetmule is very close to fulfill my dream, and nevertheless has already provided hours of fun (and frustration) for me.

Should have an option in the poll that says "Verify it matches the Atari/C64 version"

My family is fairly new to M.U.L.E., so maybe we just aren't experienced enough to handle a lost plot as people are suggesting here. But we were finding the "lost plot" event way too discouraging, especially in early rounds. So, I did some hex editing and eliminated it.

The result was surprising - not having these events actually made it more likely that someone would lose interest in a game. Without the hope that something really evil might happen to the leader, there is less reason for the other players to want to keep playing. Also, without this very significant bit of randomness, it became far too predictable how the game would play out - it was almost guaranteed that the strongest player (my wife) would always win.

So, my experimental results, in opposition to my original hypothesis, would seem to confirm that (surprise, surprise) the programmers of the original M.U.L.E. really did know what they were doing.

Yup, after 27 years, it's still one of the hottest games for the kids that grew up playin it.

One thing I noticed is the odds of "get a plot" and "lose a plot" happening on the same development phase seem to be pretty good in the original.

and when the lose a plot happens first, it will ALWAYS add the one that was lost to the lucky player, unless someone else claims it first somehow. At least this is how I remembered it.

yep!