Jump to content
Boondocksaint

[Op] Request for mission change rule [2011-04-17]]

Recommended Posts

Ok,

 

So all I see is people bitching about domi and other people bitching about the people bitching. But no one is willing to make a poll. I am tired of seeing threads/polls like krause's polluted with bickering about one type of mission. As that time limit poll is now going to fail, I figured I would try this type of rule out and see what you guys think.

 

 

Rule: If an open ended mission is being played (IE: Domination, Insurgency, TFOR Ect.....) and a REGULAR member of UO comes in and request a mission change, the logged or voted in admin will conduct a vote of all players in the Game channel AND waiting room channel in TS. If the motion for mission change passes the admin WILL change the mission or give up admin to another player. Players in the current mission will have 15 MIN to finish their current objective.

 

This rule IMO goes with our core idea of majority rule, so discuss, vote, lay it down peeps.

Share this post


Link to post

This would be reasonable.

 

I'd add (for further-resonable-ing) that the guys playing Domi/Insurgency would have say, 15 minutes to finish up a side objective, destroy a cache, whatever before the mission switch can be made. For fluidity, transition, and less frustration from one party or another.

 

For reference, leave it to Boondock to actually get shit done.

 

*thumbs-up*

Share this post


Link to post

Providing you give the guys playing enough time to finish their objective[assuming its within the next 10-15 minutes] then yes, its sound reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post

Providing you give the guys playing enough time to finish their objective[assuming its within the next 10-15 minutes] then yes' date=' its sound reasonable.

[/quote']

 

Echo-echo-echo...

Share this post


Link to post

Think this should be an SOP rather than a rule, as I can envisage (rare) times when this wouldn't be suitable i.e. all regulars want to change a mission but there are more randoms on the server that want to play domi etc.

 

Yet again, it's an issue of those in admin positions using their discretion appropriately, i.e. neither ending missions at the drop of a hat, nor keeping domi running 24/7 when there is a significant number of people waiting for it to change.

 

There are too many variables to legislate for all of them, so curtailing admin discretion in this way can have unintended consequences.

Share this post


Link to post

Voting yes for simplicity's sake, I think these missions should be on the alt server, thats what its there for.

Share this post


Link to post

I would think that this is just common sense. The only thing I would worry about is a situation like AJ has pointed out.

 

If I were a regular, this would get my vote.

 

What about giving the Regulars' votes a higher value than the Members' so their Regular status gives them a little more power when trying to control the server?

 

If a bunch of new Members are upset because they can't finish their round of Domi, let them go play somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post

I voted No.

 

 

 

Just kidding :(.

 

Yes, although it might not be that graceful and I forsee issues in the future, it will have to do I guess.

 

@Gungnir: there's 506700 domi/insurgency servers out there. We have it on our server to SEED it, not to be played all day not letting us regulars get our only fix of other missions not played anywhere else.

Share this post


Link to post

@ Inca: That's exactly what I said. If they are upset because they want to play Domi and Regulars want to play other missions then let them go play Domi somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post

Voted yes.

 

Even though I think it would just be super simple to just make it SOP that Domi/Insurgency and such be on Alt Server.

But whatever to make this nonsense go away.

Share this post


Link to post

Voted yes with ease because everyone playing domi or insurgency at that time will probably not be psychologically wounded by having to play a more involved mission, whereas no one wants to sit and wait for hours during their time off. I say give more weight to the people who are doing nothing but waiting.

 

Domination and Insurgency get updated and something like them will always be there. Missions made by UO's members have got to be experienced while we have them, because not everyone has time to constantly update every mission they've made. We need all these new people to understand what we've got here, and in the meantime no one should blame them for simply liking what they know if they've only played a lot of domi or the like. If some new people do not respond well to harsh opinions of said missions, don't hit them over the head with opinion. Insist that they won't be disappointed, because they will see the light if they play a few of the missions we have.

 

I think the real issue with the seeder missions dragging on during prime time is this: The missions made for UO are integral to what UO is. If we ask about any given mission, "how interesting is it?", well, a mission where every objective is exactly the same is like a six pack in a fridge. It's easy to get and still does something nice if you drink it. At UO, there is more than a fridge. What we're proud of is that we have a lounge with a bar stocked full of top-shelf liquor and a humidor. We have to take care of that and ensure the people who make missions feel there is a motivating point to spending their time in a way from which we all benefit.

 

I don't care if I'm verbose, I'm trying to communicate in a way that gives perspective. Lately, we've had an influx of new players and new mission makers. A lot of the rest of us are kind of set in our ways, and not in a really bad way, but it seems to me that the discussion resulting in this poll was missing the bigger point - UO's missions are integral to UO, and by consideration of the combined labor, time, and community involved, UO's missions deserve emphasis by far. Not only do we need some function like this new rule would give us, we need something that makes it easier for new people to both jump on the server and pick one of our missions, and feel more comfortable taking command and doing things the UO way, so that a CO, SL, or FTL actually knows his rights and can constructively keep people on task and in agreement with meeting the needs of the platoon up and down the chain of command.

 

For the newest of the new and Regulars, I think we could help nearly everything by having spoiler-free discussions of plans and tactics for various specific missions and various types of missions and objectives. We could have anything from very general to very specific plans to make commanding easier. I think a lot of us could have fun discussing missions plans and tactics to deal with common objective types, and come out of it with something really useful. If a new person is on and wants to CO, or if no Regular is on and it's all new people, or if a Regular wants to CO and use what he knows will be a solid plan, we could point to the plans as reference and include information about the basic rights and functions of the chain of command and proper use of all assets involved. My hope is it would help get us more CO's, especially by passing on insight to them through those plans. However, the details and finer points of this idea belong in a new post.

 

We have to strengthen the culture and community at UO so that we take care of the nice things we've got. If we do that, we won't need to find more and more rules because certain things will more or less be traditions too strong to change. For instance, it would be instantly rejected if someone were to suggest that we eliminate all aircraft from UO's missions. We would wonder why it was even suggested because it doesn't fit in any way. Constructive rules are good, but building consensus can plant strong roots in a different way.

 

Quite a few of us will instantly know where I'm coming from, and what it will mean to everyone in the UO community, present and future, when I say this:

 

I used to get gassed to death defending Protvino Bridge, and I died over and over to save Chad Hudson.

Share this post


Link to post

Voted yes. Great idea Boonboon.

 

On the other hand, why is Domination still on the main server? It should be moved to alternate server.

Share this post


Link to post

There seems to be a general lack of knowledge when it comes to the missions on the server. I for one thing don't know 90% of them. I don't know how many times I've heard the admin ask for mission requests and everyone just sits there for 30 seconds without saying anything.

 

It might be a good idea to have a separate thread in which all the recently released missions are listed so people have an idea of what's new without having to watch each individual creators thread or waiting to hear about things by word of mouth. Start the thread with a link to the google docs mission list and then have the creators post their new stuff and little description. Should be stickied and place in a highly visible place.

 

Just an idea to maybe get people more interested in everything that the excellent mission makers we have are putting out.

Share this post


Link to post

There seems to be a general lack of knowledge when it comes to the missions on the server. I for one thing don't know 90% of them. I don't know how many times I've heard the admin ask for mission requests and everyone just sits there for 30 seconds without saying anything.

 

It might be a good idea to have a separate thread in which all the recently released missions are listed so people have an idea of what's new without having to watch each individual creators thread or waiting to hear about things by word of mouth. Start the thread with a link to the google docs mission list and then have the creators post their new stuff and little description. Should be stickied and place in a highly visible place.

 

Just an idea to maybe get people more interested in everything that the excellent mission makers we have are putting out.

 

Here - http://arma2.unitedoperations.net/mpmissions/

 

and here you got details regarding missions (might need to be updated) - https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AgqEPjCXpLEfdFozVTJtcmRPSERCb28zeU5KVEw5NUE&hl=en&authkey=CO3knYgC#gid=0

Share this post


Link to post

The main idea here is the overall maturity of the community will hopefully prevail. If an admin refuses to conduct a vote or change the mission with a passing vote, they would be in violation of one of our rules and punished, and vise versa. TBH alot of times people pleay domi till more people get on so even alot of the people currently playing domi will vote for a new mission. could there be problems yes, but we can make amendments as needed, I feel we need this now to settle an on going issue.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this is a good idea, but how do we actually conduct a poll in game? I'm still worried about a vocal minority outweighing a silent majority. I have tried various voting systems like 1/2 or TvT Blufor/Opfor to get a server's consensus and it was hard to draw conclusions. I haven't even tried this in game, so it will be interesting. I really think the best mechanism an addition to an "enumeration" in the SOPs are responsible admins that have the foresight to pick the right meeshuns.

 

Force

Share this post


Link to post

it would be conducted in TS by the in game admin, if he can't minimize or see TS he shouldn't be admin anyways as its crucial to admining the server, and all he simply does is go down the channel list AFTER everyone from the waiting room in in there, and goes member by member. It should only take like 2-3 mins if people STFU and be mature about it. Being an admin on the server is a responsibility given by this community and the person doing it should have the patience and maturity to carry out this task.

Share this post


Link to post

"The exception [that] proves the rule"

 

Great idea Boon. I was just trying to anticipate possible exceptions and only came up with this scenario.

 

“The Big Event”

 

Sometime in the future a half day Saturday Event is planned by a Regular with military experience to convey leadership tactics and procedures to improve UO game play. It is very well received with the limit of 30 (co30) players participating. The Event could be a series of missions (maps) or maybe for continuity reasons only one “mission” that will take 3-4 hours. The other servers are shut down for performance. After a couple of hours inexplicably a flood of x+1 members are in the waiting room wanting a new map. Would it be fair for those who invested 2 hours or for the Event Planner to terminate when they are only half done? Should the Admin be punished for either decision he makes?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...