Planet M.U.L.E.

Don't forget collusions...

How would collusions be doable if not allowing two players to maximize on a "hidden agenda"?

In the original, all 4 players set in front of the screen and two had to press the button simultanously...

Wouldn't it make two "faked" players over internet much more easy to conspire than now? (like one ensuring food and energy while the other hordes smithore and crystite without running risk of ending with food or energy shortage?)

Well... conspiring is fun, and internet play makes conspiring easier (you can't chat while playing)...
How to trigger a collusion? Maybe selecting from a list of colored rectangles with the left/right arrow keys and the button the player with whom you wish to "collude". He has also to select you, of course.
If you sell food/energy to the smithore guy you are going to lose! One must use collusions with care...

EDIT:
If for "faked players" you mean the same player helping himself with another account, or maybe two friends that want to favor one of them... well... all online games sooner or later have to face this issue. I wouldn't eliminate game features just because of this problem; maybe build a security system to control this behavior; maybe create "trusted hosts", where to play you must have the "trusted" status (which gives the ability to create "trusted hosts"), gained from playing a lot in "ordinary hosts" without cheating and becoming trustworthy... (this option is doable after more and more players register to the game).

I agree that collusions might not be a good idea now that we aren't playing face to face (in most cases).  One idea is a "consented trade" feature, where players have the option of trading with each other at the end of each month.   It works well in Space Horse.

The "shortage" messages at the end of the month is a good point. I agree that should be implemented.

The chirp of the wampus was good too, though I don't know whether or not its as important now that you can still catch him after he disappears.

Regardless of any of the above, I still give the game a 100.

That's an interesting idea thought SA.  I might be willing to try that.  Don't forget though that even in a collusion you weren't actually forced to buy or sell anything.  You could still stay above or below the buy/sell line.  But definitely a good idea.

Regarding the First Founder special effect, I miss that as well - it's just jumping up and down in this version.  However, I should say that the height-extension thing is the c64 - on the Atari 800 - the First Founder got big and fat, which I like even better - it's kind of the "abundance of excess".

I noticed the missing messages about shortages - it's a major thing that should be added, and there are many others, but that all goes into making the as close to the original as possible. 

I remember the developers saying they took collusion out because there was no face to face contact, and that makes sense, though I think there could be a way to implement it.  However, I should say that having played dozens of games back in the day, there was an inherent flaw: you couldn't stop someone else who was sitting there from jumping in - they just had to press the button at the same time, and the only solution was to tell the person to stop.  Not a well implemented feature in the original game.  You could also use collusion if you were selling a plot of land, which we never used, as far as I know.  In that scenario, the seller would actually choose who to sell the land to.  Perhaps that would be a better way to proceed in the goods auction - the seller chooses who to collude with.

notice that I edited my previous post...

(sorry: i don't know how to quote properly)

Note that my "colored rectangles method" eliminates the issue :)

What do you think about the idea of allowing people to consent to private trading at the end of the month?  If you've ever played Space Horse, you'd see that it works quite well and doesn't seem to give anyone an unfair advantage.

I never played Space Horse (but I know it borrows many ideas from M.U.L.E.), but I don't see many differences between what you are suggesting and the collusions on the original M.U.L.E  :-[

The reason the winning character was "double-wide" on the Atari version is that on the Atari hardware, you could have 4 "players" (their name for sprites), and one of the built-in features for them was doubling the width.  You could also make them turn into a vertical beam that stretched from the top to the bottom of the screen (like it was teleporting).  "Players" could only be one color. In games where they needed 2-color players, each player had a "missile" associated with it which could be another color.  Many Atari games used this method to have 2-color player sprites.  And if you really wanted, you could combine all 4 players and 4 missiles into one 8 color player.  And yes, I am fully aware this is rather boring.  But then I've been known to sit in on Classic Video Game Expo conferences where they talk about using tricks for Atari 2600 games like using the actual code as fodder for "random" looking bitmaps for things like rocket thrust.  I need to get out more...

FWIW, I'm still working on "modern" video games. My 20th published title is www.leagueoflegends.com (http://www.leagueoflegends.com)

I like these suggestions. Sound is a very important part of the experience.

And about the special visuals, even better.  We need to send the message that get founder is a very good thing, and more.. we need to send the message that a succesfull colony is a _very good_ thing..  is already made with text, but maybe sound can add a epic level to it.

Since we are playing over the internet, by the time we type with each other and agree to trade it may be too late to collude.  Space Horse somewhat solved that problem by allowing a consented trade between players at the end of the month.

Collusion might be doable by mouse-clickiing on a player's name to request collusion, and then have that accepted with a mouseclick to the requester's name.

Of course, this would add to game length, which some express some discomfort at (but that's not relevant to our discussion at this point).

I disagree about the introduction of the mouse in the game. That would kill hotseat play.

My "coloured rectangles" method implies no need to type in the chat, as if you select a player it's already an "offer", and if he selects you, it means "offer accepted". One could do this even in an hypotetical hotseat game without the need of talking.
The "rectangle selection" optional sub-phase would take place every auction in the same moment as the "select buyer/seller" sub-phase (up and down to select side; left, right and space to "collude").

Perhaps a collusion could be available in a local game, and one of the other ideas just for LAN/WAN play. That would prevent the mouse from killing hotseat play.

i think the game is fine without collusion

My pizza is fine without pepperoni, but I prefer it with.

This should be the way it's done for the "close to the original" version.

It might add to the game length, but that's how it was in the original version. IMHO that's only a valid argument for the planned "improved" version.

Collusion should be in game it's not mule with out it.Also i would like to see support for multiple diffrent account log in's from the same exe so it's then possible three players can join from same machine i'm shure lots of whiney people will hate this.

Not just the whiney people - we've already seen reports of cheating using multiple accounts.

My thought is collusion is more than possible with voice chat.  I know voice chat has been mentioned in other threads, but there could be different mic buttons to secretly talk to other players.

1 - player 1
2 - player 2
3 - player 3
4 - player 4
v - all players

All it would take to collude is telling someone "hey, hit your button!"

Yeah, it ain't perfect becauze not everyone uses voice chat, but it is at least doable that way

Integrated voice chat would be really nice. Because 90% of the time when 4 random people meet in a lobby, 1 of them uses TeamSpeak2, 1 uses Mumble, 1 uses TeamSpeak3 and the last one uses Ventrilo... or something like that  ;)

On the other hand I can see that this is somewhat "out of scope" for the devs, I don't know if there are any decent, free, platform-independent voice chat libraries for Java which could make this feasible.

I think you misunderstod i ment multiple diffrent accounts log in's from same game exe.and ofcoruse four port usb joystick/joypad support

Account name
Password log in

Account name
password log in

Account name
Password log in

Account name
password log in

By suggesting that 4 players be allowed to log in to the server from the same local game, it sounds like you're suggesting that a game of this type be allowed to be ranked on the server.  This would make the rankings completely illegitimate since people would be able to easily gain first rank.  However, if your idea does not require the game to be ranked, then there is no point in logging in to the server at all.

When me and my friend played M.U.L.E. on the C64 we did collusions.  The computer human players always had an advantage.  Working together gave the colony a higher rating in the end. :D

Now this sounds like an oxymoron  :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron