Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Ken1
STFU on this pretense of yours that owners won't bench or otherwise penalize players for not showing their tactics.

You're saying, "Make yourself a permanent GLB enemy by naming an owner who will bench a player for not showing his tactics" (which no one can know for sure, anyway) or I'm going to insist that there are none."

I call BS.

I'll name myself as a coordinator and former (long ago) owner that has benched players that didn't show their attributes, and would show preference, as a coordinator, for those who showed their tactics over those who didn't.

I can point to a number of posts in this thread that take a derogatory view towards agents who wouldn't show their players' tactics. Do you think those guys' playing time wouldn't be affected? No you don't. You're full of BS when you pretend that there would be no pressure to show one's tactics.



I would just cut your dot. It is a team game and if your not a team player you can find a different team.

Originally posted by bedgood42
I would just cut your dot. It is a team game and if your not a team player you can find a different team.

That can be worse, now that you can't train without a team and teams are often full during the season.

Here's another owner admitting he'd do something negative to a player whose tactics were not open, though. Your relative (father? uncle?) and I had an argument over this topic, he came to view my side better, and I ended up with dots on his team long ago.

One thing that's silly IMO is to say it's "not being a team player" not to do as ordered. One can simply have a different idea of what setting is best to make the team win.

It happens often that coordinator A has players on coordinator B's unit and coordinator B has players on coordinator A's unit. One of them is a better coordinator (and they might well both think they are, but that's a different story), and whichever of them is the better coordinator is doing his team a service by NOT following the requests of the other team's coordinator.

Originally posted by Ken1
Originally posted by bedgood42

I would just cut your dot. It is a team game and if your not a team player you can find a different team.

That can be worse, now that you can't train without a team and teams are often full during the season.

Here's another owner admitting he'd do something negative to a player whose tactics were not open, though. Your relative (father? uncle?) and I had an argument over this topic, he came to view my side better, and I ended up with dots on his team long ago.

One thing that's silly IMO is to say it's "not being a team player" not to do as ordered. One can simply have a different idea of what setting is best to make the team win.

It happens often that coordinator A has players on coordinator B's unit and coordinator B has players on coordinator A's unit. One of them is a better coordinator (and they might well both think they are, but that's a different story), and whichever of them is the better coordinator is doing his team a service by NOT following the requests of the other team's coordinator.

I can "understand" your viewpoint, whether I agree is another matter altogether.

I pose this question to you though:
Can you not see where your viewpoint would make many owners think that of instead of being a team player, you are trying to either go against the teams wishes or perhaps stat whore with your player?

Whether or not that is the truth is irrelevant, as perception is part of an owner's view on you as an agent.

And if they do indeed view you as being a "team cancer", then it is fully within their right to bench or cut you. As much as you keep saying you paid money for your player, don't forget that they paid money for their team.

damn typos

Originally posted by Ken1
That can be worse, now that you can't train without a team and teams are often full during the season.

Here's another owner admitting he'd do something negative to a player whose tactics were not open, though. Your relative (father? uncle?) and I had an argument over this topic, he came to view my side better, and I ended up with dots on his team long ago.

One thing that's silly IMO is to say it's "not being a team player" not to do as ordered. One can simply have a different idea of what setting is best to make the team win.

It happens often that coordinator A has players on coordinator B's unit and coordinator B has players on coordinator A's unit. One of them is a better coordinator (and they might well both think they are, but that's a different story), and whichever of them is the better coordinator is doing his team a service by NOT following the requests of the other team's coordinator.

No coordinator B runs a different DAI which is designed to have dots set to different tactics. By not doing what your coordinator asks you to do you are screwing the entire team. I have this issue frequently as I am a DC and when I move my dots to other teams I usually have to change my tactics. Hell I had a force fumble LB on wrap up tackle last season based on that coordinators request. But then I'm a team player, and I am willing to do what it takes to help the team win. That is why I would be willing to cut an agent who was hurting the rest of the team. It would be in the best interest of many other agents on my team.

Originally posted by jimmiejoe
I can "understand" your viewpoint, whether I agree is another matter altogether.

I pose this question to you though:
Can you not see where your viewpoint would make many owners think that of instead of being a team player, you are trying to either go against the teams wishes or perhaps stat whore with your player?

Whether or not that is the truth is irrelevant, as perception is part of an owner's view on you as an agent.

And if they do indeed view you as being a "team cancer", then it is fully within their right to bench or cut you. As much as you keep saying you paid money for your player, don't forget that they paid money for their team.

damn typos

The fact that players would be benched or cut as a "team cancer" for their owners' having minds of their own not following orders are exactly why this suggestion must never be implemented. And if everyone has to follow orders of a team owner due to fear of consequences and have no discretion of their own, then what's the point of creating a player?

This thread has gone round in circles.

If an agent disagrees with the owner/co-ordinator's suggested tactics, why can't he/she enter into a reasonable discussion with the owner/coach as to why that is so? One or both parties might learn something.

If owner/coach and agent still disagree, sure, the dot might in a worst case scenario be benched. Losing the team a dot immediately, which penalises the team as well as the agent.

Result of such pigheadedness from owner/coach? Weakened team, and an agent who will presumably never sign a dot with them again. Such owners are likely to gain a poor reputation, and end up with weaker and weaker teams. And so it is in the interests of owners/coaches and of agents to deal with these matters in a reasonable fashion. If they don't, both sides lose in the short term, and the owner/coach probably loses long term as well. Things work themselves out.

Originally posted by Ken1
The fact that players would be benched or cut as a "team cancer" for their owners' having minds of their own not following orders are exactly why this suggestion must never be implemented. And if everyone has to follow orders of a team owner due to fear of consequences and have no discretion of their own, then what's the point of creating a player?

Ken I can tell how your dots are set by their performance and would cut or bench you anyway. It will just happen a few games later. tbh I would not sign your dot in the first place because I already know your not a team player.

Originally posted by Antonine
This thread has gone round in circles.

If an agent disagrees with the owner/co-ordinator's suggested tactics, why can't he/she enter into a reasonable discussion with the owner/coach as to why that is so? One or both parties might learn something.

If owner/coach and agent still disagree, sure, the dot might in a worst case scenario be benched. Losing the team a dot immediately, which penalises the team as well as the agent.

Result of such pigheadedness from owner/coach? Weakened team, and an agent who will presumably never sign a dot with them again. Such owners are likely to gain a poor reputation, and end up with weaker and weaker teams. And so it is in the interests of owners/coaches and of agents to deal with these matters in a reasonable fashion. If they don't, both sides lose in the short term, and the owner/coach probably loses long term as well. Things work themselves out.

No that owner would win because good agents are willing to set tactics in the teams best interest. So in the long run bad agents would not want to play on that team but good agents would.

this all assumes the agents are around. what about the agents that are on long away times, such as in the hospital, or vacation, or home life got really busy? they may not be around to see the tactics. i really dont care about the agents that sign on every day as they are likely to at least try to communicate with the owner.

but to me it'll always come down to: if owners want to be control nazis, let them spend their own money and build the dots themselves. like i said earlier, i've seen some really stupid demands made on tactics, and if players know that its stupid, they have the right not to follow stupid demands.

and dont forget to ask why people are building so fewer dots these days.

and btw, cant most good coordinators tell many of the tactics of a player by watching the games? to me, it seems like only the really bad owners need this much control.

+1 to the OP

The vast majority of agents in this game want to win and know that tactics are one part of being a team. This just makes it easier to get the team on the same page. Only a small minority who only care about personal stats and not the team are going to disagree with this suggestion.

edit- current vote count (2273 votes for, 453 against)

Originally posted by bedgood42
+1 to the OP

The vast majority of agents in this game want to win and know that tactics are one part of being a team. This just makes it easier to get the team on the same page. Only a small minority who only care about personal stats and not the team are going to disagree with this suggestion.

i only build STOPs and o-line.....big time stats there. i hate the idea not for myself or even 90% of the people that posted here. i hate it because new people re likely to get screwed over by control freak owners.

people no longer have reason to build dots at all. owners want to tell players exactly how to build and what tactics to set. if you want that much control, why not build your own dots? why not sign dots and ask them how they want to play their players, and adapt to the players?

I can actually see where the arguments against are coming from.

Personally, I trust my agents to do the right thing for the team. Overall, the best compromise here might well be the other current suggestion, which would have the coaches' suggested settings on each player's tactics page, and a button/checkbox there to auto-follow the coaches' settings.

Keeps player autonomy for those who want it, removes the responsiblity for those that don't want it or can't be around to keep up with changes.

Ideal solution, I think, if it includes that auto-follow option.

Originally posted by bedgood42
Ken I can tell how your dots are set by their performance and would cut or bench you anyway. It will just happen a few games later. tbh I would not sign your dot in the first place because I already know your not a team player.

You're making a huge assumption about how I set my players' tactics, one that whatever relative Rbedgood is didn't make and he certainly thought that my players helped his team, and provided a couple of players to the team I owned at the time in return.

This is a HUGE power grab by owners and coordinators at the expense of player-builders, one that should not be allowed.

Originally posted by Antonine
I can actually see where the arguments against are coming from.

Personally, I trust my agents to do the right thing for the team. Overall, the best compromise here might well be the other current suggestion, which would have the coaches suggested settings on each player's tactics page, and a button/checkbox there to auto-follow the coaches' settings.

Keeps player autonomy for those who want it, removes the responsiblity for those that don't want it or can't be around to keep up with changes.

Ideal solution, I think, if it includes that auto-follow option.

see i love that idea. i wonder if the guys arguing for this will cut the players on their team with open builds. thats very team unfriendly....lol

Originally posted by Antonine
I can actually see where the arguments against are coming from.

Personally, I trust my agents to do the right thing for the team. Overall, the best compromise here might well be the other current suggestion, which would have the coaches' suggested settings on each player's tactics page, and a button/checkbox there to auto-follow the coaches' settings.

Keeps player autonomy for those who want it, removes the responsiblity for those that don't want it or can't be around to keep up with changes.

Ideal solution, I think, if it includes that auto-follow option.

Linking to that, as I agree it's the ideal compromise: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4776485&page=1