Poll: Plot take away/free plot event

[htman_2000]

   I dont understand how some of you think losing a plot later in game is worse than losing it 2nd round.  I have witnessed many times where a person (and myself) spends the famous 972 for a plot.  Your thinking yahoo, I got 3 plots and things are looking good, wtf I lose a plot, ok I still have a chance....wtf radiation thats it.  Now I only have 2 plots w/no money,food,energy,smith,tite how can i possible catch up?  The bottom line is that you cant. 

  I normally play w/vet players and the things that they do will make sure of it.  Buying out ore/energy causing price to rocket up leaves little hope.   In most cases it will take till rnd 6 or 7 before you can even mule a plot. Im sure most of you will say," Oh your in last place events will help you."  I played 2 games the other nite, no good events happened to anyone for 7 rnds.  The other game i was in 1st and lost a plot, no big deal it was like rnd 7 or 8.  That of course put me in last and the next rnd the 1st place guy got the free plot...wtf?

[Rhodan]

@Rhodan
       I have given pages of arguments on why plot loss before round 4 makes the game worse.  So either you haven't read my posts or you are "loose"ing your mind.  Good players DO purposely sandbag to drop in position but can you honestly tell me you have seen someone not choose a plot to drop in position?

My reasoning has nothing to do with emotion or how it makes me personally feel when i lose a plot.  I adjust my strategy to deal with whatever rule set is in place.  My reasons for wanting to change the plot loss event is purely to make Mule a better game.  If I have selfish motivations it is the desire to have more mule players by improving the game.
.  

I have read all the posts. Changing this event will hurt the game.
You stated above what all players need to do when this event or any other action by program or player occurs. And this is also the reason why it shouldn't be changed.

[C64 nostalgia]

@C64Nostalgia
      I must disagree that the monetary events are unimportant.  I have seen many games decided in the 12th round when someone gets $800 for their personal computer or a dead relative.  Or someone elses mining mules break down.  When looking at the dollar amount of these events the plot take away event later on in the game seems much more in line.  I do agree the 2 bar of smithore event is pretty weak.  It should be 8 bars of smithore by the end of the game to be in line with the other events.  Again, taking a plot away in the 2nd round from a player who is ahead $1-$300 is punishing that player $3000 or more when the 2nd most powerful event is valued at $100 is not a good element in the game.  There is a reason the Monopoly chance cards don't have one that causes you to lose a property, or a lose all your money card, or a destroy all your houses card.  The random elements should help play a part in who wins, but a single event should not have as large as an effect as the losing a plot event does in round 2 and 3.

I'll temporarily concede the money events as I'm interested in the big picture not just the plot talk. But, since this is your thread... I'll follow you a bit, too.

If you want to delay an event, why not have a specific time-table for all events or even more specifically, make them unique to that individual's situation? Only allow a second round plot loss if the player has 3 or more plots. This particular example is reasonable, but others could very easily be pathetic. So, I guess I'm not sure where the limit is...

M.U.L.E. is a very simple game by modern video game standards. It had to be during a time of much more limited computational resources. Applying what we now have available, to the game mechanics seems like a recipe for something mutated with two heads -- a much less elegant version of its previous self. When Chess (Yes. I realize the vast difference.) met computers, no long standing changes were made to its rules. The changes were made to the computer player. It became "smarter," quicker, and less predictable. The computer over many years and through advances in computers became an outstanding Chess player. From this model, I truly believe the only good changes we can make to M.U.L.E. are the ones where our computers have significantly progressed. Graphics, Sound, the computer player's Artificial Intelligence, and the addition of the internet to multiplayer games. But mucking with the fundamentals, isn't worth our time. This game is an anachronism. It doesn't live in today nor should it be expected to...

4. I think the programmers would be the first people to admit that they were not perfect.  (reading about Dan Bunten's quest to become Danielle Bunten was very eye opening) But they did discover the importance of play testers to development teams.  We are the best Mule players to ever have lived.  As a community we have played the game more than anyone else.  I think we would be honoring the programmers by doing our best (as continuing play testers) to improve upon their creation.  I think they would be sad to see the argument that the game was "perfect" as the reason for not discussing how it would improve/unimprove the game by making these slight changes.
   "This was the game that taught me the value of play-testing where you watch and talk to real people about the game while it's under development. After all, games are a form of communication that can only be confirmed by checking whether it works against an audience. "       Excerpt from Dani Bunten's Memoirs.

It's funny. For all the games we have played on Planet MULE, we have never ever played a game of original Atari/Commodore 64 M.U.L.E. Saying we are the best players or the greatest play-testers doesn't mean a thing because as Planet MULE players, we have never played the game Dani Bunten made. Furthermore, Dani Bunten is not a developer of Planet MULE. So all our wisdom and insight from playing thousands of games, she will never hear it. Dani will never be able to take our feedback and make her game better. I think with the exceptions I made earlier, the original M.U.L.E. is as perfect as it can be. The original vision and talent are lost... no one can be expected to fill those very big shoes.

[Keybounce]

As I understand it, currently only the money events scale based on location in the game.
I agree that they all should.

How about the land event scaling as:
0, 1, 2, 3 plots
as the money scales around
$100, $200, $300, $400?

[rodz]

keep the free plot wherever you like but as far as im concerned the take away plot seems to happen a lot to 2nd place early in the game and 1st late in the game.
i have seen it happen many times to 2nd place in round 2 and from memory only ever seen anyone win once. it is devastating when early on and i personally think it should happen on or after round 4

[dynadan]

If you want to delay an event, why not have a specific time-table for all events or even more specifically, make them unique to that individual's situation? Only allow a second round plot loss if the player has 3 or more plots. This particular example is reasonable, but others could very easily be pathetic. So, I guess I'm not sure where the limit is...

I agree that in Mule2 these issues should be examined.  I put the 5th choice on in the poll specifically to see if anyone wanted a more complicated system for plot loss.....apparently they don't heh.  I agree with you when you say simple is best.  But you guys need to stop being so overly dramatic.  Changing the plot loss event to start in round 4 instead of 2 is not a big change in the game.  It's simple, it's elegant, and it improves the game.  That's the same reason I think the rest of the events should start happening in round 1. (except the glac elves)  Not because that's how it was in the original, (which it was) but because it will improve the game by making things a lot more dynamic.

M.U.L.E. is a very simple game by modern video game standards. It had to be during a time of much more limited computational resources. Applying what we now have available, to the game mechanics seems like a recipe for something mutated with two heads -- a much less elegant version of its previous self. When Chess (Yes. I realize the vast difference.) met computers, no long standing changes were made to its rules. The changes were made to the computer player. It became "smarter," quicker, and less predictable. The computer over many years and through advances in computers became an outstanding Chess player. From this model, I truly believe the only good changes we can make to M.U.L.E. are the ones where our computers have significantly progressed. Graphics, Sound, the computer player's Artificial Intelligence, and the addition of the internet to multiplayer games. But mucking with the fundamentals, isn't worth our time. This game is an anachronism. It doesn't live in today nor should it be expected to...

Again moving one event to start in round 4 instead of round 2 is not the creation of a mutated two headed monster.  More like creating the beast with 2 backs.....which is just freaking awesome!  There are many differences between planet mule and the original atari/c64 versions.  Many of them much more noticable to game play.  This would be a miniature change compared to the last one I suggested and which the developers implemented.  Making the land selection based on position.  (the original didn't have this)  I think everyone agrees the game works a lot better now.  Not all change is bad. 

I didn't really understand the whole chess AI comparison.  I know we were talking a lot of chess in the ranking thread, but chess is a terrible game to compare with Mule.  One is 100 percent skill and the other has huge elements of luck involved.  The only comparison I see is trying to get land loss moved to round 4 is much like the fathers of chess battle to implement pawns can move 2 square rule, or castling, or en passant.  You know these rules evolved over a long period of time, all of them to make the game better.  This was not disrespect to the creators, rather it was essential for chess, as a game, to survive and continue to thrive.

It's funny. For all the games we have played on Planet MULE, we have never ever played a game of original Atari/Commodore 64 M.U.L.E. Saying we are the best players or the greatest play-testers doesn't mean a thing because as Planet MULE players, we have never played the game Dani Bunten made. Furthermore, Dani Bunten is not a developer of Planet MULE. So all our wisdom and insight from playing thousands of games, she will never hear it. Dani will never be able to take our feedback and make her game better. I think with the exceptions I made earlier, the original M.U.L.E. is as perfect as it can be. The original vision and talent are lost... no one can be expected to fill those very big shoes.

Hmmm, are you telling me you never played the orginal?  I have played many hundreds of games on my commodore 64 and played the game regularly for many years.  (with 4 human players) I'm also pretty sure most of the people that find this site have played many, many times on the original machines.  Specifically the people that play a lot on planet mule were most likely the best Mule players on the planet back when it was in play.  A high percentage of Mule players are in their late 30's and have grown up in the video game era.  We have become much more sophisticated at gaming and I dare say are as a group much better gamers.  Combine that with the fact that we have played 1000's of games on planetmule, and yes I think that qualifies us, as a group, as the best mule players on the planet.

I am not trying to convince Dani Bunten of anything.  I totally respect the mind that created Mule and 7 cities of gold.  But again asking for an very insignificant change is not the equivalent of stomping on her grave.  We can't convince her with our 1000's of hours of play testing, but hopefully we can convince Turborilla to make Planet Mule the best it can be.  Honestly, if Dani Bunten was still alive, which points do you think she would find more interesting.  Arguments that discuss the pros and cons of changes or simply saying make it like the original?

[Rhodan]

If you want to delay an event, why not have a specific time-table for all events or even more specifically, make them unique to that individual's situation? Only allow a second round plot loss if the player has 3 or more plots. This particular example is reasonable, but others could very easily be pathetic. So, I guess I'm not sure where the limit is...

I agree that in Mule2 these issues should be examined.  I put the 5th choice on in the poll specifically to see if anyone wanted a more complicated system for plot loss.....apparently they don't heh.  I agree with you when you say simple is best.  But you guys need to stop being so overly dramatic.  Changing the plot loss event to start in round 4 instead of 2 is not a big change in the game.  It's simple, it's elegant, and it improves the game.  That's the same reason I think the rest of the events should start happening in round 1. (except the glac elves)  Not because that's how it was in the original, (which it was) but because it will improve the game by making things a lot more dynamic.

M.U.L.E. is a very simple game by modern video game standards. It had to be during a time of much more limited computational resources. Applying what we now have available, to the game mechanics seems like a recipe for something mutated with two heads -- a much less elegant version of its previous self. When Chess (Yes. I realize the vast difference.) met computers, no long standing changes were made to its rules. The changes were made to the computer player. It became "smarter," quicker, and less predictable. The computer over many years and through advances in computers became an outstanding Chess player. From this model, I truly believe the only good changes we can make to M.U.L.E. are the ones where our computers have significantly progressed. Graphics, Sound, the computer player's Artificial Intelligence, and the addition of the internet to multiplayer games. But mucking with the fundamentals, isn't worth our time. This game is an anachronism. It doesn't live in today nor should it be expected to...

Again moving one event to start in round 4 instead of round 2 is not the creation of a mutated two headed monster.  More like creating the beast with 2 backs.....which is just freaking awesome!  There are many differences between planet mule and the original atari/c64 versions.  Many of them much more noticable to game play.  This would be a miniature change compared to the last one I suggested and which the developers implemented.  Making the land selection based on position.  (the original didn't have this)  I think everyone agrees the game works a lot better now.  Not all change is bad. 

I didn't really understand the whole chess AI comparison.  I know we were talking a lot of chess in the ranking thread, but chess is a terrible game to compare with Mule.  One is 100 percent skill and the other has huge elements of luck involved.  The only comparison I see is trying to get land loss moved to round 4 is much like the fathers of chess battle to implement pawns can move 2 square rule, or castling, or en passant.  You know these rules evolved over a long period of time, all of them to make the game better.  This was not disrespect to the creators, rather it was essential for chess, as a game, to survive and continue to thrive.

It's funny. For all the games we have played on Planet MULE, we have never ever played a game of original Atari/Commodore 64 M.U.L.E. Saying we are the best players or the greatest play-testers doesn't mean a thing because as Planet MULE players, we have never played the game Dani Bunten made. Furthermore, Dani Bunten is not a developer of Planet MULE. So all our wisdom and insight from playing thousands of games, she will never hear it. Dani will never be able to take our feedback and make her game better. I think with the exceptions I made earlier, the original M.U.L.E. is as perfect as it can be. The original vision and talent are lost... no one can be expected to fill those very big shoes.

Hmmm, are you telling me you never played the orginal?  I have played many hundreds of games on my commodore 64 and played the game regularly for many years.  (with 4 human players) I'm also pretty sure most of the people that find this site have played many, many times on the original machines.  Specifically the people that play a lot on planet mule were most likely the best Mule players on the planet back when it was in play.  A high percentage of Mule players are in their late 30's and have grown up in the video game era.  We have become much more sophisticated at gaming and I dare say are as a group much better gamers.  Combine that with the fact that we have played 1000's of games on planetmule, and yes I think that qualifies us, as a group, as the best mule players on the planet.

I am not trying to convince Dani Bunten of anything.  I totally respect the mind that created Mule and 7 cities of gold.  But again asking for an very insignificant change is not the equivalent of stomping on her grave.  We can't convince her with our 1000's of hours of play testing, but hopefully we can convince Turborilla to make Planet Mule the best it can be.  Honestly, if Dani Bunten was still alive, which points do you think she would find more interesting.  Arguments that discuss the pros and cons of changes or simply saying make it like the original?

Lets change this in the real world too while we are at it.
Dynadan will let nothing bad happen to you until age 5. 
You will never fall off your first bicycle, candy will never be denied you, You will win every cute contest Pappa Dyna enters you in, No toy will ever be taken from you until Dyandan says so at age 5.


From the day you are born there is risk, From the moment mule starts there should be risk.
This makes the game dynamic, exciting, unpredictable, etc and provides balance because at some point in the game 1st and 2nd will have a bad event to help balance the game and give the other players a chance.

This change will not make the game better it will make it boring and more predictable.
If anything add a second plot loss to the game. Other events  can happen more then once.
I am sure Dynadan fell off his first bicycle more then once


Its a perfect world until dyndan says bad things can happen to you!

[Rhodan]

keep the free plot wherever you like but as far as im concerned the take away plot seems to happen a lot to 2nd place early in the game and 1st late in the game.
i have seen it happen many times to 2nd place in round 2 and from memory only ever seen anyone win once. it is devastating when early on and i personally think it should happen on or after round 4

Once again this is a example of why I say the probability is off compare to earlier versions of PM and to the original mule.

[Rhodan]

I'll temporarily concede the money events as I'm interested in the big picture not just the plot talk. But, since this is your thread... I'll follow you a bit, too.

If you want to delay an event, why not have a specific time-table for all events or even more specifically, make them unique to that individual's situation? Only allow a second round plot loss if the player has 3 or more plots. This particular example is reasonable, but others could very easily be pathetic. So, I guess I'm not sure where the limit is...

I do think one event in the original was specific to a players circumstance compared to the same event in PM.

Package from home!

 I have no recollection of this event every being awarded to someone that wasn't short on food or energy in the original game.

In PM, anyone can get it regardless if you are short on food or energy.

[dynadan]

Lets change this in the real world too while we are at it.
Dynadan will let nothing bad happen to you until age 5. 
You will never fall off your first bicycle, candy will never be denied you, You will win every cute contest Pappa Dyna enters you in, No toy will ever be taken from you until Dyandan says so at age 5.


From the day you are born there is risk, From the moment mule starts there should be risk.
This makes the game dynamic, exciting, unpredictable, etc and provides balance because at some point in the game 1st and 2nd will have a bad event to help balance the game and give the other players a chance.

This change will not make the game better it will make it boring and more predictable.
If anything add a second plot loss to the game. Other events  can happen more then once.
I am sure Dynadan fell off his first bicycle more then once


Its a perfect world until dyndan says bad things can happen to you!

Real grown up of you Rhodan.  I think your post says a lot more about what type of person you are than it says anything about me.   So I am just going to ignore your childish banter and instead use logic to once again try to explain why your reasoning is flawed.

Early on in the game, (round 1-3)  the true leaders of the game are the ones who have been able to buy land.  This also has the effect of dropping them to the lowest places.  The other side of the coin is that the people who are behind will be in the top 2 places.  Taking a plot from either of the top 2 spots in rounds 1-3 tends to cripple the people who are already behind and help the people who are already ahead.  Add in the fact that with land auctions in round 1 there is no actual game play involved to determine who is in the top 2 spots, it merely reflects what place people happened to start the game in, and thus if they were able to buy land for $972 in round 1.  As the game progresses this is no longer the case, and the lose plot event CAN help even out the game by punishing the top 2 slots.  Except for the fact that the lose plot event had already happened in round 2-3 (to punish the people that were behind) and so can no longer be used to even up the game.   Your suggestion to add multiple plot loss events to the game is actually a good one. ( or as least just make the percentage it can happen static and not take it off the list if it happens once)  Contrary to whatever stupid comments Rhodan makes, I am not against bad events.  I am just against events that cripple the people who are already losing the game within 5-15 minutes of the start of the game.

[C64 nostalgia]

My original reply post is moving to a new thread: [fill in blank]

...Changing the plot loss event to start in round 4 instead of 2 is not a big change in the game...

...This would be a miniature change...

...asking for an very insignificant change...

The more I ponder this thread the more I think a unilateral change is being confused with House Rules. Taken as an ideal unilateral change, Only one side ultimately matters and that side is the smartest, most capable, and most qualified entity. Taken as House Rules, "Hey, it's your house, and we're playing in it. It's your rules." The bar for one is much higher than the other. One change is permanent, and the other is elective -- easily used or discarded as the particular players of a particular game choose...

I didn't really understand the whole chess AI comparison...

My focus on chess AI is simple and clear. The mass advances in computational power were ideally suited to making a $50 home PC program that will crush most grandmasters [1]. If the M.U.L.E. AI moved from where it was in 1983 to today at the same pace as chess' AI's, the modern M.U.L.E. AI would annihilate us. These are the realms where making changes actually improves a classic. In fact, this AI example is the cleanest example because nothing in the whole game changes except the AI.


[1] paraphrased Garry Kasparov from The Chess Master and the Computer

[htman_2000]

  Back to the REAL world for a moment.  We all know it takes about hour and a half to finish a game.  We also know it can take up to a hour just to play a game.    I surely dont enjoy wasting this much time on a game that can be over for you in 5 mins.  How many of our new players have we lost? 
 
  With any game that we play we know of certain elements that will happen, good or bad we choose to play.  Entertainment is what drives us to continue playing.  With that said its not fun or entertaining to be vertually eliminated from play for doing nothing 

[dynadan]

My focus on chess AI is simple and clear. The mass advances in computational power were ideally suited to making a $50 home PC program that will crush most grandmasters [1]. If the M.U.L.E. AI moved from where it was in 1983 to today at the same pace as chess' AI's, the modern M.U.L.E. AI would annihilate us. These are the realms where making changes actually improves a classic. In fact, this AI example is the cleanest example because nothing in the whole game changes except the AI.


[1] paraphrased Garry Kasparov from The Chess Master and the Computer

Speaking of straying from the issue at hand.... but i feel the need to respond anyway.  The reason the advances in computing has been well suited to making a good computer chess player is because chess is a complete information game with a limited number of available moves.  This enables a computer program to consider every possible move, and every possible move after that, etc.  Given enough time, or a fast enough computer, it is able to compete with humans using brute force computation to examine every scenario and come up with the best move.  Mule is a completely different animal (pun intended).  Mule is an incomplete information game, with lots of different elements of luck.  A much better comparison than chess would be poker. (although poker is many, many times simpler than Mule)  People have been working on perfecting a poker bot that can compete with the best players for decades and they still haven't succeeded.  (Although they are getting pretty close with limit texas hold em bots.....but limit poker compared to no limit poker is like comparing checkers to chess).  So no, I must disagree, If all of us had put our heads together and worked for the last 27 years to make the best Mule A.I. we could, it would still not be able to regularly beat the best human Mule players.  So having said all that, I still don't see how this was relevant to this thread.  Chess was never supposed to be a 1 player game, and Mule wasn't either.  So while I agree having better AI players would be nice, it really just doesn't matter much, since most of us don't play with AI's anyway, and even if they did make them better having them be as good as a human player is an impossible task.


@htman_2000
   Thanks for being brave and inserting some common sense into this thread.  You will most likely be ridiculed for your effort, but I for one agree with your sentiments. 

[Rhodan]

  Back to the REAL world for a moment.  We all know it takes about hour and a half to finish a game.  We also know it can take up to a hour just to play a game.    I surely dont enjoy wasting this much time on a game that can be over for you in 5 mins.  How many of our new players have we lost? 
 
  With any game that we play we know of certain elements that will happen, good or bad we choose to play.  Entertainment is what drives us to continue playing.  With that said its not fun or entertaining to be vertually eliminated from play for doing nothing 

Plot loss = won the game   http://www.planetmule.com/hi-score-game/game?game_id=33563
Plot loss = won the game   http://www.planetmule.com/hi-score-game/game?game_id=33552

Plot loss is not the worse event that can happen. If you can simply get pass the psychological trauma of it, stop whining, man up and play the game you will find you can win most games that you loose a plot in just like the above examples.

[C64 nostalgia]

Speaking of straying from the issue at hand....

I guess I'm missing the point, dynadan. You started this thread as a poll asking, "How should the plot take away/free plot event be implemented?" As of now, people voted not to change it to round 4. Asked and answered, right?

I really just wanted access to your transplanted post, the one with the Dani Bunten quote. I had hoped this could be a good thread to flesh out your counterarguments. I'm obviously wrong. Sorry for polluting this thread, with thoughts on the game as a whole in the context of history and other games...


To finish on-topic: after reading this thread again, I still believe starting all events first round is the best choice -- full of luck, randomness, and original M.U.L.E.ness.