Sportsmanship

[Dave37]

I just finished the two most aggravating games of MULE that I have ever played. My aggressors would probably tell me to "Grow up" or "Learn to play the game better", but I don't really care. The fact is that they ruined the fun for me and the other players in the pursuit of obtaining a higher rank.

I expect this kind of behavior from people playing Halo or Left 4 Dead, but I didn't expect it from MULE. I thought this community was better than this. I am very disappointed.

[piete]

Hi Dave37! What kind of behaviour did you experience?

From Strategy Wiki (http://strategywiki.org/wiki/M.U.L.E./Strategy): "Stay cool, calm, collected, and above all, greedy. Nobody ever said the First Founder was a nice guy!" 

[Dave37]

Hi Dave37! What kind of behaviour did you experience?

It wasn't so much about what strategy they were using, I understand why they did it and probably would have done the same. It's the attitude they had about it.

It's a hard thing to describe or define, but everyone who plays competitively online knows the feeling. It's that overwhelming sense of needing to win just so you can rub it in the other guys face. It's when it's no longer a friendly competition but a diehard game of wits and skill. I am not unfamiliar with these kinds of games, in fact I enjoy some of these super-competitive games quite a lot. I just didn't want or expect this kind of behavior from MULE players.

[Dave37]

Oh and to anyone reading this, if my comments in this thread make me sound like a crybaby or something then fine, whatever. But I'm just trying to have a good time here... I don't care about being #1.

I'll leave that up to Piete.   

[piete]

How I see it is that for a game have a meaningful purpose (besides killing time) you can play this in two ways: aim for a successful colony or for a personal victory. One aim doesn't have to exclude the other, and a personal high score naturally contributes for a high colony score.

I play always for a personal victory and I suppose majority does, so I think it should be considered as a default if not agreed otherwise before the game starts. I may apply some nasty tactics every now and then but not as much as some of my opponents, but for me they don't make the game any less enjoyable, on the contrary. Getting in a bad position (no food or energy) is most of the times due to my bad preparation, I can never blame the others for that (but sometimes I can blame the bloody random generator )

The good thing here is that most of the times you can choose the players you play with and you'll learn to know the people you don't want to play with for one reason or another. But let's remember, this is just a game. When I played this on a C64 with my best friends it only meant that the tactics against each other were as nasty as they could be, here I am a bit more polite because I don't know my opponents personally

[Bertoid]

I think that in any game of competition, the goal is to win.  That is, unless it's agreed upon beforehand that it isn't.  Otherwise, it should be assumed that the goal is winning.  Obviously this does not include cheating.  I would like to win a basketball game I'm playing in, but I won't break the rules to do it.  But if I am winning by 12 baskets, I'm not going to purposefully let the opponent get the ball, just to even things up.  In MULE there is no actual way of cheating.  The computer will only allow what is allowed.  So I don't personally see any problem with denying other users the ability to buy energy if you have the option to do so, for example.  I don't see any reason why you shouldn't monopolize a good if you have the ability to do so.  Dumping MULEs to raise the price of Smithore is brutal, but it's allowed.  The list goes on and on.

All that said, I don't think it's appropriate to use the chat window as a forum to gloat and tease and taunt.  That's just bad sportsmanship.  There's no way to regulate that, but you can always ignore the chat window.

[Intergalactic Mole]

Dave,
I agree with you 100%, which is one of the reasons I've only logged in a whopping 3 games of Planet MULE so far.  Aside from the fact that the game takes a long time to play, I prefer not to commit my time to playing with a bunch of pre-pubescent kiddies (and some adults who act like them).  I'm more interested in playing with seasoned veterans (people my age) who are as equally into the social aspect of the game as winning, and not for the ranking on the high score page.... which, as it stands, has absolutely no credibility since anyone with 2 laptops could sit there and play himself to rank #1.

[piete]

Hey, I've got 2 laptops! On the other hand, I must be close to IM's age, although I've got no idea about how I act...

But the best social experience would be still in front of my C64 (or Atari in IM's case), were they friends or just MULE acquaintances. Maybe there could be (sponsored) live tournaments in the future, EA could do some retro-sponsoring, after all, it was they who published the original (yeah, keep on dreaming...)

[Dave37]

Thanks for the well thought out responses. I agree with pretty much all of your opinions.

There is nothing wrong with using various strategies to win, even the ones that make you look like a jerk. And I know there aren't any real ways to cheat (unless you mess with the lag of course). But there certainly are ways to act like a jerk. Here's a few examples of annoying and downright mean things I have seen:

1) Dancing/Unnecessarily slowing the clock during auctions.
2) Talking down to other players for any reason
3) Intentionally playing very poorly (throwing the game)
4) Aborting the game within the first few rounds

These are the major ones, but the list could be longer.

[Dave37]

But the best social experience would be still in front of my C64 (or Atari in IM's case), were they friends or just MULE acquaintances.

Offline multiplayer games are always the best, but being temporarily based in Australia I don't really have that option if I want to play with my family or old friends. So I play internet games all the time. But, it's just far too easy for people to be jerks online.

To quote Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw on the matter of internet multiplayer.
"If you're not in the same actual room, poised to punch them in the face, only their entertainment matters. You might as well just be an AI bot that swears. "
source: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/6832-Extra-Punctuation-On-Multiplayer

[piete]

1) Dancing/Unnecessarily slowing the clock during auctions.

"Dancing" has often a meaning in the game. Besides, I don't dance in real life so please let me do it here!

What annoys me more than unnecessary dancing is not coming down to buy when it is obvious that there will be no transactions (like during last round) and store has no goods.

[Intergalactic Mole]

What if I am dancing simply because I want to dance, and not necessarily maliciously to slow down the auction?  My friends and I frequently danced in the middle of the auctions and sang a little song for fun.

[rommager]

I totally agree on the issue of poor sportsmanship, and it's not just rage quitters or dancers, either.  Prime example - I played a game where the second place player got ticked for my selling energy to the player who won (I changed the names from the chat log):

P2: you gave P1 the game
P2: with 100% certainty by selling energy
P2: i just don't get it
Me: It's all about the best colony score
P2: how lame is that
P1 (in my defense): he made like $1,200 and he gave me like $1,500
P2: P1 it's more possibility than that
Me: I am someone who chooses to play for the greater good.  but hey, choose your battles.  Up to you
P2: i just don't like collusion
P2: to each his own, rommager
P2: congrats on your 3rd place finish
P2: you're so good

He completely disregarded the fact that he had been screwing me over by snapping up all food and energy over me (on purpose) because I was winning on the prior 3 turns.  Why wouldn't I want to ensure the other guy gets the win?  He also informed me that he would not be playing with me in the future.  WTF? We already have to wait long enough for human players to join without wanting to kick them or unjoin over the "principle" of being mad at someone.

AND - just for the record, I always make sure that I have time to play a full game, and I never quit even when losing.  The only exception is if I absolutely have to quit for an external reason (I haven't had to do that yet) and then I would at least tell everyone that I needed to go before bailing out.

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to vent.

[Bertoid]

I agree with just about everything everyone has said.  Purposeful slowing of the game down just for fun is crap.  Gloating is crap.  Berating other players is crap.  Questioning other players' decisions is crap.  Forecasting the game with an air of certainty ("In two rounds, I'll be in first place and you lost because of the Smithore...") is crap.

[data2008]

maybe if we would count the overall score of the colony + weigh in the place of each player it would help make it easier being second or third (or even fourth, if a high colony score)?

Maybe the "first place or no points" approach of the ranking system does make people regard the outcome so extreme?

Example: Award points = Colony category (0-7) * (5 - Rank)

Changing to a more complex system is currently out of scope timewise, but anyone having a similar simple idea to take into account the rank + score of a game, please explain here :-)