Planet M.U.L.E.

I just finished the two most aggravating games of MULE that I have ever played. My aggressors would probably tell me to "Grow up" or "Learn to play the game better", but I don't really care. The fact is that they ruined the fun for me and the other players in the pursuit of obtaining a higher rank.

I expect this kind of behavior from people playing Halo or Left 4 Dead, but I didn't expect it from MULE. I thought this community was better than this. I am very disappointed.

Hi Dave37! What kind of behaviour did you experience?

From Strategy Wiki (http://strategywiki.org/wiki/M.U.L.E./Strategy): "Stay cool, calm, collected, and above all, greedy. Nobody ever said the First Founder was a nice guy!"  ;)

It wasn't so much about what strategy they were using, I understand why they did it and probably would have done the same. It's the attitude they had about it.

It's a hard thing to describe or define, but everyone who plays competitively online knows the feeling. It's that overwhelming sense of needing to win just so you can rub it in the other guys face. It's when it's no longer a friendly competition but a diehard game of wits and skill. I am not unfamiliar with these kinds of games, in fact I enjoy some of these super-competitive games quite a lot. I just didn't want or expect this kind of behavior from MULE players.

Oh and to anyone reading this, if my comments in this thread make me sound like a crybaby or something then fine, whatever. But I'm just trying to have a good time here... I don't care about being #1.

I'll leave that up to Piete.   ;)

How I see it is that for a game have a meaningful purpose (besides killing time) you can play this in two ways: aim for a successful colony or for a personal victory. One aim doesn't have to exclude the other, and a personal high score naturally contributes for a high colony score.

I play always for a personal victory and I suppose majority does, so I think it should be considered as a default if not agreed otherwise before the game starts. I may apply some nasty tactics every now and then but not as much as some of my opponents, but for me they don't make the game any less enjoyable, on the contrary. Getting in a bad position (no food or energy) is most of the times due to my bad preparation, I can never blame the others for that (but sometimes I can blame the bloody random generator ;) )

The good thing here is that most of the times you can choose the players you play with and you'll learn to know the people you don't want to play with for one reason or another. But let's remember, this is just a game. When I played this on a C64 with my best friends it only meant that the tactics against each other were as nasty as they could be, here I am a bit more polite because I don't know my opponents personally ;)

I think that in any game of competition, the goal is to win.  That is, unless it's agreed upon beforehand that it isn't.  Otherwise, it should be assumed that the goal is winning.  Obviously this does not include cheating.  I would like to win a basketball game I'm playing in, but I won't break the rules to do it.  But if I am winning by 12 baskets, I'm not going to purposefully let the opponent get the ball, just to even things up.  In MULE there is no actual way of cheating.  The computer will only allow what is allowed.  So I don't personally see any problem with denying other users the ability to buy energy if you have the option to do so, for example.  I don't see any reason why you shouldn't monopolize a good if you have the ability to do so.  Dumping MULEs to raise the price of Smithore is brutal, but it's allowed.  The list goes on and on.

All that said, I don't think it's appropriate to use the chat window as a forum to gloat and tease and taunt.  That's just bad sportsmanship.  There's no way to regulate that, but you can always ignore the chat window.

Dave,
I agree with you 100%, which is one of the reasons I've only logged in a whopping 3 games of Planet MULE so far.  Aside from the fact that the game takes a long time to play, I prefer not to commit my time to playing with a bunch of pre-pubescent kiddies (and some adults who act like them).  I'm more interested in playing with seasoned veterans (people my age) who are as equally into the social aspect of the game as winning, and not for the ranking on the high score page.... which, as it stands, has absolutely no credibility since anyone with 2 laptops could sit there and play himself to rank #1.

Hey, I've got 2 laptops! ;) On the other hand, I must be close to IM's age, although I've got no idea about how I act...

But the best social experience would be still in front of my C64 (or Atari in IM's case), were they friends or just MULE acquaintances. Maybe there could be (sponsored) live tournaments in the future, EA could do some retro-sponsoring, after all, it was they who published the original (yeah, keep on dreaming...)

Thanks for the well thought out responses. I agree with pretty much all of your opinions.

There is nothing wrong with using various strategies to win, even the ones that make you look like a jerk. And I know there aren't any real ways to cheat (unless you mess with the lag of course). But there certainly are ways to act like a jerk. Here's a few examples of annoying and downright mean things I have seen:

1) Dancing/Unnecessarily slowing the clock during auctions.
2) Talking down to other players for any reason
3) Intentionally playing very poorly (throwing the game)
4) Aborting the game within the first few rounds

These are the major ones, but the list could be longer.

Offline multiplayer games are always the best, but being temporarily based in Australia I don't really have that option if I want to play with my family or old friends. So I play internet games all the time. But, it's just far too easy for people to be jerks online.

To quote Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw on the matter of internet multiplayer.
"If you're not in the same actual room, poised to punch them in the face, only their entertainment matters. You might as well just be an AI bot that swears. "
source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/6832-Extra-Punctuation-On-Multiplayer

"Dancing" has often a meaning in the game. Besides, I don't dance in real life so please let me do it here! :)

What annoys me more than unnecessary dancing is not coming down to buy when it is obvious that there will be no transactions (like during last round) and store has no goods.

What if I am dancing simply because I want to dance, and not necessarily maliciously to slow down the auction?  My friends and I frequently danced in the middle of the auctions and sang a little song for fun.

I totally agree on the issue of poor sportsmanship, and it's not just rage quitters or dancers, either.  Prime example - I played a game where the second place player got ticked for my selling energy to the player who won (I changed the names from the chat log):

P2: you gave P1 the game
P2: with 100% certainty by selling energy
P2: i just don't get it
Me: It's all about the best colony score
P2: how lame is that
P1 (in my defense): he made like $1,200 and he gave me like $1,500
P2: P1 it's more possibility than that
Me: I am someone who chooses to play for the greater good.  but hey, choose your battles.  Up to you
P2: i just don't like collusion
P2: to each his own, rommager
P2: congrats on your 3rd place finish :)
P2: you're so good

He completely disregarded the fact that he had been screwing me over by snapping up all food and energy over me (on purpose) because I was winning on the prior 3 turns.  Why wouldn't I want to ensure the other guy gets the win?  He also informed me that he would not be playing with me in the future.  WTF? We already have to wait long enough for human players to join without wanting to kick them or unjoin over the "principle" of being mad at someone.

AND - just for the record, I always make sure that I have time to play a full game, and I never quit even when losing.  The only exception is if I absolutely have to quit for an external reason (I haven't had to do that yet) and then I would at least tell everyone that I needed to go before bailing out.

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to vent.

I agree with just about everything everyone has said.  Purposeful slowing of the game down just for fun is crap.  Gloating is crap.  Berating other players is crap.  Questioning other players' decisions is crap.  Forecasting the game with an air of certainty ("In two rounds, I'll be in first place and you lost because of the Smithore...") is crap.

maybe if we would count the overall score of the colony + weigh in the place of each player it would help make it easier being second or third (or even fourth, if a high colony score)?

Maybe the "first place or no points" approach of the ranking system does make people regard the outcome so extreme?

Example: Award points = Colony category (0-7) * (5 - Rank)

Changing to a more complex system is currently out of scope timewise, but anyone having a similar simple idea to take into account the rank + score of a game, please explain here :-)

That's why I mostly play in fullscreen with the chat window off.

Already did. (http://www.planetmule.com/forum?topic=518.0) :) The system I proposed not only rewarded players more for being 2nd/3rd in a high-colony-score game, it also allowed new players to rank up quicker if they beat opponents who are consistently good players.

rommager, you need not hide my name from your thread.... i play to try to win the game... that's how i feel most people do it... if i'm losing, i don't try to throw the game by helping someone else relative "out of spite"... unfortunately some people do but i won't name names to be courteous to people that were not respectful of the game... if people are trying to just go for a good colony score and affect the winner of the game, they should let it be known at first... it's ashame that people cannot have equal chance of winning... i understand you selling the energy was not exactly affecting the game but it was the principle of the selling... had you been in 2nd by only a little bit, you would not have sold the energy at any price and hoped for a good production relative to the person currently in first place...  please remember that if you broadcast publically, everyone sees it... you may not want others to see that you throw the game if you see you have no chance of winning... cheers and good luck with all your future games... even if i am losing, i don't try to throw the game to who i want to win just for spite... interestingly enough your argument only proves my point

On our C64 tournaments it was common that if my worst rival (=one of the best friends) realised he could not win he would do anything to stop me from winning. I didn't care, if I won in the end the victory was even sweeter... ;)

Said it once, say it again: This is just a game!

good point piete.... i have to admit perhaps i exaggerated what happened... for that i apologize globally toward rommager... perhaps i would've done the same thing in rommager's shoes... who knows... but yes, all factors should be assumed in the game and one should expect anything to happen, even people selling in round #12 for absurd prices to pick who they want to win... that's one reason i always am on the sell line instead of buy during round 12 just in case something like that happens... it at least might prevent that... i would hope no one would do that but then again, it easily could

cheers!  mule is awesome! :)

No worries maskdbandt - I do play to help overall colony score, and mostly for the fun of it.  Lets face it though: it really wouldn't be M.U.L.E. if there wasn't a certain amount of backstabbing and spite.  Still, it's all in good fun.  I just took it more personal because I was criticized for simply playing a game for the sake of fun, and not so much for competitiveness.  I didn't do anything overly annoying - not much dancing around or degrading talk.  I was getting third place whether I sold energy or not.

Yea, I took some offense when you basically said "No offense, but I'm not playing with you anymore because you're an idiot player" (That is paraphrased - you only implied my idiocy).  I guess one of my things is that we have to wait forever for four human players, so I would rather have a crappy human player, who knows the game well, over an AI player or someone who is playing for the very first time.  This thread on sportsmanship only gave me opportunity to vent.   ::)

It was a very fun game, and I would gladly play with you again.  A little smack talk rivalry is never a bad thing, so long as it doesn't get personal.   ;D

My solution: High scores are on each players local machine, where only they can see it.  Just like any other arcade game.  Do I really care if anyone besides me is rank #1?  No!   End of story!!

Part of the fun of playing MULE is meeting different people with different game style and target. YES, there are more than TWO target (colony win, personal win). I also have meet the "rude ultra-competitive" player that dont understand cooperation....  on Mule, of all games... Is somewhat disgusting. But is part of the beaty of it, to meet people that way. You takes notes of the names of these players, and avoid playing with then.  On all my games (about 40 maybe) I only have meet people that style once, so it seems is a minority of players.

I also play L4D, and I have meet horrible people there, but also nice people. Even on a game like L4D designed to make you angry, you can build a list of "friends", people that is nice and you have fun playing with, I guest the same thing works for MULE, built a list of cool people to play with, avoid the "rooting apples"

I think MULE is game. Some people place nicely, and some do not. But, I don't hold the players who are ultracompetitive against them, because MULE is a game. As long as there are no personal attacks (exceptions among friends) outside of the boundaries of the game, I see no problem with taunting and the like. I know other people desire or tolerate different things...

I think a simple solution would be some sort of reputation metric; a self-designation of personal level of competitiveness; and/or a self-designation of tolerance for the highly competitive, cursing, and what not. Or even more simply, though far less informative, a friend/avoid marker. In this way, players know what kind of opponents they will be playing. If a player is uncomfortable, they can choose not to play in a game based on the above information. Also, a player could change the way they play based on overall player preferences for a particular game.

I find myself playing at different levels of competitiveness. I try to be very helpful to new players who want to learn and know the basics. Conversely, when I play good players, I find myself much more competitive. And with people I know well, I can play ultracompetitively, but I also know they are okay with it.

People want different things... Our community should help foster satisfaction, not remove gamesmanship.

Hey!  I dance all the time (But it is disco dancing with my MULE, not in auctions).  I've been accused by 2 opponents (in same game) of being a poor sport.  It was because i starved them out since they hogged up all the good ore plots.  I've played many people here and in other games and never been accused and cried too like that.  So after many rounds of complaining and boo hoos I gave in and feed em all to shut em up.

    My question is:  Do you consider that bad sportsmanship or a plan to win?  Denying people food and or energy when u have it (BTW after turn 2 of them all building ore they had no food or energy for next 6 turns).

     Oh and then they have the nerve to laugh when they end up winning cause I caved in and let them off the hook.

IMO the only poor sportsmen in MULE are people who are sore losers and accuse others of cheating just because they do something to spite you in the game.  Name calling isn't nice either.

You mean like a host quitting the game when he's losing?  You know who you are. 

The issue of sportsmanship is very subjective as everyone has different ideas of what it means to be a good sport. Deep down inside we all know if we've played fair or not. You can make all the excuses and lies you want to over the internet, but you can't fool yourself.

Players who don't sell food or energy aren't poor sports. They're just players who missed out on ore or crystite or good plots or MULEs, etc. They want to win just like all the rest of us. If you talk smack to players during a game, then you're just fueling the stereotype of an internet jerk (someone who forgets that that person on the other end is human no matter how many miles may separate them). Grow up I say to all you internet jerks. It's hard enough to get a game most times of the day. Internet jerks make it even harder by driving players away. We should be encouraging people to play, not making them feel bad for not knowing the rules of the game as well as you do. Play fair, help new players out, and have fun. It's that simple. MULE is boring as hell without actual humans to play with.

Dave,
   I have to agree with you.  There is one exception to your list in #4, where I did abort a game because one of the players was being abusive to the other players in what they were saying.  I just told everyone, "look, I'm not putting up with this, and I am closing this game", and did so...
   I am not a "cut-throat" MULE player, and I have NO problem losing to someone who has just outplayed me.  But the taunting, and juvenile stuff is annoying.
   I do think the heavy weight of only a 1st place win impacting overall "standing" is too lopsided.  I'd like to see anything that would add more balance to that system.
   -S

I had someone accuse me of cheating in the game... I have to say, that has to be the most infantile thing a person can do... how can you possibly CHEAT in MULE??? There are no "glitches" to exploit (or at least not that everyone has equal access to).  The only way possible to "Cheat" would be if you were a developer and somehow had access to the client and/or server code, and could exploit it that way.  So silly to claim a "Cheat" in an on-line video game.
That's just silly.
-S

I have read elsewhere on the forums where some games ended up with people starting with ridiculous amounts of money (like 500,000) and getting ridiculous high scores because of it.  So, obviously, there's something that is being done, somewhere.  But randomly accusing someone of cheating is stupid.

mega byte, i think what people have an issue with you on is that you tend to quit games and your list of games show it for your bad connection or whatever reason.  so sometimes that is misperceived as quitting when you're losing or think you will... but you are right, you can't cheat in mule! :)

No, I don't. I think it's bad sportsmanship to sell food for $100 or less when it's really worth $500 or more, unless you're selling to a player who has already lost the game. Players who expect food and energy will always be cheap just don't understand the game at all. They need to be taught a lesson. 8)

heh Kelmi, i totally agree... i've done that before where i didn't sell food and/or energy and was accused of that as well but i was just trying to teach them to be a better mule player in the future... it's always best to provide your own unless you know someone will sell to you cheap

I would consider that poor strategy.  Not poor sportsmanship.  Important difference!

I think choosing a poor strategy deliberately is bad sportsmanship.

I know high food and energy prices usually hurt the colony scorewise and some players may think everyone should aim for a high colony score. Unfortunately the colony scoring is kind of broken (and that's the only significant design flaw in M.U.L.E. I think). Selling to the store always rises the colony score though the only commodity that flows out of the system and should bring money in is crystite.

Something to munch on, for a second:

To get the highest score possible, players must deliberately raise the price of essential goods. They must either hoard the goods and cause the Store's price to rise, or collude with each other and sell at a higher price on purpose, even if its for commodities they do not require/have a desperate need for.

If everyone sells cheaply to the store, even with Crystite, the colony will likely fail.

tell me about it, I had this guy who bought up all the mules on purpose and released them, and got called a noob as if i was playing halo when I complained about it.

Releasing all the MULES is a valid tactic. He's spending at least $125 per MULE to do that, in order to drive up the Smithore price (but I'm sure you figured this out).

Whether he was out of line really depends on whether you were simply called a noob, or whether he tried to explain what he was doing.

You know, I've had a lot of people take shots at me about abandoned games... though I find it really amusing that the top 4 players currently also have the 4 highest abandoned rates.  In fairness to them, like me, majority of my abandons have come during earlier versions.  But look at the score board... I have a low ratio of games, with a high ratio of wins.  My abandons are no more than anyone else's...
-S