Warrior General Games

Most of the time when I am asking for player tactics, it is for a player that is all over the place or playing "phwew". All the game planning in the world cannot overcome p-poor player tactics.

For example: a CB that is always trying to intercept a pass rather than deflect it, but has little to no catching. I would typically ask them what their tactics are set to, or to fix it themselves. Enough to manage already without having to chase down every agent and ask them to show their tactics when they are playing well enough to not warrant it.

So why this would be an issue would be based on past-paranoia, maybe?

Attributes sharing is for scouting purposes, where-as tactics sharing would be suggestive and based exclusively on game-play. If a player keeps missing open field tackles, I would much rather know it may be because he is set to force fumbles instead of wrap up, instead of getting exhausted at watching the missed tackles and end up benching or ultimately releasing them. Of course it is always good to be in communication with a player that may not be performing as well as they could or should be one way or the other.

My point is, if some of those that give this a -1 would be asked by an owner or manager to send them their tactics or share them in a forum, would this also be unacceptable?

I could only imagine if coaches told me to tackle with my helmet on the outside of the ball carrier, and I shrugged it off and did it the way I wanted to because I knew what I was doing. Suggestions are usually offered to improve performance, anything other than this would be counter-productive.

Originally posted by RiverRat2
In your dreams chump.
Some people cannot tell a bad suggestion when it is starting them in the face!

I'm sure those 2,200 people would appreciate you making decisions for them, about as much as I appreciate you calling me a chump. Do you even know me? Why don't we keep the name calling out GLB thanks.

-1

I would rather keep tactics personal. It adds to team communication. Giving away your tactics for some dots is like giving away your secret ingredient.

Originally posted by T♠2♠
-1

I would rather keep tactics personal. It adds to team communication. Giving away your tactics for some dots is like giving away your secret ingredient.

But of course, that secret ingredient won't mean a thing if the coach isn't setting up his plays to maximise it. Or to put it another way, if the player tactics aren't set up to work well with the coach's play design.

Originally posted by T♠2♠
-1

I would rather keep tactics personal. It adds to team communication. Giving away your tactics for some dots is like giving away your secret ingredient.

+1 to Antonine's reply.

Not to mention I'm too damn busy to keep track of all the tactics needs on all my dots. And I've got nothing compared to a lot of these guys. Please give us a break....
If I give the team owner of my dots the ability to see or do what they want with my dots' tactics I'll take the responsibility if they get stupid with it. If you want to hide your tactics and make your own decisions, I think you should be able to. But you've got to take responsibility for your choices too. Be willing to prove your decisions on the field!
The current situation just removes accountability for those who want to make their own decisions without consideration of other agents. If you don't want to go along with the teams' needs do you say so? Or do you just say "sure" and then do what you want anyway.....? See? No accountability.
Kids, that's not freedom....... That's just childish.

Originally posted by Ken1
Linking to that, as I agree it's the ideal compromise: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4776485&page=1


Thanks. That one has a very high percentage of positive feedback ... not sure what it will take to get a vote, much less get it implemented.

The idea is nice, but the reason people want it is so they can see what the players have their tactics set to. Which is fair enough. But what will they do if they see someone hasn't set tactics as requested?

doobas™

Originally posted by doobas
The idea is nice, but the reason people want it is so they can see what the players have their tactics set to. Which is fair enough. But what will they do if they see someone hasn't set tactics as requested?

doobas™

What do coaches do when a player runs a route that wasn't called, or plays 5 yards off of a receiver when the coach calls for tight cover. Typically, the coach pulls them to the side-line and has a chat with them if they make a major error trying to do it their own way.

Many times if they get away with it, coaches tend to allow for it, but still may inquire about why they don't do it a certain way. May even get a few tips which could make the team better.

Originally posted by dahman32
What do coaches do when a player runs a route that wasn't called, or plays 5 yards off of a receiver when the coach calls for tight cover. Typically, the coach pulls them to the side-line and has a chat with them if they make a major error trying to do it their own way.

Many times if they get away with it, coaches tend to allow for it, but still may inquire about why they don't do it a certain way. May even get a few tips which could make the team better.

so why not just let owners set the tactics then

Originally posted by Deathblade
so why not just let owners set the tactics then

Ewww, why would owners want to?

I think a player would have more say on what works for them, but the option to share tactics would be in place to see if something may be off in comparison to another player.... think about this:

What if a player doesn't want to share his tactics with another player? An owner could compare the tactics of two different players (one that is performing well, and one that is not) and then be more able to offer a suggested tactic. Afterwards, schedule a scrimmage to see if it made a difference. Hmmm, sounds like a team idea to me.

Originally posted by bedgood42
+2273

(2273 votes for, 453 against)

Seems pretty popular despite the vocal minority in this thread. I'll log out now and come back to those same 7 or 8 people posting 3 or 4 pages worth of objections.

As to the people who are posting about terrible owners you are looking at this from the wrong angle. Truly terrible owners, guys who would rot players over them not sharing tactics or move players from starter to rarely played backups will hate this change because it will out them that much quicker.

Dots will migrate off teams that run that way so quickly and the owners will have such a bad reputation that they will quickly be unable to recruit new dots.

I personally have not had the misfortune of having my dots on teams with terrible owners who would do things like that so I tend to think that they are few and far in between. However, if they are more prevalent than I previously believed then this suggestion would help to quickly root them out. Anyone who tells you what to do with the dot you pay for and allows for no discussion is not a quality owner and you should never keep a dot on their team. GLB has many, many quality owners who won't do that and I'd hate to see them punished for the few bad apples who can't control themselves.

Well said merenoise. I have been on a bad team, anyone here remember cotterill101(sp?) ...? What a mess. But not the end of the world. As these idiots tend to be, he was his own worst enemy.
I got him to send me a $ trade offer for my dot since he couldn't manage his cash. He made an offer and then quickly PM'd saying he'd changed his mind and wanted much more, but forgot to retract the offer. I snatched my dot before he could figure it out. He was out of the game(due to multi's I suspect) before the next season got underway. ......
Bad owners don't last long and now they really can't do a dot much damage at all without hurting their own cause. All an agent has to do is contact the other agents who are likely getting screwed too and they can take care of a rogue owner with the help of support action pretty quick.
My crew would skin my old ass if I got out of line......

Originally posted by dbreeze
Bad owners don't last long and now they really can't do a dot much damage at all without hurting their own cause. All an agent has to do is contact the other agents who are likely getting screwed too and they can take care of a rogue owner with the help of support action pretty quick.

It doesn't take a "bad owner" for there to be retribution. I wouldn't call these guys bad owners, but they seem to indicate that they would seek retribution for not opening tactics and following orders:

There's already accountability for how a player actually plays, as there should be. I've had, as things are, players gain or lose playing time based on the team's evaluation of their performance level. But retribution for not following orders (or not opening tactics):

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.

Originally posted by jimmiejoe

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.


Originally posted by Antonine
It won't be unfairly, though. They are playing for a team. The team owner/co-ordinators want to know what tactics their players are using, even if for nothing else than to work out if any fault lies in their playcalling/DPC plays or in the player tactics. So if they were placed as a backup (for whatever difference that makes), that would only be natural, since not knowing the player tactics makes the co-ordinator's job that bit harder.

You're calling it "retribution". I'd call it "selecting starters based on having as much information as possible". Or "make my job a little easier, please". Or "why are you on this team if you don't want to help us win as much as possible - and that means letting me know what kind of tactics you are running". That's not retribution, it's just good sense, surely? And if someone says "Honestly, let me try this - I really think it will work with this dot and your AI", then unless I was 100% certain from experience that it wouldn't, I'd let them try it and see how it went. But at least I'd know what I was looking at. Which is all most owners want.

Originally posted by Ken1
Originally posted by dbreeze

Bad owners don't last long and now they really can't do a dot much damage at all without hurting their own cause. All an agent has to do is contact the other agents who are likely getting screwed too and they can take care of a rogue owner with the help of support action pretty quick.

It doesn't take a "bad owner" for there to be retribution. I wouldn't call these guys bad owners, but they seem to indicate that they would seek retribution for not opening tactics and following orders:

There's already accountability for how a player actually plays, as there should be. I've had, as things are, players gain or lose playing time based on the team's evaluation of their performance level. But retribution for not following orders (or not opening tactics):

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.

Originally posted by jimmiejoe


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.


Originally posted by Antonine

It won't be unfairly, though. They are playing for a team. The team owner/co-ordinators want to know what tactics their players are using, even if for nothing else than to work out if any fault lies in their playcalling/DPC plays or in the player tactics. So if they were placed as a backup (for whatever difference that makes), that would only be natural, since not knowing the player tactics makes the co-ordinator's job that bit harder.


a guy who rots players is a bad owner. i once had a dot rotted for a season and had to retire him which sucked real bad since I spent money to boost him. even with that crappy time I still want to help my teams so I just use the tactics my coaches give me. you should ad yourslef to the bad owner list to instead of just quoting all those guys. you said you did it too. +1 to the suggeston, this would help guys like me that only log in once in a while to train out. sometimes i dont see suggestions right away and this would help my teams.