Planet M.U.L.E.

There aren't very many questions in (on?) Planet M.U.L.E. that have philosophical significance outside of the game itself. Some may disagree with this statement and claim there are exactly zero. But I think I've found one from the real world (Planet Earth, I think it's called) but has poked it's bony finger into out little world here, too. Namely: Is there ever a time when the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the one?

I think I've observed one such case, here's the game log: http://www.planetmule.com/hi-score-game/game?game_id=41290 (http://www.planetmule.com/hi-score-game/game?game_id=41290). Here's a game log with a bit of followup from the initial discussion: http://www.planetmule.com/hi-score-game/game?game_id=41295 (http://www.planetmule.com/hi-score-game/game?game_id=41295). I was the host of the first game, and I decided to kick out a player on Turn 8. I was a pregame "guest" chatter in the second game.

IMO there's only one über-rule on Planet M.U.L.E.: Have a good time. That's it. You don't have to be nice, but it helps. You don't have to play well, or play often, and if you want to play only to win there's nothing wrong with that. But all players come here to have a good time, period. Any other reason to play is secondary, and if it isn't, then you're doing it wrong.

Ask the other people who've played against me here multiple times before, they'll tell you I try to be a good host and as a rule I do not kick out players for no good reason. I'll kick someone if they're being especially abusive in the chat, although I don't tend to view in-game chats much anymore. Obviously I'll kick someone who's become frozen or who's had a disconnection.

So, was I right to kick firewalkwithme79? I did not want to, but I felt like I had to choose between the reality of one player's tactical decision to make three players miserable and the über-rule. On inspection of the game log it is obvious there was probably not going to be any change in firewalkwithme79's play, so rather than play host to a rotten game (BTW the end score speaks for itself) with three unhappy players I made the ugly decision to kick. I'm not proud of it but I won't apologize either. Given the final outcome (firewalkwithme79's bot surrogate got the win), I feel no guilt whatsoever.

If firewalkwithme79 wants to assert it was booted because it was "winning," puh-lease. Only in your own mind & on Charlie Sheen's scorecard. Again, check the log. Your M.U.L.E.-Fu is weak, firewalkwithme79, and the spread between 1st & you (2nd place) at that point was thousands of dollars. It's possible you would have lost had I left you playing, since you were not making the optimal development choices given your commanding advantage. You should have been developing ore plots, you would have caught up to Deathfish much sooner. Your replicant saved you by swapping out Crystite plots to ore late.

Nevertheless, I feel that I acted in the interests of the majority, even discounting my own vote: it was better to play with one unhappy player (kicked) than with three unhappy players (starving forever). I truly could care less about losing, but it isn't fair to waste other players' time solely for your own satisfaction. If you want to win a game against three other helpless players, try a Training game, that's what they're for.

Solomonic? Probably not. But as my (least) favorite weepy, orange U.S. Congresscritter once said, "So be it."

Yours,

Nannerpus

P.S. [edited 05:53 Irata time]: LOL I didn't even see that "Charlie Sheen" line in the second game chat until just now. I guess I'm not the only one that saw things that way...

I wasn't going to comment on this, but since you posted your side on here I will respond.

I was playing another game with another host at the time this game was played, so I saw some of the banter in the lobby afterwords.

I agree that this is a game that should be enjoyed by everyone playing.    But it sounds like you guys kicked the kid out of your monopoly game because you all landed on his boardwalk with 3 hotels.

Part of the game is that you make a decision to not develop food, because you want an extra plot of ore... then a fire comes.    You take that risk.

As a host you have a responsibility not to kick players when you are loosing, regardless of how little fun you are having.

this is a very poor strategy, not to develop food and count on someone else to do it for you.   The fact that 3 players did this is even more bizzare.

I have personally played games where two players had no food for 5 rounds, and the host closed the game because they made a poor strategic decision.   I have also played a game where my only food mule ran away and had no food for 4 rounds. 

Hopefully as players the three of you have learned from your bad strategy, and have made adjustments. 

If you are just going to close games everytime you run out of food, or miss a plot,  no one will want to play in your hosted games.


Just my 2c

I agree with every point you make, Mainstream, and I readily acknowledge how lousy it seems for me to have kicked out firewalkwithme79. I won't assert it was the right thing to do either. It was the best I could do to at least make the game enjoyable for more people than just firewalkwithme79.

Look at the chat transcript again. Had the game been hosted by one of the bots, rest assured firewalkwithme79 would have been at risk of a vote-out. Although I failed to articulate this in my initial post, this did factor into my thinking at the time. IOW, had there been no host to take direct action, the other players would have voted to do so anyway, and I think the transcript makes this unambiguously clear.

Of course everyone makes development choices and must play on with whatever consequences those choices bring. All actions have consequences, and for firewalkwithme79 to assert that selling even one surplus food to a starving fellow colonist (or to the store) would have jeopardized a "certain victory" (or not, IMO) is utterly incorrect and thoroughly short-sighted. Again, as you will see on closer inspection of the chat log, the possibility of a CPU-killed colony (which could have occurred had firewalkwithme79's single food-mule run off) was of no consequence to firewalkwithme79. And I question whether firewalkwithme79 would have sat still & stayed in a game if the roles had been reversed. My money's on a petulant abandon after the second or third consecutive turn of being deliberately starved. I maintain my earlier position that if any player wants to win a game unopposed, there are Training games for just that purpose.

Let me repeat: I don't think what I did was the right thing to do in any general sense. I don't think it was inherently wrong, either, given firewalkwithme79's clearly stated intentions. I posed the question of many-vs-one to the Planet M.U.L.E. community as a whole, and I am grateful for your response. I hope others will chime in, too.

Thanks,

Nannerpus

Nannerpus,

I am no way supporting letting any player starve for 12 rounds of mule.    I think no one should starve for more than 3-4 rounds in the game itself.   I also don't support collusion of hoarding resources in the game.  If your strategy was Ore, and you decided not to develop food instead, then i support firewalkwithme79 in letting you starve for 3-4 rounds...  at which point he should atleast sell some food, 1 unit to allow players to get back into the game.   I aggree that it is no fun when win un-opposed.

But kicking him to have the AI sell you food seems a little un-fair in my book.    IMO, I would have rather seen you close the game, and you take the hit in your hosting record for doing so.   Although I wouldn't blame him for not playing with you as a host again regardless.

I know it's just a game, but many take it seriously, especially when you are investing 1h 30m of your time.

I appreciate you taking the time to post your reasoning in the forum for discussion, and I would play against you even if you were hosting.

Cheers,

Yes. I agree with you about strategic selfishness and collusion. I had made the mistake of removing a food mule from a plot when I was at zero energy (that game was very hard to start off). So instead I wound up making three plots of energy & nothing else. Energy which I sold (in part) to other players, in the hope of getting enough cash to buy surplus food in the future.

FWIW firewalkwithme79 let all of the players starve for at least 3 if not 4 or even more consecutive rounds. There was also a declaration that this would continue, even if the amount offered was $2000 or $3000 per food unit. Aside from being spitefully nasty, if the stated intention was true (and another colonist had over $6500 cash, so $2000 or $3000 per unit was plausible if the price could be run up that high) then it was also pigheadedly foolish. Really, turn down a single-unit sale that could swing an overall delta > $4000? Come on, now!

Anyway that's all I should say about it.

This community is too much fun to let one bizarre experience detract from it.

Viva M.U.L.E.!

Nannerpus

Having been one of five people to have actually witnessed the gameplay as it unfolded I have speak up here.  We're new here and in most instances I appreciate the help and everyone typically upbeat.

firewalkwithme79 only maintained that tactic for about 3 rounds before being kicked.  When he got the monopoly on food he was in a horrible position and was alsmost certainly going to lose from costly mistakes he had made in previous rounds.  That hold on food essentially turned a guaranteed loss into a guaranteed win.  He would have been a total muppet not to take the oppurtunity.  At the time I suggested selling for 1k+ by the time we was sure he could maintain his lead in the game but they kicked him well before that.  And even if he didnt sell the entire rest of the game its still not good enough reason to kick.  By selling for any price at that point in the game would have jeapordized the win.  All 3 of the other players were well developed and could have rallied even with one food sold at 6k.  But the odds of winning by not selling were 100% so why take the chance at all? 

In a game where capitalizing on oppurtunities is all that matters, to boot someone for doing just that seems completely against the premise of the game and makes you look very dictatorial, and hypocritical.

 Fire played 20 or so games before that win so he invested 30 or so hours of losing, costly early mistakes and YES even starvation.  I myself was made to starve an entire game to quote "teach me a lesson" by the other 3 players who all conspired to ruin my 90 minutes, and I took it like a man and played it out.  This mechanic is in the game for a reason.  Its allowed for a reason and thats to make a real economy.  If an entity cant embargo other entities then its not a real economy.  You three allowed yourselves to be put in that position.  By firewalkwithme79 not selling you food he saw an oppurtunity for a guaranteed win, and after 30 hours or more of winless games I think he deserved to win and play it out. 

He was cordial and nice the entire time.  He was never nasty or mean in his explanation for doing what essentially amounted winning with no fear of losing.  He explained that he was sorry, he wasnt proud to take that tactic but after 30 hours, a win is a win is a win.  I think the win helped keep him interested in a game and a community that for lack of a better word could be a little more hospitable.

If you three were so miserable for 90 minutes, over a monumental blunder that all 3 of you made in the same round, then you should have abandoned the game.  Thats what its there for, for wimpy little kids who want to take their balls and go home cause the new kid on the block had you by the nuts.

You seem to try to justify kicking him by saying that 1 person was happy and 3 were miserable.  Thats pretty messed up logic.  If thats your own personal rule then I think Ill pass on those odds in any room you host.  Lets face it, you really only booted him out of jealousy, envy or embarassment that you let yourself be had by a newb.  Or all three.


Im all for fun and everyone having a good time.  But last time I looked, "overall colony output" was not a stat that improves your rank.  And neither is "fun" so until it is, and until they change the game so 3 players cant miss their turns, until another player sells, then all is fair as long as its within the rules of the game.                   

Your subject heading is complete nonsense by the way.  The NEEDS of the many outweigh the RIGHTS of the one.  Thats Marxism in a nutshell.  By definaition "Need" does not imply entitlement.  Nor does it entitle you to rob the "rights" of the one.  By definition a right can not be challenged.  And in a game that demonstrates the most purest form of Free Market Capitalism that statement has no legitamcy here right from the get go.  If you feel it does then you're playing the wrong game.  Go play Joseph Stalin Online. 

Sounds like guys got greedy with Ore and ignored food to me! A few guys gambled and lost! Kicking a guy over not selling food is stupid! Lesson learned by the greedy Ore horders i hope! When it comes to food and energy you must look out for yourself! firewalkwithme79 should get credit for a Win in my book and the person who kicked him on warning!

I wasn't going to post but I finally decided to. First of all I just started playing this game last week and have been learning as I go. I lost 20 games up to this point and lost them all with a smile. I can admit it was a jerk move to not sell the food but I was way behind. I had a meteor spot linked to two medium crystites and a low. My plan was to produce on those and make an ore spot to feed the bank to leave the ore prices low. maybe start buying it out later. I think it was possible one of you would have gotten a package with food and energy and then I would have been screwed, and rightfully so. I am new and it was probably a bad strategy. I openly told them that I was not going to sell them food, I wasn't trying to be a jerk but I was trying to be honest. After 20 losses and no wins I was willing to try to exploit their weakness. I told them I was sorry if I was being a jerk. I tried to convey that I wasn't doing it to ruin their good time but it is a competition and that I was going to try it in hopes it pays off with my first win. I would have taken name calling or anything like that cause I admittedly deserved it. I think kicking me from the game was excessive and poor sportsmanship by established players. I would bet money that is a higher ranking player did the same thing I did no one would have booted him, not to say they would use such a cheap tactic as I. I don't get being philosophical about a commodity trading game. If you one of you were starving in real life and I had extra I would not hesitate to give you food I had. This is a game though, a competition. I don't lose sleep over game avatars not having a full belly as I am not emotionally invested in their well being in the least bit. I could see if you guys played it out and were mad at me and made the choice to never play with me again but you should have toughed through your bad luck/strategies and let me play my game as I chose to. If you really want to get philosophical about the situation I think this would compare more with the majority misusing their power on a minority. I am honestly a really nice dude and don't believe in being unnecessarily rude, mean, or spiteful to anyone. I was just trying to play the game. If I caused some kind of stir or ill feeling I apologize but I think you should at least be a big enough human being to meet me halfway in a mutual apology.

firewalkwithme79 you got your win, congratulations. If you hadn't said you were never going to sell regardless of price, I would not have kicked you. You pretty much threw down the gauntlet there, so accept my apology. I'm not happy that I kicked you, BTW, and I've never tried to assert it was the right thing to do. The fact that you got the win anyway should satisfy everyone: you got what you were pursuing with your tactic and the rest of us at least had a chance to make things interesting for ourselves through the remainder of the game. I'm glad you got the win, though I think your robot saved it for you by switching to ore which was selling for a high price throughout.

Cest la vie.

Mt-Wampus: Only one player got greedy with ore. It was not a colony-wide greed outburst, it was hard luck, runaway mules, zero nrg production, etc. that precipitated the starve. I know it sounds like players got greedy, but that wasn't really the situation at all. Check the detailed log reports, you will see.

Maplefish: I've taken lots worse losses & not had a problem with it. The tactic persisted at least four turns by my inspection of the log, maybe even five turns. That seems a bit high but check the logfiles, I think 4 to 5 turns is correct. No need to misattribute any PoliSci 101 left-vs-right debate here. Yes, it is a competition but it is a game first and foremost. Good on you for defending your roomie.

I would rather lose playing out my game the way I wanted to play it than win by someone putting my choice in the bots hands.

Fair enough.

Some words from the original authors: (http://strategywiki.org/wiki/M.U.L.E./Walkthrough#In_general)

"Stay cool, calm, collected, and above all, greedy. Nobody ever said the First Founder was a nice guy!"

"One bit of advice: if you just happen to find yourself in a winning position, and in possession of the only surplus Energy in the colony, pause for just a moment to remember all those times when the other players have helped you out; reflect on all those times that they showed pity on you and kept you alive; think about the good of the entire colony... and then, DON'T SELL."

"My advice is: play to win."

"...So buy all the product you need, and, for good measure, buy up any that he needed, too."

And remember, this is only a game. Still best enjoyed against live opponents.

Does it count as an abandon when you get kicked out of a game?

No, but for some reason, it does when your internet disconnects...

Charlie's scorecard looks legit to me.  HAHA

 Whatever you think, you 3 never had a prayer of winning with his strat. When he shut you guys out on food, you were done.  It was even more clear after he ironically recieved the food package event the next round, which would almost certainly not be offered again.  However bad is skills may have been and however far behind he was he was still going to develop at least 3X as many plots as each of you.  Never in your wildest dreams would your 3-4 producing plots with nary another plot ever developed, each producing energy and ore, be able to keep up with his production, no matter how shambly put together he made it in the end.  His Crystite alone would have swamped the leader.  You wouldnt have just lost, you 3 wouldve been anhilated.  Maybe by a record total margin of victory vs 3 other scores.  Chalk one up for the Blind Drunken Mule technique.

    I see nothing rude with saying you won't sell food no matter how much anyone offers.  It just saves other players time from running up in the auction.  It doesn't sound like firewalk acted rude in any way.  If he acted rude, I can see booting him.  But, booting him for NOT selling food doesn't have a justification.  It's simply the wrong thing to do.  It comes as your responsibility to make your own food.  Take responsibility for your actions and accept the consequences of your choices.  One can argue that kicking him for not selling food, in fact, consists of a form of cheating.  After all, he couldn't kick you for not producing food.  The AI only sells food in such a situation because it doesn't have any way to know that it shouldn't in such a situation.  So you basically open up "The Game Genie" since you couldn't beat BattleToads the normal way (well... no one could).

    I think I've had 2 games where I've produced food early, a fire happened, and I ended up with all the colony's food for a round or two, and I haven't sold food.  Pretty sure I won those games because of that.  Some other player had a food plot, but it didn't produce anything/some other player got the package and eventually produced food.  I don't feel any remorse that I cheated anyone out of "fun".  I think in one game I also let everyone starve for 3-4 turns, and then finally sold a food unit or two.  It does seem true to me that you can benefit more by selling food after having everyone starve for 3-4 turns for a high price, since if none of your opponents do anything with their plots for 3-4 turns you really have such a good position that if you have an idea of how to play well, you have a very high probability of winning just from having 3-4 more turns of development.  However, if you don't want to sell food, you can ensure your victory by not selling food in such a situation.  It makes for a good strategic play.

    Funny thing, it seems that firewalk got penalized for his announcement that he would play strategically well, and that he did indeed play strategically well.  If this did in fact happen, shame on the host for booting, and if the other players approved of it, shame on those other players. 

In my head I have been comparing it to games of Street Fighter 2 we played as a kid where your friend would beat you 17 times a row by picking Ryu and doing nothing but sweeps so you get mad and shut the Super Nintendo off.

Sorry to say it, but you screwed it well, both for voting to kick the player and for not having your own food reserves. If you fully lack of food, you are screwed. If you are forced to depends on others to get your food, they can screw you at any time. Be it selling at highest price or not selling at all. Just as another player can do by buying all the food before you do, or rising its price so you can't buy it. Same goes for plots.

Certainly he was screwing your playtime and possibly the colony score by doing that, but the game has no official rules about that. If he wants to win at any cost and goes fully throatcutter, he can do that. In that case, we can blame the rest of you for not playing defensively and have your own food supply, or for expecting all players to be cooperative. (So you'll have to wait for the family to come and help you.)

We have to admit that this was a bit interventionist, as you didn't let each player to choose their own path. And what Ryu did was casting fireballs about non-stop.

You are right about Ryu. Then who was the character that could win with constant sweeps?

Fire is a new player and expected to do new stuff.  He will not understand all the nuances and factors in a game that are important.  To deny food or anything to others is a choice. Might not be the best choice for himself, others or the game but we all have had noobs hose a normal game and twist it into a weird event where others wish the new player was replaced with a bot.  Live with it, enjoy the weirdness, take advantage of that to win, whatever.
But Hosting is a special privelege here.  Reputation as a host/player is all important.  Just ask Akire1.
It is so important to be a good and rightous host.  Word will get around and pretty soon players will avoid you, women will shun you and banks will repossess your home!   No, wait, just kidding on last part (i hope).
Reputation is all we have here.  It is the responsibility of regular players to inform new players on how important this is.
How many games have you played where a new player messed up the game, or your game, or helped another win thru ignorance?  We live with this and hopefully politely help them to get better so more games don't get hosed.
The question was asked in a response if the host would have acted differently with a seasoned player.
I feel a new player should get MORE consideration in any matter affecting a game.
In this case, Fire had every right to play as he wishes.  If he feels this is his only chance to come back and win, how can a host justify booting for that?  I understand the frustration.  After reading the game chat and talking to all parties involved and reading this forum post I have concluded that Nanner should not have booted Fire, but Nanner realized later that the situation was not clear cut.  Nanner tried to make amends and seemed to understand and learn from the situation.  Kudo's on keeping your eyes open Nanner.
You were willing to listen to the complaints after the boot and seemed to learn a little too.

Too many good and fun players have left us from all the crap that has to be tolerated from a few bad apples.  We, as Mule fanatics must do all we can to keep who we have now, help the new players get up to speed and go recruit some more new players.

You guys can't get rid of me that easy. What Muley said is kind of what I was trying to tell them before I was kicked, I am newish and had never seen that situation and wanted to play it out to see if it works. I am sure that situation will either never happen to me again or in the least very very rarely happen. I am still testing stuff out and wanted to see if that is a winning strategy. To be honest I would still try it again to some degree. I do see now that I probably could have sold to them at a crazy price and used to my advantage the next round but I still feel like I had a shot with the method I was using. I looked at the game log or whatever and I think I was starting make a comeback. None of them would have had more than 3 mules out the whole game. I would have had all my plots producing and I had high tite spots. I may have still lost but it was up to me to choose my strategy and tinker with my game to see what happens just for the knowledge. One thing I never pointed out though: the three people in the room kept saying they didn't want to waste another 45 minutes to not do anything in the game but (and not saying this to sound like a jerk) they werent getting any time to place mules so all of the rounds would have been greatly shortened and I figure they would have had to sit through about 10 to 15 minutes to finish from the point I was kicked due to that. It also bothered me a bit that he kept stating that I got the win like that had an effect on the justification of his decision to kick me. To me the win is besides the point and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

All in all there are no hard feelings for anyone involved. I was kind of shocked because I have never experienced anything like that playing an online game but it what it is and this is still just a video game. In all honesty Nanner seem like he is probably a nice dude. I think he got swept up in the other two players asking him to kick me on top of his own frustration with my game choices. They were asking him to for a few rounds and he was bucking the idea at first but finally gave in. If anyone asks me, the one that was the most effected, they should still play with all three of the other players involved. I say let them chalk it up to lesson learned. When I say that I am not talking about game tactics, I am talking about accepting a bad unlucky situation and dealing with the outcome of that situation.

I guess your strategy would have worked perfectly. If all other 3 players are starving, and your food production+stock is lower than 12 units, the price will rise to the max in 2 turns. Then, you just have to produce massive food and sell it all to the shop/players.

I guess this topic will end just like NULL's one: a bad move or unwise choice began the problem, some time after that the problem gradually vanishes. Just give it some time, no need to keep talking about this "unwise" choice anymore, capisce?

And about SF2, I guess it was Guile who had the longest range for low kicks. Except for Dhalsim, who could keep using his elastic limbs to hit from distance.

It seems to me that this issue, of someone elses bad move ruining your game is alien to me.  Its not my responsibility to play the "generally accepted pattern" that experinced players have come to expect.  Because they expect a certain style of play from experienced players they fail to adapt to an illogical move by a new player, thus "ruining" their game. 

If any player feels this way then I suggest staying out of any room I play in completely.  Because that is exactly what Im going to do, either through stupidity or by design.  And in my opinion thats your fault not mine.  When you get thrown a curve ball, you adapt, or you strike out, its that simple.  Dont blame the pitcher because you refuse to change your swing.

I came into contact with a player tonight who verbally abused me before abandoning the game because I didnt purchase an auction that gave another player a great chain of mountain plots.  He was too busy building his little empire in the corner because he thought the other players would do his dirty work for him.  He felt the game was completely over at this point and no one could win because of MY mistake.  That I had cost him the game and 90 minutes of his time because I failed to keep the other player from attaining a huge advantage in the game.  As if I had this huge responsibilty to the colony to ensure that everyones game was fun and everyone had a winning chance.  I feel that this ideology is complete nonsense and made even more rediculous in that this is a FREE MARKET TRADING GAME.  It does not lend itself to predictability and players who cant adapt to unexpected turn of events. 

In short I may quote "hose" your game because of ignorance.   Be prepared to change your business plan or maybe you should avoid my rooms until Im a more predictable player.

Really, I thought being kicked counted as abandoned.

     I pretty much agree with Maplefish, and feel his perspective excellent here.

No, for some reason, a kick doesn't count as an abandon; while a disconnect, that wasn't your fault, does.
Peter REALLY needs to fix that...

Hmmm, no, actually, I would consider that to be fixed already, because it used to count and I hated that.

   I agree with you Maplefish! Every man for themselves unless your Mary/Mogs or any other of there colluding alliases

That was YOUR WIN firewalkwithme - I have been messed up on food LOTS and starved for many rounds - I take my lumps as it was MY ERROR - if 3 players did this at the same time and left one with an advantage, which he then used, well so be it. 3 players get to starve - IT IS NOT JUSTIFICATION to kick him.

Maplefish stated it PERFECTLY.

firewalkwithme, join my game anytime - I will not kick you if you gain that advantage in one of my games.

Please remember all....in real life he would have sold and got as much as he could for the food as opposed to letting it rot.

As to the "need" justification - be careful what you wish for - someday someone might "need" something you have and will take it because they "need" it.

fire planted food, bad luck hit the other 3....fire's win

    Totally agree with you Michael.  But that doesn't mean I plan on letting you stand behind me anytime soon!