With this game: http://www.planetmule.com/hi-score-game/game?game_id=15115 I want to show that planet M.U.L.E, with it's current latency problems in auctions, is not playable anymore.

I am not going to play this game anymore untill this host-advantage is somehow fixed.

Salinga's proposal of processing player actions during auctions and land grants looks like a nice solution. But I'm not a programmer/network engineer, so I'll keep myself out of this discussion.

A list off the top of my head...

How in gods name did you come up with these amazing events
Prankster Wampus and Kamikaze Stampede are my favourites.

Because the host has a very big advantage of determining the game by always being the first at the buying line during an auction (if he wants), and being able to buy all the available goods before the other players can, why not change the concept.

I don't think the current concept conicides with the original game to begin with.  And so you might be suggesting to change the concept based on the assumption that what is happening now is the correct way, which is not.  

- just like selling to the shop, buying from the shop should be done simultaneously if there are more then one persons to buy at the same price. Buying from humans should be done one by one dividing the goods over the people buying.

In the original game, if multiple people meet the line then the person with the lowest amount of cash gets priority.  With that in mind, would you still suggest the same thing?

Did I say anything about that my proposal would apply for the exact-copy-version of MULE?
Together with zposse's addition I think this proposal is a very nice idea to prevent latency issues.

I don't agree on your cutting the line principle. That gives the lowest ranked player the same privileges as the player with the highest ping now (=host).

Hmm very nice.
Sounds reasonable what you suggest and the consequences of the changes.

Quick very global calculation

Code:

after 3 rounds:
#1: farm, energy, farm
#2: smithore, parts, mule
#3: energy, smithore, parts
#4: smithore, farm, energy

f 16; -12+4 =8; [b]-8[/b]+8 =8; [b]-8+14[/b] =14;
e 9; -3+4 =10; -6+8 =12; -9+12 =15;
s 0; +8 =8; -4+12 =16; -8-4+12 =16; 
p 0; 0; +4 =4; -4+8 =8;
m 16; -4 =12; -4 =8; -4+4 =8;

I was wondering about how delicate the balance was. It makes the game much and much more interdependent. And that is indeed a plus for the trading part of all commodities especially in the beginning. But one person can ruin the game pretty hard. I like the idea of the six commodities, but maybe it is too much for only four players to keep the colony self sustainable.
First a version of smithore->mules and then a version of smithore>parts>mules will find out.

For the rest I want to say: really worked out very nicely.

Actually I think this is one of the best new gameplay ideas I have seen so far.
But there are couple of more things we have to think about:

- Do you want a distribution of between 1-4 buntenol (nice name btw) per plot, or between 0-4?
0-4 would be more like in real life. Just like crystite cannot be mined on every plot. And what about the Assay bot? Would it give you the amount of buntenol in the plot, or only the depth? Is the well located on one layer in the ground, or the deeper you go the more buntenol you can produce?*
- Several MULE needed to dig deeper: what would happen if you remove MULE's from the plot? Do you remove them 1 by 1? Or do you only remove 1 MULE before the plot is empty again (other MULE's are deep in the ground and cannot be recovered anymore)? Removing 1 by 1 doesn't look like a nice idea to me, because then you can use a plot to store MULE's. You strategy can then be: install a couple of your plots with all the remaining MULE's so there are none available for the rest, and every next turn I can get one of my cheap MULE's from those plots to further develop.
- Nice idea of the filling station. But what would the price be? Are you selling your produced Buntenol to the shop and the shop gives you the availability to fill up your MULE's if you pay the shop (like outfitting your MULE)? Or do players need their own amount of Buntenol which they use for their MULE's themselves?

*Graphical example of buntenol in plot.
surface
0    1
4 or 3
0    4

The Future of M.U.L.E.
That is exact where this subforum is about. But what exactly do the makers do with all these new ideas for future gameplay?

There seems to be some general difference/misunderstanding between (1) people which played MULE in the old times, and (2) people who are new to MULE thanks to the internet version which supports some more recent OS's.

Is see a lot of interesting things being proposed by (2). They see a new game, and see room for what they think might improve the game. In a lot of cases I see topics dying away because (1) say that they prefer to see an exact copy of the original game first, and maybe later in a version MULE2 we can add those new ideas.

To stimulate inventiveness of new players and some resting of mind by original-MULE players I would like to see some words from the makers about this issue.
Are you going to make an exact copy of the game (MULE1)? Are you working on new features? Are going to separate MULE1 and MULE2 or are you first trying to make MULE1?

And then maybe have a FAQ topic in this subforum to let people know these ideas and thus less unnecessary killing of new thinking.

Ok, ye i'm not familiar with the original game.
Probably the going into a crystite economy is much better then the current.
Hmm sounds like that solves a lot of my anger against the current gameplay. Thanks for resting my mind.

Would be interesting though to see food and energy be more valuable by making the need higher I guess.

The only pure off-colony income is:
- crystite
- the burning of smithore by the shop after 99 (it keeps buying for the sake of burning it)
- food in the form of time in the pub (little and uncontrollable)

But it is not that strange to distribute this income to all the players according to how important they are. Producing food and energy is very important for the colony, but sucks at getting the big money. So why not increase profitability of food and energy by using these changes?

It is true that total colony money will decrease, but hey, who said life was easy?

Increasing the needed food may help increase the need, but food is already needed and the game currently doesn't make it easy to have and produce a large amount of it.

What is the difference between three farms and three smithore plots?

Purposely starting a shortage will tend to hurt everyone rather than help one person.  As with the real world, price gouging a needed economic commodity only serves to damn everyone after awhile.

Creating possible shortages will indeed cause potential harm. Hence a capitalistic world where profitable possibilities arise. The attitude towards food now is: 'ah come on, there is enough for everyone, just give me your food otherwise you ruin our colony'. To: 'ah crap, there is going to be a general shortage if people don't start making food. Please make it and I will pay for it.'

It is not the fault of the shop that it undervaluates food. It uses the same formula for all commodities. Which means that when there is a big shortage the prices will increase dramatically. Seen the fact that the demand for food is never higher then 20 (4 players needing 5 food) and the supply is approximately 16 (4 farms producing 4 each) the price will not increase that much.
It uses the formula: current_price*(0.25+0.75*(D/S))
So at the later levels when demand (D) is highest, the new price is approximately current_price*1.19 (with D=20 and S=16). After this price setting the store will buy for 15 less, so it is fundamental to the game now that the price of food from the store doesn't increase automatically. Creating a shortage (which can be overcome by just making more farms like you would make smithore) will cause players to buy food against a high price and the price of the store will also increase with the formula.

It might seem a little odd to 'damn everyone after awhile'. But that is exactly what the food and energy need. Everyone takes these commodities for granted, and everyone makes money with smithore by making a lot and cause shortages of mules. Not changing the principle of food and energy keeps it as a damned necessity instead of a nice trading opportunity.

As for Energy, it is needed everywhere, but can be produced in large amounts fairly easily.  The problem that energy is critical for production and the economy.  Prices of energy direct translate to the prices of the other three goods, since their production is dependent on the price of Energy.  You could make it so squares with higher yield potential take up more energy, but this may just cause shortages and other issues.

Other issues like for example the need for energy and the increase of the price so trading energy will also become as profitable as making smithore?

The idea of roads may be good for games like Settlers, Anno, ...
MULE is a game of simplicity where strategy is the key.
Adding features to the game which are barely as significant as all the other features doesn't make the game more interesting. It gives either an advantage or not, and from the moment that is known, everyone does or doesn't use it.
I guess the idea is not very profitable in any way, how often would you walk such a road? (or: how often would you walk the same route to a plot?).
And then you should also distinguish between the people who made that road and people who didn't.
That makes it all so much more worse.

But luckily this has already been said by data2008

Because the host has a very big advantage of determining the game by always being the first at the buying line during an auction (if he wants), and being able to buy all the available goods before the other players can, why not change the concept.
I am sure this is discussed before in topics, but this seems to be a good place to gather ideas.
- just like selling to the shop, buying from the shop should be done simultaneously if there are more then one persons to buy at the same price. Buying from humans should be done one by one dividing the goods over the people buying.

Furthermore:
- is it an idea for the shop to increase the price it is selling at during an auction if the shop notices the realtime demand is high (for example: when people are still running up at the selling line, the price gets pushed up a little per each transaction?)
- what about the fact that you can push the price for for example a land auction so high that noone else can buy it, and then back off not buying it yourself. Does the minimum price need to drop?

A very important part of the game is not knowing if you have enough time for doing all the things you want to do. Hence, at certain moments stresslevel will rise and people will make errors.
With your idea people will take more time and less errors. Two disadvantages in my opinion.

Playing against AI's is not were the game is made for.

What about increasing the players need for food during the game?
- instead of 3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5 for example 3,3,4,4,5,5,5,5,6,6,6,6,7,7,7,7 (while max time when enough food stays the same during each round)

What about needing energy for transporting goods (smithore/crystite) from plot to deposit/store.
- for example: every plot has 4 goods to be transported for no extra energy. And then 1 Energy for every additional 2 goods. If player doesnt have energy to transport goods, then only 4 will be transported to the deposit.

This makes food and energy way more valuable for players having it. Prices will increase dramatically.

When AI calculates how much he wants to receive for goods during auction (in my game it was crystite, sorry no link, i played local) he can stand at $100 for selling, and shop buys for $100, but AI was standing a pixel or two above shop buying line so not transaction occured while price in $ was the same.