...raise the scorecard value of land from $500... to $1000 or $1500...

By the way, I'd really like to see this happen...

Are you aware that virtually every webpage you visit collects your public IP address info?

I think the point WhoosThis is making is the logs are freely and easily seen by anyone trolling PlanetMULE -- member or not. The number of anyone on the internet is amazing bigger than the number of people behind most webpages. In this case, size matters. WhoosThis' concern is valid considering the scope of potential viewers. Something as simple as limiting the ability to view logs to only Planet MULE members would be a gigantic improvement from a privacy standpoint (Google is even providing results from chat logs.).

About dynamic IP addresses: I have a cable modem. If I want a new IP address, I not only have to power down my modem, but also wait, sometimes for hours before powering it back up. But, even if I just needed to power cycle my modem for a new address, I would have to do this every time I played a Planet MULE game... Furthermore, IP addresses often point to their user's physical whereabouts. If somebody wanted to stalk me, it would be easy to substantially narrow my proximity, from my game logs and most any of my dynamically provided IP addresses contained within.

Using a proxy would also be a problem because of lag...

I do agree privacy is becoming evermore elusive, but that doesn't mean we have to give it away. We have every right to challenge and fight for our privacy. Preserving and encouraging privacy is extremely worthwhile and needed.

+1

While this idea would indeed help prevent the land buyer from enjoying the benefits of being in last place for a while (good events, win ties, etc.)...

My take is to simply raise the scorecard value of land from $500. Since the land auctions have been modified to allow quick price increases, land very rarely sells below $500. Raising the scorecard value to $1000 or $1500 keeps the price paid and scorecard value closer. Even allowing for the potential earnings from a given plot, $500 is quite low for a base value.

For the Mac, Power64 is pretty good albeit it hasn't been updated in awhile.

I made a new user account, and fired up all my browsers to check what they would do with Mule 2.

Thanks for testing. We haven't tested many browsers but it seems that you are required to do more parameter fiddling in the Java Control Panel to allow more memory on Mac OSX than on Windows.

Could you do the same tests with this applet below?
http://www.minecraft.net/play.jsp

All the browsers warned the digital signature cannot be verified. All the browsers loaded Minecraft with no other problems except Opera. Opera seemed to load everything fully, but the screen was black. You could hear sound, the mouse locked to the game, and it seemed like you were moving. But, the screen was black save for the very first title screen with MINECRAFT in black and white and the following words underneath: Switching applet.

I made a new user account, and fired up all my browsers to check what they would do with Mule 2.

Firefox 3.6.12 --- java out of memory, but chat loads
OmniWeb 5.10.3 --- java out of memory, but chat loads
Safari 5.0.2 --- java out of memory, but chat loads
Chrome 7.0.517.44 --- game and chat load fully
Opera 10.63 --- game and chat load fully

All testing done without any tweaking. I checked if the game would load, but I did not play a game.

Mac OS X 10.6.4 with Java for Mac OS X 10.6 Update 3 (support for Java SE 6 up to version 1.6.0_22)

I tried playing a MULE 2 game about a couple hours before 13.00 UTC. But, a game never started for me using http://www.planetmule.com/test-mule2. The only thing that came up was Mibbit chat. I was using Safari 5.0.2 on Mac OS X 10.6.4 with the latest Java release.

What happened for you? Only an empty black screen, or do you see the Java icon and loading bar appear? When testing on a Mac with Safari I've seen that the Java icon doesn't appear but the game is loaded in the background. It takes a few minutes for it to load, while the screen is all black, and then you see the game appear.

I need to double-check (I'll also try with 4 other browsers.), but here was my experience... The page starts to load. Then an empty black box/screen appears (I think it said Mule 2, briefly.), followed by more loading. Finally, the Mibbit chat comes up in the black box, but no game or even a login for the game.

I think the timer speeding on the C64 during diagonal movement was more of a bug in that version (The c64 had some quirks with counting time accurately, having two switches on the joystick press at the same time at anytime made the clock double count time, didn't matter the program.)  It didn't have a real time clock, so you could only approximate time counting, and it wasn't entirely stable.  I don't think we should duplicate a bug caused by a limitation in the machine itself.  Just my opinion.

I have no desire to mess with the timer, or making it speed up during diagonals et all. All the drama from messing with the land auction would be so much worse if the development timer changed... Nope, my request:

First and foremost (if I could change only one)
1. Never get money back for a previous mule outfitting

Second and less important
2. Only receiving the cost of the mule when selling one back to the store (no refund for outfitting)
3. Selling a mule back to the store takes extra time

I tried playing a MULE 2 game about a couple hours before 13.00 UTC. But, a game never started for me using http://www.planetmule.com/test-mule2. The only thing that came up was Mibbit chat. I was using Safari 5.0.2 on Mac OS X 10.6.4 with the latest Java release.

Adding change logs isn't a bad idea...

Punishing hosts ? Guys come on Planetmule and are begging for somebody to host a game so they can play and your talking about PUNISHING hosts ? Talk about ungratefull. Slap in the face to all legit hosts of the past who have been kind enough to fire up a game.

The primary reason why people beg for hosts is because not enough people know how to port forward... Learning how can be time-consuming, frustrating, and for some, virtually impossible. Please do not confuse a lack of hosts with adding more fairness to the rankings.

The reason I advocate a cost for hosting is because I've seen (and played with) the benefits a player gets by hosting. I want games to be fair. It's that simple. Last, more often than not, the times I've seen someone choose not to host (assuming a reliable game can be set-up) is to give an advantage to a weaker player or a player with high pings.

[Part of the above was cut from my previous post. Players with Macs check out: A simple way to Port Forward on a Mac -- Port Map. Maybe it can help you with your hosting woes.]


[edit: proofing and clarifying]

[0.6x]

I don't mind a new ranking system per se, however awarding people points for 2nd and 3rd place has a MAJOR flaw:

I would make certain plays during games to win or bust.  Sell a plot of land late, buy stite @108, etc.  Sometimes I take major gambles to WIN, not to play it safe and hope to come in second.  I have finished last many times when I could have just played it out and finished 2nd.  

I won a game last week making almost no ore or stite, but instead took all 4 river plots and won with food and energy; against very good players ranked in the top 100.  If a statagy like that bombs on me and I finish 4th and lose ranking, where is my motivation to try to experiment with something new?

The basic premise is wrong, the 4th place player is NOT nessessarily worse than the 2nd place guy and maybe even played better.  

If there is a new rating system, still award points for winning and nothing else.  Don't reward a player for just being the first loser.

One way to do it is by rewarding the winning player extra points for how much he wins by.
Winning by 5000 is a lot more impressive than winning by 500.  Although frankly I am happy with the ranking system the way it is.

My post above is my intellectual argument.  Here is my emotional one:

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, do not go to a Truskill type of ranking system.  I have played other games that use it and I can't stand it.  

It especially will not work in MULE because the sample of games isn't nearly large enough.

MULE is about winning people!

WINNING!  I don't want to feel good about coming in 2nd.

I did a very quick reread of this thread -- skipping dynadan's and my posts. While dynadan and I have posted at length in this thread, I wanted to bring back a couple of posts I really liked by GambitTime.

In agreement, M.U.L.E. is about winning! Wild risks for a play at first founder can make M.U.L.E. exciting. Furthermore, giving an incentive for a margin of victory gives the player in first a reason to take risks, too. Then, to balance that margin and give everyone a chance at a boost, a colony award is offered. This is my basis for almost all of my SPM.


A quick rerun through my skill point modifier (SPM) idea. The SPM is multiplied to the skill point change determined by the ranking system after a game, but before the skill point change is added to the player's skill value. (These exact numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but they serve as a general guide.) :

0.6x to the winner's SPM

0.2x (max) is added to the winner's SPM giving weight to the margin of a win. How much of 0.2 is calculated by taking the difference between first and second's score, dividing that by the second place's score, and finally multiplying that by 0.2.

0.2x (max) is added (or subtracted) to all player's SPM's based on colony scores. Using the colony achievements as a guideline, 0.2x is awarded for the highest achievement, a score of 120,000+; no award for the middle achievement, 60,000 to 79,999; and a penalty of 0.2x for lowest achievement, <20,000. The in between achievements use 0.05 and 0.1, respectively.

The 0.X factors were not explained well. The SPM always starts at 1x. The 0.X parts are added or subtracted. So, a win with the worst colony penalty becomes 1+ 0.6 -0.2= 1.4x. Or, a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th with the best colony award becomes 1+0.2= 1.2x for positive skill point changes and -1+0.2= 0.8x for negative skill point changes.

Another way to think about the SPM is by moving the decimal 2 places, thus everything becomes a percentage. 1x becomes 100% of the skill value change. A win, 1.6x becomes 160% of the skill value change. For positive skill point changes, one wants the highest percentage for the biggest upward movement. For negative skill point changes, one wants the lowest percentage to minimize negative movement.


The last bit about a hosting penalty... While I applaud the developer's efforts to mitigate "host advantages," a host still gets the best pings. Their side of their games will be the most responsive. Additionally, if the lag is big enough (as little as 250-300), their low pings can overcome the host advantage mitigators. For example, a higher-placed host can steal a plot from a lower-placed player. The penalty is small, but serves a noble purpose -- it tries to make things a bit more fair.

0.025x penalty goes to the host.


The problem with being able to give results from a 5 game sample is the developers are the only people who know Planet MULE's actual equations and variables in calculating the leaderboard. I don't know how a SPM will affect sigma values and player skill values (mu) over many games. Will the SPM make a meaningful difference? Will it muck up the uncertainty portion (the sigma stuff) and create strange and unreliable results? I just don't have the needed information (and potentially the skill and/or tools) to do the statistical samples, but I am very curious and hopeful.


[edit: proofing, more clarification, and added the percentage analogy]

This poll will help determine how meaningful a game with AI's is in a ranking system.

My SPM suggestion and my Reset/AI Unranked suggestions both concern the ranking system. However, they pertain to separate aspects. So, I will reply in separate posts in an effort to not confuse the two.

Reset the ranking data This is a longstanding request of many players. Old game data is derived from many long outdated versions of Planet MULE. Versions that included countless bugs and significant changes in game mechanics. The old data will only negatively affect the integrity of game data from the current version of Planet MULE. Not only that, but resetting the ranking data will better show the best players because the rankings will reflect game strategies evolved from hundreds of games. (Resetting the rankings every major bug fix and/or gameplay change would continue to honor the best players of tomorrow's Planet MULE, as well.)

At the very least, reset the rankings starting from the last update. This game data is relevant and reflective of current strategies within the gameplay of the current game. Keep the old data displayed somewhere, but do not let it taint the new rankings.

Make games that start with AI's unranked I'm so very happy serious players as of late rarely play games that start with AI's. Earlier in Planet MULE's history, it was fairly common. This "botless" phenomenon is truly a marvelous evolution. With good reason, players avoid the AI. The AI is painfully laughable (My apologies to the guy who tweaked the AI's. My statement has nothing to do with him personally.). The old 1983 AI's play better. The ranking system should not reward wins using a predictable and bad player. AI's are worse than new players because they are extremely easy to game. They always play similarly. Furthermore once you learn their patterns, they become more like colluders and much less like real players.

At the very least make the skill value for an AI, the same as the lowest ranked player, currently 57 -- relatively accurate. Games that start with 2 AI's should definitely not be ranked. Again AI's are horrible players, and more importantly, doing this would also eliminate the ruse of players who habitually play 2 bots and a new player.

Since they are apparently keeping the high scores page, you have convinced me that resetting the stats may be a good idea.

I wouldn't make AI games completely unranked, but maybe a simple way to do it would be 1/2 value for all rating points for 1 AI games and 1/4 points for 2 AI.  On the current system this seems about right to me, but I am not sure how it will mesh with what you have in mind.  I am not exactly sure how TrueSkill is handling the AI's right now, it almost seems like they just leave them out.  if thats the case maybe leaving them out and just sticking a modifier on would be the way to go.

I am not against anything you have in mind, I would just like to see some more numbers so we can discuss the weighting.

Cool, note dynadan and I agree resetting the stats is a good idea.


First, I want to make sure everyone understands when I refer to AI games, I mean games that begin with AI players. I am not talking about games where an AI fills in for a player (timed out, bailed, router crash... et cetera).

I looked at akire1's (TrueSkill) ranks page. Most recently, when there are 2 AI's and 2 humans, the skill point changes tend to be 0.2 or 0.3 (If you go further back to older games, the change tend to be be higher but generally under 0.5.). For the higher placed human the change is positive and negative for the lower placed player. This seems to happen regardless of where the AI's place. The AI's appear to be placeholders more than anything else. I'm sure the developers could explain how they are currently treating AI's better than I can.

Nonetheless, AI's are horrible and predictable players. I'm not sure why you think games that start with AI players should be ranked. Maybe you could explain why you feel games that start with AI's are important to demonstrate a player's skill.

The reason I stress 2 AI and 2 human player games be unranked is because of the abuse repeatedly demonstrated by certain players. Taking a new player and using the AI's to dominate them should not be rewarded. Plus, with 2 AI's the dynamic of a game is very simple and consistently predictable -- hardly an arena to show high level skills.

That leaves games that start with one AI. Since AI's are horrible and predictable players. They should have horrible skill values. Players should feel pain when they lose to an AI. Another way, I suppose, is to treat the AI like a real ranked player. Then, it will receive a skill value according to its talent. To simply ignore an AI makes them more meaningless than they already are.