Planet M.U.L.E.

Some of you have probably heard about "Deluxe M.U.L.E.", the never-finished version for the Atari ST and Amiga. It was supposed to offer a fifth choice of how to outfit your labor elements: a sentinel unit against pirates. A plot outfitted with it would be completely unproductive but the player with most plots of this kind would not be bothered by the pirates. This sounds like another intriguing gamble to me. I have no idea what it does to the game balance, but reportedly this mechanism was already tested. What do you think?

Sounds interesting.  Sacrafice a plot for the rest of the game in order to protect yourself from pirates.  It should probably cost a significant amount of money to do this.  Seems like a pretty neat idea, though it may be unbalanced if it doesn't cost enough, and perhaps it may be pointless to charge too much for it because then players may never be able to purchase it until so late in the game that it becomes non cost effective.   What if it were just an upgrade to an existing Crystite plot?   Perhaps charge an extra $??? for the Crystite outfit to give it immunity.  Or maybe a temporary outfit that lasts for a limited number of rounds, perhaps even random.  Something along those lines might be more balanced than the original idea.

As I understand, the creator did not like this mechanism, and thus ultimately stopped working on the game, because of the pressure to put guns/etc in.  Just something to think about.

We aren't suggesting guns or bombs be implemented, and so I don't see the relevance of your statement.

I don't know if I got the idea across correctly: Only the one player who has most of these sentinel plots is not bothered by the pirates. All others will still be robbed and have wasted their land for the unproductive sentinels. That's the gamble; you need to have most of these plots at the instant the pirates come. This gives another advantage to the worst palyer: She or he can see if it's worth outfitting another sentinel or transforming existing ones into something more productive instead.

I have no idea if this was the idea Bunten was working on when she finally stopped the project. It does not sound like anything violent.

That's an idea as well Karawane.  The subject of this post is protection against pirates, and so all we are doing at this point is suggesting different ways to do that.  Protecting against the pirates doesn't seem any more or less violent than the existence of the pirates themselves, and so I don't see the harm in this idea at all.

You could call it "property insurance", and cover the entire range of things that can happen to your developed plots (MULE goes crazy, pest attack, planetquake moving mountains, etc.)

Insurance usually doesn't get violent unless someone working in the insurance office forgets to refill the coffee machine when they finish off a pot.

If protection against all events, my suggestion would be to make it ridiculously expensive and only last one month.  Otherwise, what would be the point of having events.  :-\

I guess, the price for a sentinel unit could be rather low as you lose the production of a plot of land with it and, if you are not the player with most sentinels, you gain nothing.

Anyway, my idea was taken from an old magazine report about an early version of Deluxe M.U.L.E. This "insurance" was meant against pirates only and seemed already well in tune with the game balance. It's too bad that the early prototype appears to be lost. At least, I have never heard of it again.

If you're suggesting that an entire plot be used as a sentinal, and the person with the most sentinals is the only one who gets the protection, then you'll likely end up with 4 people filling up the map with sentinals, and only 1 or 2 production plots.  You might finally get to see that "Prison" ending after all.  :o

"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..."

A whole map full of defensive structures and one piddly Smithore plot to speak for it, because dammit, I'm owning that market like a mofo.

ROFL!!!

But that is what Deluxe M.U.L.E. supposedly implemented. Though, I disagree with you on the effect: Every sentinel kills one plot of production. If you are not the palyer with most sentinels you do much better not having sentinels at all. If you are the player with most sentinels you still have to pay the price of unproductive plots (look in that thread about the value of land for what this means to your progress).

In the magazine report it said this mechanism appeared to be well in tune with the game balance. Usually, players would at most build two sentinels before their unproductiveness starts persuading them to construct something more productive. (Keep in mind that sentinels still cost an energy unit per month.)

I tried to calculate the odds of this mechanism in theory and came to the conclusion that it is a tough gamble. It busts the players if they keep an army of sentinels over a longer period of time; it's more a short-term maneuver for those betting on Crystite. It's a twist to give the players behind a chance to catch up with the guy producing most Crystite (IF the pirates really come). Further, if the guys trying to protect their Crystite production engage too much in setting up sentinels, the guys betting on Smithore will again get ahead because of their higher productiveness.

It really sounds like an intriguing gamble to me.

What magazine are you referring to?  A magazine can't possibly judge of how hundreds of players are going to make their decisions in a game that hasn't even been released.  The feature remains untested and, in my opinion, unless the player is mechanically limited to 2 sentinals, I can picture games consisting entirely of sentinal wars with no mind of other production at all.  You also have to consider the fact that players take turns one at a time.  And so the first player in the development phase stands absolutely no chance of having the most sentinals.  Player 4 always has the advantage.  That hardly seems balanced to me.

I'm not trying to shoot down your idea.  I think it's a good concept.  I just dont agree with your implementation of it.

The magazine I am referring to is called "Happy Computer". It was a German monthly. I do not have it, I only have a copy of the article. It seems to be an issue from 1988. You are surely right about this feature not having been tested with many players, but the journalists from the magazine seemed to have tested it thoroughly.

I am an advocacy of a factual discussion of this. So, please, understand: Mass production of sentinels does not make sense. You don't earn money with them - they cost you money. Yet, you win M.U.L.E. if you obtain MOST money. So, mass installations of sentinels will certainly NOT be an issue (unless players want to lose). You do not fight each other with sentinels; they are purely for discouraging pirates from taking your Crystite.

Further, the first player is usually the best player. He IS to have a handicap. Aim of the mechanism is to give others a chance to catch up. If the first player decided to setup two sentinels, others have to carefully ponder if it's worth setting up three sentinels. Instead, they could leave their Crystite plots productive and outperform the weakened production of the first guy (gambling on the pirates not to appear). It's a gamble that needs a very careful decision depending on the number of already installed sentinels and crystite plots.

If you are really interested in this mechanism I can send you the probability tables I made for myself to theoretically understand it. Contact me with a private message as the tables are unsuitable for a post here.

I would like some other critical comments as I still think the mechanism is very mature the way I described it above. Anyway, it is just an idea taken from the Deluxe M.U.L.E. development.

Karawane's sentinels idea makes sense to me, I think it would be a tough gamble. The fourth player isn't guaranteed to have the most sentinels. Assuming another player has two sentinels built, is it really worth getting into the sentinels game? I'd be replacing my crystite plots which get me $400-$500 a turn, with worthless plots. However, the odds of a pirate attack might be calculated between %10 to %25 depending on which turn it is, so it might be a good gamble.

Basically, assuming I'm producing like 30 crystite a turn, the question is - do I bump my production down to 20 crystite a turn - just to guarantee a safe turn? How about 15 crystite a turn, or 10 crystite a turn? Eventually, there's obviously a point where it's not worth it.

There's a lot of good reasons why sentinels would be a good gamble other than eliminating the chance of a pirate attack:
  * Allowing you to stockpile crystite longer, to wait for a better price
  * Increasing the other players' chances of a pirate attack

So yeah, obviously not for the M.U.L.E purists but I think this is an interesting idea.

Intergalactic Mole, when you say players would resort to only building sentinels, and nothing else, I don't understand your logic. Why would it be worth it for me to build, like, seven sentinels, rather than seven crystite plots? What are you protecting at that point? Your stockpile?

While it can be considered very "mature" in the sense that a sentinel plot won't ruin the game mechanics much, as it has really not much to do with the rest of the goods and tends to keep itself in balance, I also would think that it doesn't add anything really exciting to the core game, maybe quite the contrary: Just a defense mechanism for a single event, the pirates, is

a) not correlated very deeply into the rest of the game and could

b) therefore considered to be a distraction, which could help any player with luck to have made an investement, which then pays off and throws a running game out of balance...

So in my view, the idea doesn't seem to add excitment and strategical thinking to deepen the core game, it rather adds a distraction that forces me either to constantly take care of or if I choose to ignore it could keep me from enjoying an otherwise very balanced game by helping a lucky player who did take care screw the game in a single event. So it brings something uneasy to the game atmosphere, which is comparable to an arms race... as we all know: the best arms race is if no one would have started it in the first place...

Trust me, I agree that it wouldn't be worth trying to out-build each other in sentinals continuously.  The point is that some people wont care, and just want to mess around.  If you dont restrict people from doing it, there will still be some people who will simply do it out of spite or to ruin the game on purpose.  It would be just an annoyance really, and waste everyones time. (Some people like to waste other peoples time).  That is the point I was trying to make.  If it CAN be done, it WILL be done. 

The bottom line is that if you can't think of any other way to implement this suggestion, then I have to agree with data on all points.

Heh, my bad, I wasn't trying to defend the idea as far as, "oh! this will be a good mechanic to add to the game." I was more trying to defend the idea that it was broken, and that everyone would want to build a million sentinels, since that's what Intergalactic Mole was indicating earlier.

But, yeah. Intergalactic Mole, you still seem to think this mechanic is broken or ripe for abuse. Me, I think the building is just too specialized and not interesting enough. The distinction between the two viewpoints is so minor i don't think it's worth arguing :) but... i will anyway. I'm still not seeing your argument? One player could build a million sentinels out of spite... so what? Players can do lots of stuff out of spite in mule. I can run up and down during the auction phases to make them go slower. I can set all the mules free just to annoy people. I can drive up the prices of land auctions with no intent to buy. I can host a game and then kick all of the players out in the middle. I don't think this would be any more ripe for abuse, but I don't think it would be particularly interesting or fun either.

This reminds me of Settlers of Catan with the Cities & Knights expansion (not sure how it's called internationally, I'm German). On the other hand, it's different in many aspects. The players defend against the pirates together - but if they loose, only the player which has the fewest knights gets robbed by the pirates. Before the game the players usually agree wether they allow the so-called "Fiesepeter Regel" (very roughly translates into "evil guy rule"). If it's allowed, a player with 3 knights can choose to only use 1 or 2 knights for defense, which could result in the pirates attacking - not him, but another player!

The concept of defense against space pirates is interesting, but there are countless ways to implement it and I am really not sure what would be the best for M.U.L.E. (if any).

Agreed. Maybe, some excitement derives from that. Nobody actually wants many sentinel plots. It sounds a little like the four guys pushing up land prices with no intention to buy, and the one to realize last that everybody else stops bidding is stuck with a horribly expensive plot of land. Likewise, a player can get stuck with too many sentinels while the others have shifted to crystite production ...just imagine, you don't sell this guy food for getting rid of his army ;D

Unfortunately, the idea is not mine and I do not foresee its effects in detail. In fact, I have hoped that some of the buffs here might know why the team of Deluxe M.U.L.E. went for it ...still, I kind of like the idea as I really hate the pirates taking away my victory ;)

The idea does seem interesting at first, but I also think that it would add too much to an already well balanced game.  I think just knowing no pirate attack has occurred on round 10 makes the game much more interesting in that it's a bigger gamble to rely on Crystite.

Personally, I think any militarization of the game will only serve to turn the game into something it was never intended to be.  I'm sure many here who have followed the history of the game over the years remembers how Dani cancelled Son of M.U.L.E for Sega Genesis - all becuase EA was pressuring to add guns and bombs.

There's no need to add so much functionality to negate one random event.  It's much more fun and interesting without adding defense to the equation...  Just my two cents...   8)

Bump

A similar idea: Local defense.

What if a mule outfitted for defense protects the adjacent plots (or perhaps r=2, or something) from pirates, but not everything?

You could choose to have it defend your opponents, or not; if your opponent's plot would have been taken by pirates, except for your guardian, then you get half of what was protected (rounded down).

Don't want the other player taking half of your stuff for defending? Put down your own defense.

Note that this only protects your production in the fields, not your storage.

Hm, that seems to be a very costly defense then: If I assume a very optimistic average production of 3 bars of crystite per plot and 2 visits of the pirates, I would save 24 bars of crystite per game as opposed to generating 30 bars of it on the same plot (assuming 6 stolen units per plot). And this implies even that I own all 4 adjacent plots and that they all have a reasonable crystite production. There is no incentive for setting up such a defense.

I do like the cooperative idea of voluntarily teaming up with a neighbor, though. Maybe, this could be applied to the economy-of-scale effect?

3 bars of crystite per plot isn't an OPTIMISTIC projection, it's a UNREALISTICALLY PESSIMISTIC one. If you have, say, 9 crystite plots, sacking even ONE crystite plot for this immediately costs you 12 crystite a turn minimum, as you lose your +3 LCT and drop to +2, so EACH REMAINING PLOT (8) loses 1 crystite from the loss of LCT (-8), AND you lose the output of the plot you sacked (4). In fact, 3 crystite is pretty much an extreme pessimistic projection for production. Even if you're stripmining 0 crystite plots, you can expect a basic output of 4 crystite just from EOS+LCT. An average output of 3 would involve less than 6 crystite plots (6 crystite = +3 all from 2 LCT + EOS), at which point you are simply Not Into Crystite.

What you describe is the situation at the end of the game. Usually, during the first turns you neither have much EOS nor LCT nor do you know where good crystite plots are. That is why I still think my average is optimistic.

Ok, then this local defense mechanism seems to be a short-term gamble and to address the late turns only (as opposed to the original idea). Hm... isn't it a rather particular situation: Last two turns, pirates havn't come and player's crystite plots are well clustered? I am quite undecided about this adding much fun in many games.

If you don't know where the good crystite plots are and have no EOS or LCT...why are you mining crystite?

I usually start mining crystite the third turn for earning cash to buy up smithore and land. At that point in time, I am happy if I can catch a medium crystite plot that regularly supplies two units and there is no LCT or EOS, yet. Crystite mass production only starts in the latter half of the game. I have won quite a few times that way, so I do not think this is an unusual approach, thus my average seems to be realistic. Anyway, we are getting off-topic here.

I think we can agree that the above idea of the local defense against pirates can bear up only in the very late turns of the game. Considering that most people in this thread have already disapproved of the idea of the global defense because of its expected limited gain, I think the local version is even less attractive ...unless somebody can give some really convincing math here  ;)

So...you're going to piss away any possible chance of producing ANY output at all for the turn by installing a useless defense that will cost you half your income at that stage? If it's that early in the game, you have maybe 2 or 3 plots. Rather than buying Smithore, you may well be MINING smithore, no risk of pirates then! I don't usually start Crystite until First Smithore is over, and pirates showing up that early in the game is practically cause for celebration, as it defuses the bomb of them showing up later, especially if they show up twice.

I like the idea of protection from the pirates, but my suggestion is "Shielding" , you have a Shielding stall in the town that you can take your mule in after outfitting it. It adds a shield to protect you from the pirates transporter beam.  Of course it requires an extra energy unit per round to run, and you have to make sure you have enough energy, if you don't you loose your shield, and if you go to low of course no production. Energy plots would of course not use extra units.

Also I would like to see the Pirates also steel food, smithore, and energy randomly, so this would also make energy and food play more then just in shortages. The change to the code would be minimal and should be easy to accommodate.

-M.U.L.E.T.O.P.I.A. its not a place, it's a state of mind.... 

In keeping with the realism, you should have to bride the pirates (without lapse) or face a chance that they will come calling.   :'(

Aren't the "fire in store", "planetquake" and marginally "pest attack" and "acid rain storm" addressing just this issue?

A plot defense against pirates is a bad idea. Pirates barely balance out the risk/reward paradigm of choosing crystite over smithore.
Crystite is overpowered, more so with 4 high crystites... but even in the original it was. I'm actually in favor of increasing the amount of turns pirates can show up from 2 turns to 3, and also in making the number of high crystites random from 2-4... That way there is variability in the amount of crystite that would make the game more interesting.

If you do a CVP analysis of smithore vs. crystite you will know this.