Being able to veiw players tactics would help a lot better to prepare for games due to if you need certain positions let's just say for example your defensive tackles have their tactic set to using agility and you need them set to bull rushing and their not you would at least have a chance to alert the team players involved to ask them to switch whatever is nesessary. I think it's a great idea, +2 for the idea.
Forum > Suggestions > Allow Agents the Ability To Share Player Tactics
Bronko Grange
offline
offline
I see both sides, but overall I'm +1 on this one. As an agent, I'm not afraid of having my tactics visible. If mine different from what is suggested by the coaching staff, either I'm willing to justify it (and take my chances with getting kicked off the team or whatever) or, more likely, it was just a mistake/oversight on my part so having a coach be able to audit it and point it out to me is all good.
Also, I think the suggestion linked in my sig is even more helpful and should be less controversial.
Also, I think the suggestion linked in my sig is even more helpful and should be less controversial.
Myd
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bronko Grange
I see both sides, but overall I'm +1 on this one. As an agent, I'm not afraid of having my tactics visible. If mine different from what is suggested by the coaching staff, either I'm willing to justify it (and take my chances with getting kicked off the team or whatever) or, more likely, it was just a mistake/oversight on my part so having a coach be able to audit it and point it out to me is all good.
Also, I think the suggestion linked in my sig is even more helpful and should be less controversial.
Bronk's original suggestion is one I can support. Still at -1 for this though.
I see both sides, but overall I'm +1 on this one. As an agent, I'm not afraid of having my tactics visible. If mine different from what is suggested by the coaching staff, either I'm willing to justify it (and take my chances with getting kicked off the team or whatever) or, more likely, it was just a mistake/oversight on my part so having a coach be able to audit it and point it out to me is all good.
Also, I think the suggestion linked in my sig is even more helpful and should be less controversial.
Bronk's original suggestion is one I can support. Still at -1 for this though.
Ken1
offline
offline
Originally posted by Myd
Bronk's original suggestion is one I can support. Still at -1 for this though.
For those who don't know what Bronk's original suggestion was, it's the one linked in his sig.
Bronk's original suggestion is one I can support. Still at -1 for this though.
For those who don't know what Bronk's original suggestion was, it's the one linked in his sig.
HOODjelly
offline
offline
Originally posted by Ken1
Not this again.
-100000. It would become mandatory to do what the team owner said with YOUR tactics on YOUR dot, or you'd be benched or even rotted.
There has to be something that agents-only players get to decide for themselves.
Selfishly, I'd love to see those tactics when I OC. But it wouldn't be fair to the agents of the dots to deprive them of the one choice they can make without interference.
As to "there's no I in team," what if you think the OC or DC or whoever tells you how to set your player is wrong (about what is best for the team)?
This is a valid point but I'm gonna +1 the suggestion. Elite teams are built on extreme coordination @ every level. This includes synchronizing va/sa stacks, tactics, and builds. How aggressive a player rushes the QB or attempts to intercept a ball greatly impacts what a DC should set for basic player positioning and coverage.
If there's a conflict, it can be resolved via forum or PM. If, ultimately, an owner doesn't want an agent on the team because of his inability to cooperate with team-wide settings, that's the owner's prerogative. If the agent/player are any good to begin with, (s)he'll be picked up by another competitive team imo.
tl;dr version = +1
Not this again.
-100000. It would become mandatory to do what the team owner said with YOUR tactics on YOUR dot, or you'd be benched or even rotted.
There has to be something that agents-only players get to decide for themselves.
Selfishly, I'd love to see those tactics when I OC. But it wouldn't be fair to the agents of the dots to deprive them of the one choice they can make without interference.
As to "there's no I in team," what if you think the OC or DC or whoever tells you how to set your player is wrong (about what is best for the team)?
This is a valid point but I'm gonna +1 the suggestion. Elite teams are built on extreme coordination @ every level. This includes synchronizing va/sa stacks, tactics, and builds. How aggressive a player rushes the QB or attempts to intercept a ball greatly impacts what a DC should set for basic player positioning and coverage.
If there's a conflict, it can be resolved via forum or PM. If, ultimately, an owner doesn't want an agent on the team because of his inability to cooperate with team-wide settings, that's the owner's prerogative. If the agent/player are any good to begin with, (s)he'll be picked up by another competitive team imo.
tl;dr version = +1
HOODjelly
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bronko Grange
Also, I think the suggestion linked in my sig is even more helpful and should be less controversial.
supported that as well
Also, I think the suggestion linked in my sig is even more helpful and should be less controversial.
supported that as well
Originally posted by Ken1
Not this again.
-100000. It would become mandatory to do what the team owner said with YOUR tactics on YOUR dot, or you'd be benched or even rotted.
There has to be something that agents-only players get to decide for themselves.
Selfishly, I'd love to see those tactics when I OC. But it wouldn't be fair to the agents of the dots to deprive them of the one choice they can make without interference.
As to "there's no I in team," what if you think the OC or DC or whoever tells you how to set your player is wrong (about what is best for the team)?
Agreed with Ken1 here. Even if it was an option to share, those that would opt not to share would get treated very unfairly. If you're a good OC or DC, you post your tactics in the team forum. It is the agents job to set tactics accordingly. If they don't do that, seeing what they have set does nothing for you except give you harsh feelings toward them for ignoring you.
-1
Not this again.
-100000. It would become mandatory to do what the team owner said with YOUR tactics on YOUR dot, or you'd be benched or even rotted.
There has to be something that agents-only players get to decide for themselves.
Selfishly, I'd love to see those tactics when I OC. But it wouldn't be fair to the agents of the dots to deprive them of the one choice they can make without interference.
As to "there's no I in team," what if you think the OC or DC or whoever tells you how to set your player is wrong (about what is best for the team)?
Agreed with Ken1 here. Even if it was an option to share, those that would opt not to share would get treated very unfairly. If you're a good OC or DC, you post your tactics in the team forum. It is the agents job to set tactics accordingly. If they don't do that, seeing what they have set does nothing for you except give you harsh feelings toward them for ignoring you.
-1
Ken1
offline
offline
Originally posted by jimmiejoe
+1..... as an OPTION
It can't be an option in a true sense. Coordinators have admitted in other threads about this that they wouldn't trust a player who refused to show his tactics. I understand why: Not showing tactics shows you're probably not following them. So in effect it would become mandatory.
+1..... as an OPTION
It can't be an option in a true sense. Coordinators have admitted in other threads about this that they wouldn't trust a player who refused to show his tactics. I understand why: Not showing tactics shows you're probably not following them. So in effect it would become mandatory.
dahman32
offline
offline
I'd say remove the option to share skill attributes, as coordinators would probably have the same reasoning. So for those that -1 this, might as well remove the option to share attributes, in effect it has become mandatory. 
Basically, anything that's an option is not an option in a true sense because it is a known option?
Basically, anything that's an option is not an option in a true sense because it is a known option?
jimmiejoe
offline
offline
Originally posted by Ken1
Originally posted by jimmiejoe
+1..... as an OPTION
It can't be an option in a true sense. Coordinators have admitted in other threads about this that they wouldn't trust a player who refused to show his tactics. I understand why: Not showing tactics shows you're probably not following them. So in effect it would become mandatory.
Rodin would be ashamed....
Originally posted by jimmiejoe
+1..... as an OPTION
It can't be an option in a true sense. Coordinators have admitted in other threads about this that they wouldn't trust a player who refused to show his tactics. I understand why: Not showing tactics shows you're probably not following them. So in effect it would become mandatory.
Rodin would be ashamed....
Ken1
offline
offline
Originally posted by dahman32
I'd say remove the option to share skill attributes, as coordinators would probably have the same reasoning. So for those that -1 this, might as well remove the option to share attributes, in effect it has become mandatory.
Basically, anything that's an option is not an option in a true sense because it is a known option?o_O
No, we shouldn't remove the "option" to share attributes. But we shouldn't pretend it's an "option," either. You have to share them with at least the owner, usually owner and coordinators, or else. It's an example of how an "option" becomes anything but an option.
The same would happen with tactics, if there were an "option" to share it, so anyone who says
Originally posted by jimmiejoe
+1..... as an OPTION
...should recognize that it won't be an option. Anyone packaging it as an option is selling snake oil. With attributes, every owner or coordinator I've dealt with has respected to a large degree the right not to be told where to put every point by the owner or coordinator. They would not respect the same rights with respect to tactical settings.
It's like how some bosses lately have taken to ask employees to "voluntarily" give them the password to the employee's Facebook account.....
I'd say remove the option to share skill attributes, as coordinators would probably have the same reasoning. So for those that -1 this, might as well remove the option to share attributes, in effect it has become mandatory.
Basically, anything that's an option is not an option in a true sense because it is a known option?o_O
No, we shouldn't remove the "option" to share attributes. But we shouldn't pretend it's an "option," either. You have to share them with at least the owner, usually owner and coordinators, or else. It's an example of how an "option" becomes anything but an option.
The same would happen with tactics, if there were an "option" to share it, so anyone who says
Originally posted by jimmiejoe
+1..... as an OPTION
...should recognize that it won't be an option. Anyone packaging it as an option is selling snake oil. With attributes, every owner or coordinator I've dealt with has respected to a large degree the right not to be told where to put every point by the owner or coordinator. They would not respect the same rights with respect to tactical settings.
It's like how some bosses lately have taken to ask employees to "voluntarily" give them the password to the employee's Facebook account.....
Edited by Ken1 on Apr 17, 2012 02:58:53
merenoise
offline
offline
+1 Would be a nice tool for coordinators to see who is actually following through on tactics suggestions. If a guy is consistently ignoring tactics suggestions without an explanation he probably isn't worth having on a team in the first place.
All the sky is falling nuts posting in this thread putting forward the idea that coordinators would have any more control over the settings than they currently have are lol.
On the flip-side of the argument if an owner or coordinator asks me to do something that goes against the build of my dot or how I want that dot to behave I just move that dot to a new team next season. If you build quality dots no one will really push back too hard with demands as long as you can explain why you are going against the grain.
All the sky is falling nuts posting in this thread putting forward the idea that coordinators would have any more control over the settings than they currently have are lol.
On the flip-side of the argument if an owner or coordinator asks me to do something that goes against the build of my dot or how I want that dot to behave I just move that dot to a new team next season. If you build quality dots no one will really push back too hard with demands as long as you can explain why you are going against the grain.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
