Is it possible that you've been around longer then me C64? and that I started with 1.2.0 and there is some artifact of an older version of mule that is messing you up?

Have you tried clearing everything out that pertains to planetmule and reinstalling from scratch?

I'd love to see Dweeb ratings be part of people's profiles, but they should only rate against people's most recent 80% of games so someone could de-dweeb by correcting their behavior.

I posted this as part of a bug but I want to throw it out there as an overall idea.

Here is the thing..... When the system auctions land some times the guy with the most money can lock everyone else out by running the price all the way up. Also, when there is an auction for a resource such as smithore, food, or energy. If the person buying the resource runs up the price high enough the store stops buying it, so that means anyone who still has units to sell after someone has run the price too high for the store has to let them rot if the high price buyer doesn't want more.

So, I suggest a thin gray line in the middle of the auction UI, if you are going up or down and you are the driving person for the price of an item and you hit this line and the store is not active then you stop moving and the bottom end price just keeps changing until the store is active again at which point the line freezes and you fall off of it.


Examples of how this would change game play:


Example #1:  Land for sale for 500, player 1 runs the price up to 5000 and then wants to retreat back down, as he starts going down from the top of the auction and hits the center he stops moving and instead of him backing out of the auction while he pushes down the base price on the auction starts going down. So, at this point one of two things happens, either the guy who tried to drive it up too far ends up with the property he didn't mean to take (probably at a price he didn't mean) or he retreats out and the land goes back to the price it started and one of the other players has a chance to pop in at the last minute at that price.

Example #2: Player 1 is short on food, the store is buying at $20 a unit, player 2 has 20 units,  player 1 races to the top of the screen raising the price on food to the point where the store isn't buying anymore, Player 1 buys her fill of food from player 2 then runs down to not buy anymore, player 2 still has 16 extra units of food, she goes down until she hits the center line and keeps pressing down, instead of moving on the screen her feet move but she stays still and the price at the bottom of the auction starts changing until we lock back into the $20 and then she goes past the line the rest of the way to the store who buys the remaining 16 units at $20 each.




For the sake of keeping the value of food and energy as a factor in the game I would also disregard any sales of resources made to the store after the price has drifted above it and come back down in the value equations later.

I know there are a lot of suggestions that would move us from playing the classic version, some are good ones.

Why not allow the host to choose which mode you are playing in. Classic Mode would be the version where we are trying to be as much like the original as possible, Planet Mode would be with all the cool new features people are asking for.

I'd like to see a command line version of planetmule that you could run with a flag that tells it to work in dynamic host mode.

Dynamic host mode would set up a table for people to play on without a player hosting.

If someone's network chokes it would kick them after 60 seconds.

When a game ends it would open up for a new game after everyone unjoins or leaves.

If someone is being annoying enough to deserve a kick then all of the other players have to agree to kick him... one player tries to kick and the others (other then the one being kicked) are prompted to agree.

If anyone clicks the setting to turn off AI development then noone sees it.

I think I've covered all the responsibilities of the host, if I missed something I hope the other players will chime in.

I think this option will allow people who have idle computers and can host to help out those who can't.

The reason I asked for it to be a CLI option is that I don't mind running a dynamic table myself on my FreeBSD server in my data center, but I can't run it from home. Since I don't run xwindows on my web server I'd need command line to help people out this way.

btw: as a nice little option on this you could have the table say on it who the host is so others can thank them when they see them for letting them play

There are two threads on this topic so I'm giving my Java Version on both threads because it works for me:


java -version
java version "1.6.0_17"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_17-b04-248-10M3025)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 14.3-b01-101, mixed mode)


And, for the record (for anyone who is trying to troubleshoot this) my yahoo, msn, and aim handles are all the same as my handle here, so you can IM me and get more info if you need.

I'm running Snow Leopard with the most recent updates.

Hardwar specs:

  Model Name:   MacBook Pro
  Model Identifier:   MacBookPro5,5
  Processor Name:   Intel Core 2 Duo
  Processor Speed:   2.53 GHz
  Number Of Processors:   1
  Total Number Of Cores:   2
  L2 Cache:   3 MB
  Memory:   4 GB
  Bus Speed:   1.07 GHz
  Boot ROM Version:   MBP55.00AC.B03
  SMC Version (system):   1.47f2




Software Specs:
  System Version:   Mac OS X 10.6.2 (10C540)
  Kernel Version:   Darwin 10.2.0
  Boot Volume:   Brain
  Boot Mode:   Normal
  Secure Virtual Memory:   Enabled
  64-bit Kernel and Extensions:   No
  Time since boot:   11 days 4:22





Good luck troubleshooting.

It works for me on my MacBook Pro

I was asked to post my java version here:

java -version
java version "1.6.0_17"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_17-b04-248-10M3025)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 14.3-b01-101, mixed mode)

I have been running 1.2.2 on my MacBook Pro with the latest version of Snow Leopard, so it's not ALL mac users.

[Possible Solution #1:]

OK, this is very obviously a logical error not a syntactical one and it is a complicated process to see it so I'm going to walk you through a scenario that happened to me. The numbers won't be exact because I didn't write them down but you will get the idea.

So, here is the Senario:

Player has -5 energy and AI has +19 (in this case we will say the player is me to make this easier to write) and store has none.

So, I know from reading the forums that the AI recalculates the value it will sell at after each sale based on the shortages (among other things) on the board so while the store is buying at 20 the AI is staying pretty high up there, so I go up to meet the AI and sell my first unit but in doing so I need to raise the top end price of energy to the point where the store is no longer buying because the bottom price is now 21. Then I drop a little and see where the AI will meet me to sell when I'm at -4 (to get the best deal). Then I drop again to get a better deal on the next unit, rinse and repeat.

This process works nice for getting the best possible deal from the AI.

The problem becomes when I get down to -1 and the AI's price for sale is less than the bottom of the auction, the AI is trying to sell at 10 but can't go below 21, the store won't buy, and he keeps walking downwards forever while the clock runs out, I come up from below the 21 line to 21 but because the AI is still trying to walk the price never locks in between us even though we are at the same place.

Possible Solution #1: The AI could be smart enough to stop walking down when it hits the bottom of an auction. The only concern here is that a player who knows about this oddity can use it to deny someone a buy in the right situation (dirty mule).

Possible Solution #2: Auctions could just disable the down for anyone when you hit the bottom.

Possible Solution #3: When someone is trying to go down and the bottom end of the auction and the store isn't buying it could drive down the auction just like going above the top end can drive it up and go down until you get back to the store. I know this is a departure from the original and the movement to perfectly reproduce the original, but it makes sense to me to match off against intent.

Possible Solution #4: You can say "Shut up weenie boy and stop trying to place games with the AI, you get what you deserve for screwing up"

Possible Solution #5: (this one is a huge departure but I think would make the auctions better all around, oh, and it's my favorite solution of this list {option #4 being my least favorite})... Add a half way point line in the auction interface, this line would have a special raising and dropping nature to it to change the overall scope of the auction. So, if you are the highest bidding buyer and you are going up or down instead the top and bottom of the market would change until you've reached the real top or bottom.... same if you are the lowest selling seller.... Doing this to auctions would also undo the sitution where the guy with the most money drives up the cost of a plot in an auction just so noone else can buy it because that guy runs the auction up to $4000 then he has to go down far enough to get off the line before he is off the hook to buy it.

 

that is how I found you guys

When software acts contrary then expected or instructed by a user then the user's gut reaction is to believe it is buggy.

Tell me you read all the docs before the first time you played...

It is simple: new player sitting at the computer evaluating the game as they play the first time, they are sure they were first to the line on an auction, they watch 2 other people buy out the store and they don't get the thing they were trying to buy, they say "screw this buggy game" and they never come back.

You can throw out any RTFM type arrogance you want but reduced player base because of perceived bugs in the game does nothing but extend the time we sit around waiting for games.

I'm not trying to be nosy or argumentative, but why would this be important during play? If it's already happened, you should be able to figure out why pretty quickly.

Simple.... because when you click a plot and someone else gets it, or you reach the line on an auction before someone else yet they get the trade it gives the impression that the software is buggy and makes people frustrated....

It wasn't until I assumed it was a bug and complained during a game that someone told me it was actually a feature... how many more people think the software is buggy and walk off grumbling rather then continue to play?

When the game makes a decision between two people because of Rank it would help if the system popped a message saying something like "Dweeb was granted the Plot because of a lower rank then Dork"


Same in auctions "Dweeb was given the buy because of a lower rank then Dork"