Hi, I am not sure where to put this issue: Lately, my IP provider has switched to IPv6-only connection. All IPv4 traffic is now realised through a DS-Lite-tunnel. For inbound IPv4-traffic, I am granted a scanty 20 ports that will be tunneled to my router (10988-11008). Planet MULE's port 6260 is not within that range, so I can no longer natively host a game.

Is there any way to have a Planet MULE client connect through another port (outbound)?

Once my router receives the connection request on any port it can map the traffic back to port 6260. So, I only need a client willing to connect to me (as the host) to use another port.

Karawane

Hi, while the providing of an AppImage for Linux users is great, it doesn't run correctly on my system. I run Ubuntu 20.04 in default configuration, the system generally works fine. The Mule AppImage starts (even with sound), but in all input boxes the text is unreadable. Still, I can manage to type password and login blindly. Navigating the menu to create a game is also possible, but then it does not react to my keystrokes, thus I cannot join or add players or start the game. Any idea or workaround?

Also I would like to see the Pirates also steel food, smithore, and energy randomly, so this would also make energy and food play more then just in shortages. The change to the code would be minimal and should be easy to accommodate.

Aren't the "fire in store", "planetquake" and marginally "pest attack" and "acid rain storm" addressing just this issue?

Took me a while to notice this post - and took me a while to understand the mechanics 

I am not sure if the mechanics works well exactly the way it is described above ...BUT the idea IS intriguing. It seems that this mechanics just adds new dimensions to the game while not cutting too much on the existing ones. It would challenge players betting on pure Crystite or Smithore strategies and most likely make the end-game more volatile. I once had a similar idea adding water to the game but this idea here actually seems more in tune with the game balance.

From my understanding, this mechanics seems balancable in a way to add substantial fun to the game. And I am sure the idea of being ecologically correct would have been an idea Dan Bunten had loved, too 

I usually start mining crystite the third turn for earning cash to buy up smithore and land. At that point in time, I am happy if I can catch a medium crystite plot that regularly supplies two units and there is no LCT or EOS, yet. Crystite mass production only starts in the latter half of the game. I have won quite a few times that way, so I do not think this is an unusual approach, thus my average seems to be realistic. Anyway, we are getting off-topic here.

I think we can agree that the above idea of the local defense against pirates can bear up only in the very late turns of the game. Considering that most people in this thread have already disapproved of the idea of the global defense because of its expected limited gain, I think the local version is even less attractive ...unless somebody can give some really convincing math here 

What you describe is the situation at the end of the game. Usually, during the first turns you neither have much EOS nor LCT nor do you know where good crystite plots are. That is why I still think my average is optimistic.

Ok, then this local defense mechanism seems to be a short-term gamble and to address the late turns only (as opposed to the original idea). Hm... isn't it a rather particular situation: Last two turns, pirates havn't come and player's crystite plots are well clustered? I am quite undecided about this adding much fun in many games.

Note that this only protects your production in the fields, not your storage.

Hm, that seems to be a very costly defense then: If I assume a very optimistic average production of 3 bars of crystite per plot and 2 visits of the pirates, I would save 24 bars of crystite per game as opposed to generating 30 bars of it on the same plot (assuming 6 stolen units per plot). And this implies even that I own all 4 adjacent plots and that they all have a reasonable crystite production. There is no incentive for setting up such a defense.

I do like the cooperative idea of voluntarily teaming up with a neighbor, though. Maybe, this could be applied to the economy-of-scale effect?

I would like to bring this topic back on the agenda. I really think that introducing MULEs as commodities is an advanced feature that would keep the spirit of the game, but add a whole new dimension of interaction and fun.

In a former post, I pointed to the MULE-clone "Subtrade" that has realized the basic concept. I don't expect this to be the best way of implementing it. Actually, it was a very slack implementation (but still adding some fun). I see a lot of potential in adding this element of trade, particularly for the first half of the game.

What is your opinion?

Best idea I have read, so far. It really gives a kick to the last months, much more than pirates

Thank you, Big Head Zach. That has helped. I have come to realize that I have played MULE for too long in an endogenous community of not-so-gifted-MULE-players. As we all get our butts kicked in Planet MULE, yours was the input I needed Please, disregard my idea from above.

Am I really that mistaken about Crystite being the preferred bet for winning the game? I would like another opinion on that.

Hm, is it really so balanced? My perception is that very few games are won by somebody not betting on Crystite. If you are right, the idea would of course be bad for the game. But am I the only one to perceive this subliminal imbalance

Due to the fact that Crystite is usually the key element for winning M.U.L.E. I have been thinking about an idea to make it harder to maintain a high crystite production throughout the game: the exhaustion of deposits. The idea is that for any two (or three?) rounds of Crystite production a plot loses a point of its expected Crystite output.

In my opinion, this would carefully shift the game balance in a direction favoring those palyers not following a make-or-break Crystite strategy. Players still going for Crystite would have to plan their mining, and focus more on the capitalisation on the economy of scale and learning curve effects.

Probably nothing for beginners but an easily implementable advanced feature. What do you think?

I think the C64 and Atari version were supposed to be pretty close if not exactly the same?

My friends and I have often switched between the two versions and, believe me, they are very much alike. Most people wouldn't even realize the difference on a standard TV connected via HF connector. The gameplay is identical (except for a minor detail in the planetquake). Most Atari people played it on a 800 XL which does not even have the often cited four joystick ports. It's kind of ridiculous to argue about it ...but we do it anyway because Atarians and Commodorians are meant to fight each other for eternity

as we all know: the best arms race is if no one would have started it in the first place

Agreed. Maybe, some excitement derives from that. Nobody actually wants many sentinel plots. It sounds a little like the four guys pushing up land prices with no intention to buy, and the one to realize last that everybody else stops bidding is stuck with a horribly expensive plot of land. Likewise, a player can get stuck with too many sentinels while the others have shifted to crystite production ...just imagine, you don't sell this guy food for getting rid of his army

Unfortunately, the idea is not mine and I do not foresee its effects in detail. In fact, I have hoped that some of the buffs here might know why the team of Deluxe M.U.L.E. went for it ...still, I kind of like the idea as I really hate the pirates taking away my victory