Failed Mutiny Vote Should Result In Lost Team Points

[TotalBF2er]

No, I'm actually saying punish a player for a failed mutiny vote. This would force players to make sure they have support before they turn against their superior officer.

If they don't have the support, and the vote fails, they should suffer individual teampoints. You know, the same suffered when you cause team vehicle damage, teamkill, etc.

Why should your insubordination go unpunished? Cause a vote mutiny if you must, but be prepared to be punished if it fails.

By default, only the highest ranking player (the one with the most battle experience, by the way) can become commander out of all the players applying to be one. If they are not selected due to inferior rank, why do they feel they know better than someone of higher rank?

[BurnTheWeed]

No, I'm actually saying punish a player for a failed mutiny vote. This would force players to make sure they have support before they turn against their superior officer.

Yeah, I got that. You going to make people afraid to vote against a commander, even if the commander sucks, because they are afraid people won't vote and they will lose points.

If they don't have the support, and the vote fails, they should suffer individual teampoints. You know, the same suffered when you cause team vehicle damage, teamkill, etc.

Why should your insubordination go unpunished? Cause a vote mutiny if you must, but be prepared to be punished if it fails.

Because of the reason I gave above. I think you are taking this mutiny vote personally. It's not insubordination as much as a change in command. This adds variety to the game. And on a public server, it's really hard to gauge how much support you have until you vote. Asking rarely gets any reply, so the only way to find out if people want a change is to vote. And you are saying punish them for that, and I think that's silly.

And unlike a teamkill a mutiny vote isn't actually hurting anyone's gameplay. You really think hurting someone's feelings (if it really does that, your argument is pretty dubious about that) is equal to teamkilling or destruction of friendly vehicles?

By default, only the highest ranking player (the one with the most battle experience, by the way) can become commander out of all the players applying to be one. If they are not selected due to inferior rank, why do they feel they know better than someone of higher rank?

Because not all people who mutiny want to be commander. Sometimes they just want a different commander. And it's not like Higher ranks means they are a good commander, just that they've played this game a lot (not necessarily as commander). It would be one thing if a person spams the chat with mutiny responses, but to punish someone for just seeing if people want a change in commander, or they joined the game and want to play as a commander, is a bit harsh. The fact that the vote failed, should be punishment enough.

[TotalBF2er]

Yeah, I got that. You going to make people afraid to vote against a commander, even if the commander sucks, because they are afraid people won't vote and they will lose points.

I guess I take the meaning of the word mutiny as it was defined in the English dictionary, and not as your interpretation of the word as of a 'friendly query of whether a change of command is desired or not'.

I think you are taking this mutiny vote personally. It's not insubordination as much as a change in command. This adds variety to the game. And on a public server, it's really hard to gauge how much support you have until you vote. Asking rarely gets any reply, so the only way to find out if people want a change is to vote. And you are saying punish them for that, and I think that's silly.

I don't take mutiny votes against myself as Commander personally. In fact, it happens everytime I command, you can't please everyone. It's not about having a change of command, it could be my first time commanding for the day on any particular server, and there will always be one guy trying to start a revolt against you. If this happened in real life, a person would suffer some discipline for even suggesting such a thing. Mutiny has been a serious crime in all of history, so why is it treated so lightly without consequence in the game?

And unlike a teamkill a mutiny vote isn't actually hurting anyone's gameplay. You really think hurting someone's feelings (if it really does that, your argument is pretty dubious about that) is equal to teamkilling or destruction of friendly vehicles?

I understand you think this argument is about 'feelings', but it's not. It's about adding consequence to insubordination to Commanders in the game. Just like a squad leader can kick out a member who isn't staying with the group or participating in the squad objectives, what's wrong with adding a little fear to a mutineer? I guarantee you, in all of history, a would-be mutineer would make sure he had support before he would even attempt it, to be on his own on that matter would ensure his death... or court martial, etc.

Because not all people who mutiny want to be commander. Sometimes they just want a different commander.

Then a mutiny vote shouldn't be used for that. A mutiny is an attempt to oust the authority currently in power. It's not friendly, it's not just, and it certainly isn't realistic.

And it's not like Higher ranks means they are a good commander, just that they've played this game a lot (not necessarily as commander).

That is just an opinion. Personally, I'd rather have someone who has played the game lots to be the Commander, and not someone new to the game. I'll take experienced players over new players as Commanders.

That's like being a Private in the army, and saying he can command better than a General, who has earned his rank through hard work, winning campaigns, etc. It doesn't make sense.

...but to punish someone for just seeing if people want a change in commander, or they joined the game and want to play as a commander, is a bit harsh.

Yes, it is harsh. But then again, mutiny is a serious thing. Don't call a mutiny vote unless you're sure you have enough support to win.. or suffer the consequences of your insubordination by taking a hit of 2-3 points off your team point score.

I appreciate the fact that someone may want to play Commander when they join the game, but that's just the way it is. Unless the Commander is doing a completely absurd job, and can get kicked out from a mutiny vote, you're gonna have to put up with him. Just like in real life. You'll have to wait your turn, and apply on the next round. If your rank isn't high enough to win the appointment, then you'll just have increase your rank so you can win it next time.

The fact that the vote failed, should be punishment enough.

Unfortunately it isn't . You know this already. Even a punishment of -6 (TK) to some people so they can get a plane to fly isn't enough, they still do it.

Anyways, this is just a topic for discussion. This change will probably never make it into the game, so I'm not going to get all upset if it doesn't. I just observed that a lot of mutiny votes seem to be occuring most rounds that I play (whether I am Com or not), and thought it was odd that perhaps a same player could call a mutiny vote countless times without being punished at all for doing it.

Note: Some people don't like that it takes so many votes to oust a Commander on a mutiny, and I don't have a problem with that. I think the developers made it that way so it wouldn't be easy to be successful doint it. It would be next to impossible in reality to oust a superior officer, so at least the game does have some kind of realism to protect a Commander's position.

[Flatline_hun]

Have you ever tried mutiny against idle commander on a 16 player map only to realize you need 10!!!! votes to success? Of course we only got 7.....