#mutiny your_reason_here

sagacious · Post by **sagacious** » Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:59 am

As a newbie commander who likes commanding, there are several minor changes I would like to see made to the game. The first is to change the #mutiny command to be more newbie-commander friendly. There are several things that I would like to see changed.

First, I would like to see a reason whenever the mutiny command is shown. That is, if I am commander and a mutiny passes or fails, I want to see why the person mutinied me. If I am mutinied and booted, I never get to hear why. If I am mutinied and the vote fails, I STILL want to know why--it might give me a valuable lesson and would help me decide whether to boot the mutineer. If I am not the commander and a mutiny command comes across with the explanation "comm hasn't bought tp2" I would almost automatically press "N" because usually simply urging the comm to buy a piece of equipment is good enough. (If the mutineer has already asked three times and the comm hasn't done it, then I would likely press 'Y',) If this is implemented, I would also like to be able to see a log of who mutinied for what reasons against whom, how long the game had been going, how long the mutineer had been on the team and the results of the vote (counts of yes, no, abstentions)

Something that really pisses me off is when I save Allegiance from deathmatch hell and 30 minutes into the game, a vet comes online, plays 30 seconds and then mutinies me. GodsDAMN but that makes me angry. With a reason and a log, this would happen less often partially because, if I find someone who constantly mutinies newbie comms, I would not accept that person on my team.

If someone does #mutiny with no text, it would simply say "no reason given".

Secondly, I would like to see the threshhold for mutiny set to a supermajority of 60% and to not count abstentions at all. I saw a suggestion like this on this thread and I immediately thought "Great Idea". Since the explanation is being given, there should be no reason for a person to abstain unless they're afk or clueless, and if they are either of those things, their abstention should not count as a "no". Under this scheme, the commander would NOT get an automatic 'no' vote (the 60% rule makes that unnecessary).

Frankly, a lot of the time I see a mutiny vote I do not understand why the person is mutinying. You have an option as to whether to play under a commander, newbie or not. Joining a team planning to mutiny is just plain bad manners, IMNSHO. That leads up to the third change I want which is also most likely to be hated by the vet community.

I would like to see there be a minimum time frame for a mutiny to be permitted by a player: the greater of [30% of the gametime played, the lesser of (100% gametime played, 3 minutes)]. In other words, a player could always mutiny if he has played the whole game under the current commander. Otherwise, he has to put in enough time to equal 30% of the time of the game or, if the game has been going on for less than 10 minutes, he would have to wait three minutes. If he puts in the mutiny command before the minimum time frame, the message returned would be "you cannot mutiny until MINUTES:SECONDS more minutes/seconds have passed." If a vet wants to see SOMEONE mutiny and can't do it himself, he could always use the "we have a clueless commander, mutiny!" voice chat. That might result in a boot, but them's the breaks.

I would also like to see a "#request your_text_here" command which essentially lets someone request command privately and which a commander can INS to accept or DEL to reject. This could be done with no minimum time limit. You could say that this is the same thing as sending a private message asking for command, but the difference is that it should have an automatic time-out response of accepting the request. This would solve the "AFK commander" problem and also give a more-or-less polite way to handle situations when the vet believes that the commander would actually prefer to be flying under someone else than to be commanding. I would like to see the results of this command show up in the #mutiny log, as well.

While you're at it, adding your_reason_here, the logging to the #resign and #draw commands and implementing them to follow the same supermajority/ignore abstainers rule would be good.

I won't be a newbie commander forever, but I will probably like these suggestions forever.

ShadowFox_ · Post by **ShadowFox_** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:37 am

No...

IB_ · Post by **IB_** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:56 am

#mutiny

Andon · Post by **Andon** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:25 pm

Yeah, and no one would ever use it because it takes time.

Either that or you'd end up with "#mutiny comm is a $#@!tard"

Post by **zombywoof** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:33 pm

You don't need a reason for #mutiny because #mutiny has only two reasons built in:

1) "I don't like this commander and don't want him to command anymore."
2) "I think it'll be funny to pretend to mutiny."

Since #1 takes up ~100.1% of all cases and #2 takes up ~-.2% of all, just assume it's #1

coopertronic · Post by **coopertronic** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:17 pm

Mutiny is important dam it!!!

>>>> WHY WE MUST MUTINY <<<<

It's part of the game, you know?

Icky · Post by **Icky** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:24 pm

Another option would be not sucking, so you do not get mutinied. It is probably easier to code that way, too!

You can start not sucking by completing ACS.

It also looks like you never took Cadet based on the graduates page which may or may not be accurate. Taking Cadet I/II is a great way not to suck.

So to recap:

1 - Stop sucking
2 - Make suggestions

sagacious · Post by **sagacious** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:25 pm

Icky wrote:QUOTE (Icky @ Oct 5 2009, 06:24 PM) Another option would be not sucking, so you do not get mutinied. It is probably easier to code that way, too!

You can start not sucking by completing ACS.

It also looks like you never took Cadet based on the graduates page which may or may not be accurate. Taking Cadet I/II is a great way not to suck.

I have no doubt that there are useful things to learn in cadet 1. Under an old hider, I took part of Cadet I but stopped because I was informed that not all we were reading was correct. I learned this because I made tests from the reading material and put them online, then was told that the test answers were occasionally incorrect (even though they came straight from the reading material). I might take Cadet I again, but might not.

It looks as though taking Cadet II and ACS have Cadet I as a prerequisite. This makes it unlikely that I will take either of them soon.

notjarvis · Post by **notjarvis** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:09 pm

sagacious wrote:QUOTE (sagacious @ Oct 8 2009, 07:25 PM) I have no doubt that there are useful things to learn in cadet 1. Under an old hider, I took part of Cadet I but stopped because I was informed that not all we were reading was correct. I learned this because I made tests from the reading material and put them online, then was told that the test answers were occasionally incorrect (even though they came straight from the reading material). I might take Cadet I again, but might not.

It looks as though taking Cadet II and ACS have Cadet I as a prerequisite. This makes it unlikely that I will take either of them soon.

Frankly - as you took part in part of CDT-I, and there is no test at the end of CDT-I you should be able to freely take CDT-II