Mutany

[BuenaventuraDurruti]

Roughly a fifth of games I play usually involve my team loosing, but also having a good portion of the team, sometimes (but rarely) myself included, blaming this loss on bad Commanders or Squad leaders. Given that there are quite a few people who see both roles as an easy way to a non bolt action weapon, and do not do their job properly, this complaint is more often than not justified. Yet, I have never seen a terrible commander/SL be kicked from their role despite numerous attempts to initiate a vote kick to do this. (Actually, I have never seen any vote kick go through).

I figure that since both roles are so essential to the game, kicking a player from this role (but not the server) should be made somewhat easier. My idea is to have a "Mutany" (or whatever you want to call it) button next to the role on the role select screen. How I think it should work is like this:
-Once someone hits the button, a discreet but noticable message should pop up to everybody eligable to vote
-A vote should require 60% approval to pass
-If it passes, the player kicked from the role should be able to pick any other role but the one they were kicked from for the duration of the match
-Obviously the whole team gets a vote on the commander, and obviously only Squad members get a vote on the SL


There should also be penalties that go along with this, just to prevent people from abusing this system. Im thinking that if the vote goes through, everyone of the yay votes loses 10 points (in the case of commanders) and 5 points for Squad Leaders. Votes that dont go through should cost 2 points apiece. This way, if a commander does get kicked by this vote, you can be pretty certain they had it coming.

[Schnitzel15]

Mutiny* :P

The problem with the votekick system is that you never have an idea when a vote is in progress. There should be a huge white text at the top. Same as the one when you capture an objective would do. If that was done, then the class votekicking would solve itself.

[Kowalczyk]

Firstly, vote kick does work, but the % needed to pass a vote is a server setting, and I think it's set high by default, so that's why most votes don't get passed.

Secondly, it could also be that players simply dont notice/care what's going on in chat to vote, it's likely that if the commander/SL is a new player who isnt familiar with the game, then some other players will be too and not know what the commander/SLs should be doing in their roles.

[Rabid Penguin]

Well, if you're a Squad Leader and you want to get rid of your Commander there is an extremely underhanded and downright dirty tactic that you can use... although it will earn you the contempt of your fellow man.

Wait until the Commander's started calling an arty strike on your mark, then at the last second move your arty mark on top of your own troops, or better yet, spawn, and the Commander goes bye bye for too many tk's.

[Mormegil]

We're here to fight AGAINST democracy, not to practice it!

Penguin's idea would only work if, A) the TL was actually calling arty (which bad TLs usually don't), and B) will tell you they're about to call in artillery on YOUR SL mark.

[BuenaventuraDurruti]

I think one of the main problems with the current kick voting (either to kick from server or from the role) is that it can be a hassle to find the guy you want to have kicked. It is pretty frustrating trying t kick someone on a server with 64 people, but have to scroll through a list of all players in seemingly random order to get to the guy you want to, and I dont think I have ever seen someone be annoying enough to get 32 other people to do that. Kicking, especially role kicking, either needs to be simplified or simply done away with. As it stands, it is an inapplicable feature.

[CptFoley101]

IMO its best to not let players under rank 50 to be SL and players under rank 70 to be TL.

[Kowalczyk]

Originally Posted by CptFoley101

IMO its best to not let players under rank 50 to be SL and players under rank 70 to be TL.

Totally agree

[Cwivey]

Originally Posted by CptFoley101

IMO its best to not let players under rank 50 to be SL and players under rank 70 to be TL.

I completely disagree. They've got to learn somehow, and being blocked out of something at the start of the game is a great way to put people off the game.

There can also be good players who are new to the game ya know, or returning oldies who have only got back into the game after whichever update because it fixed / added something they originally wanted. You can also have cases where some sod who's been playing since day n is a complete numpty when it comes to using the classes, and bombs his own team for the lulz. It's just not good to limit classes based off (what is essentially) a play-time number.

[Kowalczyk]

Of course that's right, but if the limits are set low, it won't take them long to get back into the game or learn it. I think it will stop the players who only want the class for the weapon, and one of the most important skills for any commander on any map is simply to KNOW that map well - the sequence of caps, the likely places where enemies will go, the way to the radio under the best cover etc etc.

You cant know all that without experience, and while it isn't a fail-safe system by any means, it puts in place a layer of protection, and makes it less likely that a noob will take that role and spoil the fun of 30ish players.

You must agree that on a lot of maps a victory depends largely on how the commander calls arty and recon, and the arty calls depend to some degree on how well the map is known.

[Colt .45 killer]

Originally Posted by CptFoley101

IMO its best to not let players under rank 50 to be SL and players under rank 70 to be TL.

It is funny because back in RO 1 we had the same problem. So most of the suggestions for any kind of a progression system were related to fixing THIS VERY PROBLEM. Lo and behold around release I figured the whole 'honour system' would make this thing go away and never return. Here we are with a progression system that doesn't even do something that progression systems are meant to do...

[CocaineInMyBrain]

Originally Posted by Colt .45 killer

It is funny because back in RO 1 we had the same problem. So most of the suggestions for any kind of a progression system were related to fixing THIS VERY PROBLEM. Lo and behold around release I figured the whole 'honour system' would make this thing go away and never return. Here we are with a progression system that doesn't even do something that progression systems are meant to do...

One of the features that was touted at release was that you could set an honor limit/minimum for your sever (e.x only players with above 50 honor can join) but it was just never used by any sever that I know of in the life of the game thus far.

[-=THOR=-]

Originally Posted by CocaineInMyBrain

could set an honor limit/minimum for your sever [...] was just never used by any sever that I know of in the life of the game thus far.

Because it unranks the servers.

[BuenaventuraDurruti]

Originally Posted by CptFoley101

IMO its best to not let players under rank 50 to be SL and players under rank 70 to be TL.

I like this idea. Provided that, for obvious reasons, it wouldnt be implemented on Rising Storm for 2 months, and I think we have some progress in these games.

It should, however, be a server option. There need to be servers that are friendly to newer players in order to keep the ranks swelled.

[Kowalczyk]

2Fjg changed one of their servers to a 40 honor limit once, I think for a couple of weeks? but as far as I know, it was usually empty so they scrapped that.

[BuenaventuraDurruti]

Originally Posted by Kowalczyk

2Fjg changed one of their servers to a 40 honor limit once, I think for a couple of weeks? but as far as I know, it was usually empty so they scrapped that.

If 10x as many people played, that wouldnt happen. Fact is, this game is a relatively unknown one (when compared with the big names), so we need to be noob friendly, or every match will turn into an incestuous meeting of regulars.

[CocaineInMyBrain]

Originally Posted by BuenaventuraDurruti

If 10x as many people played, that wouldnt happen. Fact is, this game is a relatively unknown one (when compared with the big names), so we need to be noob friendly, or every match will turn into an incestuous meeting of regulars.

But that was RO1 was like, so it must be good!

[BuenaventuraDurruti]

Originally Posted by CocaineInMyBrain

But that was RO1 was like, so it must be good!

Ehhh....sort of. RO1 did kind of implode on itself towards the end, where there were like 2 servers. If I recall correctly, there was a Europe based one which was really high ping, and there was the danzig 24/7, and that was basically your choice. Also, it felt like half the people playing towards the end may or may not have been skinheads. People may moan about the free weekends and the relative suckiness of the new players, but fact is, they are needed.

[CocaineInMyBrain]

Originally Posted by BuenaventuraDurruti

Ehhh....sort of. RO1 did kind of implode on itself towards the end, where there were like 2 servers. If I recall correctly, there was a Europe based one which was really high ping, and there was the danzig 24/7, and that was basically your choice. Also, it felt like half the people playing towards the end may or may not have been skinheads. People may moan about the free weekends and the relative suckiness of the new players, but fact is, they are needed.

I was being sarcastic But there are certainly plenty people here who do think like that though

[AtheistIII]

Also, it felt like half the people playing towards the end may or may not have been skinheads.

Hey, whats wrong with skins?
Thou shall not confuse skiheads with Nazis