@DeathMule

What aliases are you using?  So I can spot if you're on.

Also, since I've installed this on my new computer, I ran it to give it a test try to make sure things work okay, and I noticed I have no game sounds despite clicking the sound off/on thingy.  You wouldn't happen to be aware of this issue and know a remedy?

Cheers!

I'd enjoy a game with you.  We'll probably have to schedule it though.  What days and hours are good for you?

So what else is new?  Some people just can't handle taking a hit.  They're quitters.  Some of us are built upon better ethics, and will soldier onward.

I am, however, undecided as to whether or not you are the community idiot.

Btw, long time no see.  Hope you're doing well.

Best regards,
Hotblack

djdb,

The problem you’ve described sounds a lot like the problem I was experiencing, although I had it in offline play. Be sure to check out the thread, “Mid-game hang-up”.
http://www.planetmule.com/forum?topic=1829.0

The main problem for me was the OpenGL settings for my graphics.  Once I was able to set it for triple buffering it pretty much eliminated the problem, although I haven’t tested it with online play yet.  You may want to adjust your graphics for performance rather than quality.  What are your video specs?

I agree, it always appeared to me as a graphics issue, and it was a graphics issue.  I was finally able to set my OpenGL for triple buffering, once I ultimately found it; you know new computer and all... I must've mucked around in graphics settings several dozen times, but this time I actually found the tab it was hidden under (the veritable proverbial needle in the haystack).  Needless to say, it fixed the problem without having to shut down programs or isolating cpus for the java runtime.

Thanks again for your support!  You do the Mule community proud.

That helped a bit.  It's not perfect, as there's still a bit of a visual hiccup on round 6 (such as when exiting the storehouse there is a slight delay in bringing up the tile map, so when holding the arrow key upon exiting it looks like you teleport across half a plot or so).  But it's much better.  Thanks again.

Thanks for the advice, Chuckie. Your take on it does makes sense.  I’ll give it a try.   Trust me, I was just as perplexed. I shutoff just about every program and shell running before trying the second game and could not fathom what would be causing the lag.  Does the computational load peak about mid-game, say rounds 6 & 7? 

I don't know if anyone else has experienced the same problem I seem to be having, but I wanted to throw it out there in case you fellows may have some advice.

I played a couple (local) training games after installing the 1.3.4 version which then auto-updated to 1.3.5, and the game (w/ 3 AI) seems to hang-up or stutter the graphic frames for a few seconds when switching from storehouse to map and vice-versa around mid-game (rnds 5-7, roughly).

As soon as I have the opportunity I will uninstall and re-installed to see if that helps.

I'm running it on a:
ASUS Desktop PC CM1630
AMD Phenom II x4 830 Processor 2.8 GHz
6 GB ram
Windows 7
ATI Radeon 3000 Graphics

My thanks to you in advance,
Hotblack Desiato

That's why I suggested "Housing Bubble"

     That's an interesting concept Chuckie Chuck.  It would certainly be intriguing to try.  Might even want to segregate the plot types (river, plains, mountains) for independent values as the availability for each type declines.  Or possibly even varying the depreciation of the land depending on how the game plays outs (are all the plots consumed by round 9,10, or round 11, or 12 because 2nd lost a plot on round 11), thus having endgame land values ranging from something like 300-700.
     Also setting the auction house to begin bidding at current land values might change things up a bit, versus -60 last purchase price.
     You know the more I think about it, the more I like it.  It would add more risk to 6-8 round auctions, because everyone still want an extra plot for its potential, but knowing that the earlier all the plots are consume that its more likely to score a lower land value at the end.  It could affect how much one is willing to spend, or to grudgingly spend because bidding began at 2800 and another player is willing to run it up to 4000.
     I think you'd still have a pretty good balance game though.

Thanks,

Alright, lets try this one more time.

     It's just a friendly debate, don't let it frustrate you for I do not hold you ill regard.  Ultimately I think we're both looking for similar results, but just disagree as to how to best achieve those results.

the point is to recognize that this person is really in first place. You know it's a big value because other people were willing to pay that much. You know it's that valuable because over the course of the game it will more than pay for itself.

     Agreed, due to the potential production that an additional plot (especially earlier in the game) offers there is great potential value in having that additional plot.
     The reason the player that spent 972 on a plot in the first round moves to fourth place is due to the 472 loss generated from the difference of the 972 spent and the 500 land value.  The problem typically generated by this first round action is that it becomes rather easy for that player to ride out the first half of the game in fourth place reaping the fourth place bid and land grant benefits, and the eventual <8 mule benefit.  Fourth has the advantage of being first in buying/selling, and of winning the plot they want in the land grant phase.  Odds are in favor that this player will eventually end up with some good crystite plots by end game.  It's may also lend them an advantage to the first big smithore dump that is common to most games.  If timed and executed well mule dumping during the <8 mule round can prove to be a very lethal weapon for fourth place to employ.
     I believe you would like to see that plot's potential added into the value of the plot by valuing it at a price relatively close to, if not, the price that it was purchased as a means to eliminate the aforementioned.  Correct?
     While inflating the land value will keep that person out of fourth place; I feel that it would eventually do more harm than good.  In my perspective it removes a lot of the risk in buying a plot of land, especially in later rounds when the auction plots could go for up to 3000 (and sometime even more) because most players are willing to pay that much for the additional plot.
     IMO to value an auctioned plot at ~3000 would unbalance the game tremendously.  A player that obtained the average 11 plots in game during land grant without having purchased one would have a land value of 5500.  While a player that did the same and paid a little over 3000 for an extra plot valued at 3000,  finished with 12 plots valued at 8500,rather than 6000.  That's a huge difference for others to compete against, plus don't forget, it's compounded on top of the production potential value that the plot provided to the player.
     I see this as adding an advantage on top of an advantage.  I think it would eliminate the chances for the players not as fortunate in acquiring land (9 or 10 plots total) to win.
     It's one thing to compete against the extra 500s and the extra production that other players with better land advantage have, but one skillful enough at playing the market (possibly playing off of an event such as a late store fire) still has the potential to win the game.
     I think that if you remove the equality of land in this manner you'll end up placing the greater landholders further out of reach from the lesser landholders, thus making it nearly impossible for them to win. 
     And as far a removing risk, there have been games where I've witnessed players buying their defeat by overextending themselves in late auction rounds.  They spend too much for the piece of land, and end up not being able to rebound the loss.  Probably because they didn't have the time to develop it for a few rounds.  If the value of the plot were overinflated to roughly the purchased price it wouldn't matter, because there would be very little loss, if any.  Do you disagree?

If your goal is to give them an automatic "benefit" sufficient to bring them into the first place curse, then it becomes really valuable to buy yourself into rich trouble.

In fact, if you are going to give them a bonus, then it becomes possible to spend more than 972, and still get a mule down.

    First, player events only occur from rounds 2-11, thus the latter statement would not be true for round 1.
    Secondly, my goal is not to hurtle the player that bought a plot in the first round into first place (although receiving a free plot on round 2 could end up putting them in first on round 3).  I just want it to be more difficult for them to ride along in fourth for the first half of the game while the whole time snagging all of the best crystite plots during each land grant.
     I think the early monetary awards are generally around 50-150 for rounds 1-4, while the 2 bars a smithore award would most likely have a steadily increasing value of 50 up to 230.  The food and energy package would also have it's small added value.  In general the awards are a small and temporary  added value, with the free plot being of greatest value in the early rounds.   
     In many of the Planet Mule games I've played it at appears to me that second and third tend to get more early round bonuses than fourth.  Seems like fourth more often doesn't get awards until the later rounds when they tend to be more superfluous  It's my opinion that fourth should be the one getting the awards in the early rounds over second and third.
     I believe that an early award to fourth (especially on round 2) will help nudge (or persuade) them out of fourth.  A small money award would nip away at that 472 deficit that helped a player into fourth, and it would add incentive to get the plot developed, thus causing the player to make back that purchasing loss through productivity.
    I think this would help deter the low rider tactics that I see a lot players, including myself sometimes, administering during the early game to purposefully sit in fourth for the land grant perks (granted lag can affect this as its no surprise to occasionally see the host win out over another player).
    However this shouldn't unbalance the game as the player events are already a part of the game.  I would just like to see fourth get them more in the early rounds as opposed to the later rounds, when they have a little more impact on the player.


Thanks,

[only]

Why not have inflated land values, it would be like the real world right, maybe even include the land bubble concept and watch the value of land crash near the end of the game when all the plots are filled.

     Do not confuse real estate with land value.  Land is valued by dimensions, terrain type, and location, whereas real estate includes inflated values from structures constructed on the land.
     If one had forty acres of clear and level land that they divvied into twenty lots, each being equal in size, say two and a quarter acres (having subtracted for roads), each plot will be of equal value with only a slight deviation from location, such as a corner plot on an intersection.

So let me see if I understand this correctly:
1. You're willing to pay 2900 for a plot.
2. Your opponent pays more, and gets it.
3. I say: Value that land at 2900 -- because you were willing to pay that much.
4. You say: Value that land at 500 -- because some programmer, 30 years ago, assigned that value arbitrarily.

     I don't believe the original land value of 500 was contrived arbitrarily.  It's of relatively low value held at a flat rate, thus making it a very low influencing factor of the game, which is why a player with 9 plots can win against a player with 12 plots, because the game is concentrated more upon the market strategies.  In your proposal to value auctioned plots at the price for which they are purchased would greatly unbalance the game, because the guy who spent 2900 on the plot now has a 2900 point advantage versus only gaining a 500 point advantage (assuming all values remain static).  If this were the case I'd spend every cent I have to win a plot, because there is no money loss, thus no risk in spending a fortune for it!

We don't need to give that 4th place player any bonus.
We just need to give them enough "assets" to keep them in first place, where they belong.

The point here is that they have something which, over the course of the game, will have a value of several thousand. They paid only 970, and are moved down to 4th place -- they won't get bad events, may get good events, and get beneficial ordering aid.

     A bonus will increase a player's net worth via money, assets (food and energy package/2 bars of smithore), or land (free plot).
     Here you now suggest land value changing during the game versus being static with your proposal to value auctioned plots at their purchased price.  So what are the conditions required to increase/decrease land values?  Will the outfitting of the plot influence the land value?  What is the base value of a piece of land,  in other words what are the free plots selected during the land grant and the free plot award initially worth?  Anything?  Explain.  Nonetheless purchase price has never influenced value in capitalist systems. 

     In regard to adding a variable land value table for Mule 2, I would suggest something along these lines so it would still keep the game more centered on the production of the market commodities, rather than being the greatest landholder.

Giving a base value (v) of 500 (I'd still keep this low) for each plot, terrain type is valued at:
Mountainous = v-10%(v)
Plains = v
River =v+25%(v)*

* assuming same board layout containing only four river plots.

plus an additional land value modifier based on the outfitting of the terrain type, such as:

Food = +10%(v) on river, +0 on plains, -10%(v) on mountainous
Energy = -5%(v) on river, +10%(v) on plains, -15%(v) on mountainous
Smithore = +0 on plains, +5%(v)/+10%(v)/+15%(v) for mountainous*
Crystite  = +0 on plains and mountainous

* assuming same structure 1-3 mountains contained on a mountainous plot.

     IMO this will add a more true real estate factor to the game.  If you want to take it another step further by adding locational value,once again assuming the same first edition board layout, add a modifier that increases land value the further it is from the store, and/or a outfit modifier such as:

F & E = -%v on right, +%v on left
S & C = +%v on right, -%v on left

     Another alternative/additional modifier could be to have a varying number of plots available on the boards each game that would slightly change the base value of land in relation to total number of plots on the board, greater value for below average and lesser value for above average total number of plots.

Etcetera.

Thanks,

Posted by: Keybounce
Speaking of helping 4th place, and early game issues:

I want to see land valuation for ranking changed. If you spend $972 on turn one, don't value the land at $500, giving you a $472 loss and an extra plot.

How about this: Value land at the second best price offered in the auction.
If there was no second price, value it at what you paid.

The big problem with that would be in regard to auctions later in the game when players can afford to spend $3000 or more for a plot.  If your a player that only had $2900 at the time of the auction and could not outbid your opponent for the plot, you most certainly don't want guy's plot valued at $3000.

It would be better to counter the initial perceived $472 loss in your example with a bonus event for 4th on that following round.  A $100 or $150 award bonus would go far into quickly eliminating that small early loss.  It would most likely provide the player with enough money to outfit a mule, which leads to production gains.  Before you know it the player will have made up for that $472, and moved up out of 4th place.

Thanks,

     I agree with most of the above.  1st is too abused, 2nd gets far too many positives (esp. free plot in later rounds), and 4th gets squat.

Posted by: MuleyMan
I think the original had a "niceness factor".  If 2nd or 3rd place got a bonus, usually last place would get a bonus also.  If 1st place didnt get a negative, that was a clue that the others WOULD get a bonus.

     I agree in that the original definitely seemed to be more generous with events on rounds when it handed them out.  Perhaps a modifier exited that significantly increased the ratio in favor to being awarded with an event.  Ex: If 2nd received an award, 3rd would be given a much greater chance of being awarded also, and should 3rd gain an award 4th would be certain to receive one as well since it received twice the modifier bonus.
     Nonetheless, I would like to see 4th given more awards, if even to make it more difficult for players to purposefully ride out the early rounds in 4th to gain the bid and land grant benefits.  Give that player that purposely overspent (976-1000) on a first round auction to get a plot so he would have no money to outfit mules even after catching the wampus a nice lump of money on round 2 to entice them to put up at least one, maybe 2, energy/food mule.  What same player still in last on round 3, here's a free plot/more money, and guess who's in 1st or 2nd next round.  While this example may be extreme, but I think more frequent awards for 4th would help continually shuffle the players out of that position and keep things more competitive in the early rounds of the game.  IMHO the free plot should only go to 4th, if and when it is handed out in the game.

     In regard to the pre/post production round events, I've never seen a pest attack hit 2nd in the PM version of Mule.  Only 1st, and sometimes 3 times in one game.  2nd should be struck by this one with an equal chance as 1st.
     I also do not care for the side by side meteor strikes that seem to occur too frequently, yeah yeah, it's all random, trouble is irony falls upon odd coincidences.  The chance for hitting the same side/quadrant of the map should decrease greatly.  Allowing for it to hit the same plot twice would be interesting; it might add some adventure to the game, because it becomes a negative event rather than a positive.

     Ultimately I believe the goal with the events should be to structure them more towards balancing the competition.  Random attempts to level the playing field.


Thanks,

     While I'm hesitant in reviving an old topic, I too have experienced AI bot hang-ups when they assay land.
     It seems to consistently occur when the AI tries to assay the plot adjacent to the river just to the lower left of the store.  A blip can be heard like that of a player hitting his space bar/trigger button, but the assay bot does not release to assay the plot.  It remains hovering over the AI's shoulder as the AI stands in place for the remainder of its turn.  Note that the position of the AI's avatar is in the upper right corner of the plot, perhaps touching the right boundary line of the plot.
     It could also be timing related.  The trigger may be occurring before the AI registers as being in the plot, or may be in conflict with exiting the store and being registered on the plot map.

Thanks,

Who has the time or would even want to play 1000 games in a year

A man trying to avoid his wife.