Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Myd
I understand what you are saying. But I also see that even though you intend it to be optional, there will be enough scum owners that will declare it mandatory or the dots will be rotted. Yes there's always the argument of just don't sign with those owners. But the reality of it is that you don't always know the intentions of team owners until the season starts.

This is addressed in the Follow-Up Questions section of my OP. I'll repost it here.

1.) Isn't this going to lead to team owners forcing everyone on their team to open up their tactics by benching people who don't? Happens all the time with people keeping their builds closed!
Actually, people getting benched over closed builds doesn't happen nearly as often as you think. Check out this thread I posted over on the Goal Line Blitz forum ( http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4435940 ) where I asked a simple question: how many people here have ever been benched for keeping their builds closed. 67 replies and 2 days later, I've had exactly 2 agents who say they've been benched, two team owners who say they bench closed builds -- and WAY more agents and owners who say they've never had much of a problem with keeping their builds closed.

So, if your fear is that owners are going to force dots to open their tactics because you think owners already do that with builds, guess again. That sort of owner micro-management doesn't happen nearly as much as you think it does.

if this gets implemented (and just having a majority of votes doesn't mean it will), the plays for max XP better get dropped to zero... an owner being a jerk for one season shouldn't be able to permanently ruin the the ENTIRE CAREER that AGENTS--NOT OWNERS pay actual dollars to build.

Originally posted by fogie55
if this gets implemented (and just having a majority of votes doesn't mean it will), the plays for max XP better get dropped to zero... an owner being a jerk for one season shouldn't be able to permanently ruin the the ENTIRE CAREER that AGENTS--NOT OWNERS pay actual dollars to build.

That's possible right now anyway, whether this Suggestion gets implemented or not. So it's not a particularly relevant argument.

Plus the number of owners who are actually prickish enough to bench-rot a dot with 0 plays is a lot lower than you may have been led to believe. Again, see the thread I linked above. It's just not that common at all.

And even among that tiny minority of owners who are actually prickish enough to bench-rot someone, I seriously doubt that their only hot button is going to be "OMG UR TACTICS ARE CLOSD I ROT U." Even if my Suggestion never gets implemented, those rare prick-owners are going to find something else to bench-rot you over anyway.

-----

Owners and agents seem to have reached a mature balance over the issue of builds being opened or closed. I think owners and agents can reach a similarly mature balance over tactics being opened or closed too.

Originally posted by Novus
And even among that tiny minority of owners who are actually prickish enough to bench-rot someone, I seriously doubt that their only hot button is going to be "OMG UR TACTICS ARE CLOSD I ROT U." Even if my Suggestion never gets implemented, those rare prick-owners are going to find something else to bench-rot you over anyway.
.

And those hypothetical owners would probably find themselves not having a team anymore. With the lack of players, it seems even less likely nowadays that someone would waste a space on their team to rot someone.

As novus has said before, i think the incidence of people being benched for 0 plays a game is extremely rare. People might not get what they think is their fair share, or get stuck in ST but actual benching is not that common.

+1000000

Originally posted by Rikkhen
+1000000

and +100000000000000 for finding this

To the crowd who still says, "If this gets implemented, owners will threaten to bench and rot dots who chose to keep their tactics hidden," I say this...

Originally posted by Novus
Owners and agents seem to have reached a mature balance over the issue of builds being opened or closed. I think owners and agents can reach a similarly mature balance over tactics being opened or closed too.

As I demonstrated in this other thread ( http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4435940 ), benching/rotting dots over closed BUILDS doesn't actually happen nearly as often as people think it does. In fact, it's quite rare. So I doubt it's going to happen a lot over closed TACTICS either.

If you can find me a bunch of recent (key word here: RECENT) examples of people getting benched or rotted over their builds being closed, I'll change my mind. But I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with such examples before.

...

What it comes down to is this: the vast majority of my dots are on teams owned by other people. I want those other team owners to be able to pull up my players and see if my tactics are correct or incorrect, so that they can PM me if I forgot to set my QB to Favor Long Passes for our next opponent who likes to single-cover WRs.

But you don't want to give me that choice... because you're afraid that your team owner will bench your dot if you hide your tactics? If you really believe your team owner is that big of a prick, why'd you sign your dot with his team in the first place?

Let me have the choice for my dots. You'll have the same choice for your dots.

Originally posted by Novus
If you can find me a bunch of recent (key word here: RECENT) examples of people getting benched or rotted over their builds being closed, I'll change my mind. But I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with such examples before.

I know of several cases (on a team for which I coordinate) where agents were more or less forced/expected to open their builds so I could coordinate.

It would become expected the same way if it were possible, which would lead to coercion about how the tactics were set.

A big difference is that the right to build according to the cap-build system is accepted, and on plateau players there isn't even any chance for forced building in a given way as there is no building.

People, however, expect that the coordinators' tactics should be taken as if it were the Word of God, and thus would often persecute those who didn't follow that Word of God or open their tactics so they could see.

So... you can leave for another team. Owner gets reputation as an idiot (if his tactics are really so wrong) and a bad guy to play for. Owner either learns or ends up with an empty roster, or a bunch of bad agents who don't know any better.

Alternatively, you could discuss the tactics options, and see if you can try out a few different tactical settings (in scrims, for example), to make your point. If the owner won't go along with that, and you really think he's wrong, then, as above, move on, he loses.

I can't see the issue. Bad owners are bad owners and will find a way to show it, with or without an attribute sharing option. This is hardly going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, is it? But on the other hand, it might help agents and teams (not just owners/co-ordinators, as you said in the other thread).

+100000

Originally posted by Antonine
So... you can leave for another team.

You can't; you're under contract. And other owners will almost unanimously require open tactics. They'll say, "Why wouldn't you open your tactics if you're a team player?"

Originally posted by Antonine
Owner gets reputation as an idiot (if his tactics are really so wrong)

If I think they're wrong for my player, then I should have the right not to use them, even if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Antonine
and a bad guy to play for.

How? One can't complain about an owner on the main board or anything.

Originally posted by Antonine
move on, he loses.

You can't; he has you under contract.

1. Don't sign long contracts with owners you don't know?
2. Why wouldn't you open your tactics if you're a team player, actually?
3. Yes, you should definitely have the right to not use those tactics, even if you are wrong. Similarly, you could say that the owner should have the right to know that you are doing so, no? But this suggestion doesn't even go that far. It merely grants agents the possibility of opening tactics. And you are probably right, most owners will expect tactics to be open. I wouldn't trust an agent who didn't want to do so, honestly. If he thought I was wrong about tactics (and I probably am), I'd listen, and learn where appropriate. I do think most owners would do the same thing.
4. Word gets around about people, surely. At the very least, you'll never sign a dot with him again.
5. Again, don't sign a long contract if you don't know the owner? I know some people have a trillion dots and can't engage in discussion with every owner who offers a contract, but a few words by PM go a long way to finding out what someone is like, I think.

I'm coming at this from a different angle to you, obviously. I can't see the point of this game if it's not to engage with a team and co-operate. Otherwise it's just single player PvP in the guise of a team-based MMORPG, and to me, that's pretty dull. If you really don't want to engage with owners and teams, and discuss things, and have stuff open so that it can be looked at and refined where needed, then really you're better off in the D-leagues, surely?

Originally posted by Antonine

1. Don't sign long contracts with owners you don't know?

I'm saying for the one year that you're under contract for. That's as short as contracts come.

Originally posted by Antonine
I'm coming at this from a different angle to you, obviously. I can't see the point of this game if it's not to engage with a team and co-operate.

But co-operating might be doing what you think will win rather than what the owner/coordinator thinks will win. I've seen DC's say to put all players, including CB's, on +run-- and not against teams that almost never pass. If I have a CB, I won't do that. I've also seen them want everyone, even the FS, on aggressive pass coverage. I've seen them want TE's on +pass blocking even as they send them on routes on every pass...and the rushing styles get screwed up a hell of a lot.

Player tactics are the only thing players get to do on their own in the game; players should be free to do what they want with them with no interference.

Originally posted by Ken1
I know of several cases (on a team for which I coordinate) where agents were more or less forced/expected to open their builds so I could coordinate.
Okay, that's one team owner who benches dots over closed-builds. I'll add it to the pile... which is still a very, very small pile of such owners.

You're making the very common mistake of believing that this behavior is widespread. It's not. You just happen to coordinate for one of the exceptions.

Originally posted by Ken1
People, however, expect that the coordinators' tactics should be taken as if it were the Word of God, and thus would often persecute those who didn't follow that Word of God or open their tactics so they could see.
So, again... you don't want me to have the option to let a team owner see my dot's tactics because you're afraid that your dot's team owner will bench/rot you if you hide your tactics? The team owners I play for wouldn't, because they're reasonable people... that's why I signed with them.

If you really think your team owner is that much of a prick, why did you sign up to play with him in the first place?