Mutiny and R.O.C.
It seems to me that the main thing in contention here is the automatic boot of the previous commander. Take out that and most of the problem is gone.
Next point: If you want to solve mutiny being too easy, is it possible to increase the % required to pass a mutiny vote? 75% perhaps.
Next point: If you want to solve mutiny being too easy, is it possible to increase the % required to pass a mutiny vote? 75% perhaps.
Yum
P.S. I'm accepting all challenges to 1v1 DM. Please feel free to PM me in game and let me know if you're interested
-
Grim_Reaper_4u
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Netherlands
My two cents
-current ROC that deal with resign would/should apply to mutiny (once R4 goes live we should clarify that)
-current mechanisms that players/coms use to deal with resign can be used to deal with mutiny
Point of clarification, a successful mutiny won't boot the current commander (AFAIK), so whoever got control turned around and booted the original com (something that should be frowned upon).
I respectfully disagree with AEM's concerns. Once the 'novelty' of the command wears off I do not see the the issues he is worried about being a problem.
-deal with a 'power hungry' newbs like we do now with newbs that attempt #resign. If your team allows such a newb to become commander, shame on them... But given how players avoid newb coms like the plague in the game lobby I really DON'T see players saying yes to a mutiny that will place a newb in control.
-given how hard it is to get someone to step up and take com as it stands I just really don't see people suddenly wanting to take com mid game if they were not willing to take it from the start. The biggest 'risk' would be a vet com joining and wanting to take com from a newb com, but that can do that now, granted #mutiny is a little easier but fundamentally not and different.
-current ROC that deal with resign would/should apply to mutiny (once R4 goes live we should clarify that)
-current mechanisms that players/coms use to deal with resign can be used to deal with mutiny
Point of clarification, a successful mutiny won't boot the current commander (AFAIK), so whoever got control turned around and booted the original com (something that should be frowned upon).
I respectfully disagree with AEM's concerns. Once the 'novelty' of the command wears off I do not see the the issues he is worried about being a problem.
-deal with a 'power hungry' newbs like we do now with newbs that attempt #resign. If your team allows such a newb to become commander, shame on them... But given how players avoid newb coms like the plague in the game lobby I really DON'T see players saying yes to a mutiny that will place a newb in control.
-given how hard it is to get someone to step up and take com as it stands I just really don't see people suddenly wanting to take com mid game if they were not willing to take it from the start. The biggest 'risk' would be a vet com joining and wanting to take com from a newb com, but that can do that now, granted #mutiny is a little easier but fundamentally not and different.
DOG PROPERTY LAWS:
2. If it's in my mouth, it's mine.
[unless it tastes bad, then it is yours.]
Dogbones, booting the old com once a mutiny is complete is rather common. You'll still have money as the com, and usually the new com won't want to wait for it. Hell the last time I mutinied I booted the old commander out of spite for just utter stupidity.
The day we make booting stupidity a bannable offense is the day no one but the idiots will com anymore.
The day we make booting stupidity a bannable offense is the day no one but the idiots will com anymore.
FIZ wrote:QUOTE (FIZ @ Feb 28 2011, 04:56 PM) After Slap I use Voltaire for light reading.
QUOTE [20:13] <DasSmiter> I like to think that one day he logged on and accidentally clicked his way to the EoR forumCronoDroid wrote:QUOTE (CronoDroid @ Jan 23 2009, 07:46 PM) If you're going to go GT, go Exp, unless you're Gooey. But Gooey is nuts.
[20:13] <DasSmiter> And his heart exploded in a cloud of fury[/quote]
What I would really fear would be a bunch of people having a fun 5 vs 5. A game with 2 persons who aren't used to comm, with somewhat even teams and people who just want to have fun. Then, a bigger event ends or the mains server crash and everyone joins that server. I've seen several case where this happened and that "vets" just spammed resigns to start a "real" game. A mutiny would just make it easier.
If anything, last night proved how easy the #mutiny could be to abuse and I'm somewhat with crono on the issue. The current mutiny system is hard to use and prevent abuse while still making it possible. Also, you have to do it fast if you don't want to be booted. I mean, right now, mutiny rarely happens without a good reason.
About newbies, I'm not worried about people voting yes to a mutiny started by a newbie, but I'm worried about a newbie who would vote yes because the comm didn't buy him a sup and gat 2 for is GT fighter while he has heavy ints. Newbies often have problem to see the difference between a bad comm, a bad team and a good enemy team.
Another problem: Yesterday, we had people spamming #mutiny and we changed comms for like 10 times in less than 2 minutes. I think there should be a limit to how many #mutiny can go at the same time. If someone starts a #mutiny, no one else should be able to do it again untill the vote is over. We had a mutiny, a new person(#2) got comm and lost it just after because someone(#3) had started a mutiny on comm #1 before the 1st vote was over. I also think that there should be a limit of 1 #mutiny per players every 5-10 mins.
I'd also like to point out that doobie's team should never have resigned that game.
The only "good thing" about #mutiny is that in the game doobie talked about, yellow had a newbie comm. The #mutiny command gave us some confidence I think. He built bombers, no ops and a tech base with no good rocks. We did a #mutiny and aarm got comm. Without the #mutiny, I doubt he would have gotten a shot at commanding.
I also see the mutiny/resigns replacing boots/resigns. What's even worse is that it could be started by everyone. What I fear would be someone trying to #mutiny, not saying that they want to resign, ending up with comm and then doing whatever they can to resign. It's much easier to force a team to resign when you got comm than when you're just a pilot.
And about the money, isn't it automatically moved to the new comm? I could see booting someone who holds 25k... but Imo, an automatic transfer system would be better.
If anything, last night proved how easy the #mutiny could be to abuse and I'm somewhat with crono on the issue. The current mutiny system is hard to use and prevent abuse while still making it possible. Also, you have to do it fast if you don't want to be booted. I mean, right now, mutiny rarely happens without a good reason.
About newbies, I'm not worried about people voting yes to a mutiny started by a newbie, but I'm worried about a newbie who would vote yes because the comm didn't buy him a sup and gat 2 for is GT fighter while he has heavy ints. Newbies often have problem to see the difference between a bad comm, a bad team and a good enemy team.
Another problem: Yesterday, we had people spamming #mutiny and we changed comms for like 10 times in less than 2 minutes. I think there should be a limit to how many #mutiny can go at the same time. If someone starts a #mutiny, no one else should be able to do it again untill the vote is over. We had a mutiny, a new person(#2) got comm and lost it just after because someone(#3) had started a mutiny on comm #1 before the 1st vote was over. I also think that there should be a limit of 1 #mutiny per players every 5-10 mins.
I'd also like to point out that doobie's team should never have resigned that game.
The only "good thing" about #mutiny is that in the game doobie talked about, yellow had a newbie comm. The #mutiny command gave us some confidence I think. He built bombers, no ops and a tech base with no good rocks. We did a #mutiny and aarm got comm. Without the #mutiny, I doubt he would have gotten a shot at commanding.
I also see the mutiny/resigns replacing boots/resigns. What's even worse is that it could be started by everyone. What I fear would be someone trying to #mutiny, not saying that they want to resign, ending up with comm and then doing whatever they can to resign. It's much easier to force a team to resign when you got comm than when you're just a pilot.
And about the money, isn't it automatically moved to the new comm? I could see booting someone who holds 25k... but Imo, an automatic transfer system would be better.
Last edited by Vlymoxyd on Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A vet proposing a resign ONCE does not equal spamming. Not helping the team? The vet he booted was helping the team, in fact the vet he booted was Doobie's #1 pilot according to kills and points. No one on else on Doobie's team even came close.
Doobie has the right to boot people without cause. The team has the right to mutiny without cause.
The MAJORITY voted to remove Doobie from command because Doobie booted his best pilots.
The new commander (me), booted Doobie because I thought Doobie was bad for the team. However, it really comes down to this: The commander does NOT need a reason to boot a pilot, unless the pilot is a newbie.
Doobie has the right to boot people without cause. The team has the right to mutiny without cause.
The MAJORITY voted to remove Doobie from command because Doobie booted his best pilots.
The new commander (me), booted Doobie because I thought Doobie was bad for the team. However, it really comes down to this: The commander does NOT need a reason to boot a pilot, unless the pilot is a newbie.
gr4vity wrote:QUOTE (gr4vity @ Sep 6 2007, 08:25 AM) This sounds very much like Retaliatory booting. Please check your pm Doobie.
Fragtzack:
Its absolutely correct to boot a vet who spams #resign. Since he obviously refuses anyway to help the team so you rather want the rest of your guys stay focuses instead of having a bitching useless player within your ranks.
Regards
grav@RT /cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cool.gif" />
" border="0" alt="cool.gif" />-
BlackViper
- Posts: 6993
- Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Green Bay, WI
Hmm, it is pretty interesting that you knew so much about this game considering you just joined, your first action was to mutiny me. You first action as commander was to boot me. Now I don't get why a new player to the game would take such drastic measures, considering we still had a shot. Unless... it was your hider that I just booted??Fragtzack wrote:QUOTE (Fragtzack @ Sep 6 2007, 11:21 AM) A vet proposing a resign ONCE does not equal spamming. Not helping the team? The vet he booted was helping the team, in fact the vet he booted was Doobie's #1 pilot according to kills and points. No one on else on Doobie's team even came close.
Doobie has the right to boot people without cause. The team has the right to mutiny without cause.
The MAJORITY voted to remove Doobie from command because Doobie booted his best pilots.
The new commander (me), booted Doobie because I thought Doobie was bad for the team. However, it really comes down to this: The commander does NOT need a reason to boot a pilot, unless the pilot is a newbie.
If you were so certain that I was leading my team to their doom, why not join the other team and whore? Instead you choose to ruin the game that half the team still felt like playing? I am sure most of the other team still felt like playing. After the game was over, you didn't even stay on as commander, you joined Aarrm's stack. If this was what you wanted why not join his team after I booted you?
As I preceive things, you joined my team again using a differnt name and mutinied / booted me for retaliation. Then you ended a game that many other players wanted to keep playing. Its funny to say that I was bad for the team when you're second action as commander was to call a resign...