I hate when tactics aren't followed! 
Edited by The Avenger on Dec 25, 2010 20:50:47
Forum > Suggestions > Epic Suggestions > Give my dots a "Tactics Sharing Option" just like the "Attributes Sharing Option"
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by sweettnt
I thought this was an option for each agent and they had a choice to open it or not?
It should be a choice, just as it should be the owner's choice to park your ass on the bench for intentionally screwing over the team.
I thought this was an option for each agent and they had a choice to open it or not?
It should be a choice, just as it should be the owner's choice to park your ass on the bench for intentionally screwing over the team.
sweettnt
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
It should be a choice, just as it should be the owner's choice to park your ass on the bench for intentionally screwing over the team.
You are sort of making my point for me, because you are already acting hostile toward me and we are just talking hypothetically. This is why I don't feel this is a good idea. So if it's put to a vote, I'll vote against it. Just my .02. I have nothing else to say.
It should be a choice, just as it should be the owner's choice to park your ass on the bench for intentionally screwing over the team.
You are sort of making my point for me, because you are already acting hostile toward me and we are just talking hypothetically. This is why I don't feel this is a good idea. So if it's put to a vote, I'll vote against it. Just my .02. I have nothing else to say.
Novus
offline
offline
Originally posted by sweettnt
-1
Just like you have unreasonable agents, you also have unreasonable owners. I would hate to have my players moved to ST or benched, because I refuse to allow anyone to see my tactics.
Ah, I've been waiting for someone to make this argument.
Let me repeat what you just said, except I'm going to change the very last word:
"I would hate to have my players moved to ST or benched, because I refuse to allow anyone to see my build."
I guess we'd better auto-hide your build too, because right now you can choose to close your build, and a prick owner can choose to bench you for that too. So let's go ahead and take away the "Attributes Sharing Option" and just lock everyone in at "Hide Attributes From All." Then nobody could bench you for hiding your build!
"But Novus, I don't mind having my build open! Why would you want to force my build to be hidden?"
Well, I don't mind having my tactics open. Why would you want to force my tactics to be hidden? But by -1'ing this, that's exactly what you're telling me.
I'm not forcing you to open your tactics. Don't force me to hide mine.
-1
Just like you have unreasonable agents, you also have unreasonable owners. I would hate to have my players moved to ST or benched, because I refuse to allow anyone to see my tactics.
Ah, I've been waiting for someone to make this argument.
Let me repeat what you just said, except I'm going to change the very last word:"I would hate to have my players moved to ST or benched, because I refuse to allow anyone to see my build."
I guess we'd better auto-hide your build too, because right now you can choose to close your build, and a prick owner can choose to bench you for that too. So let's go ahead and take away the "Attributes Sharing Option" and just lock everyone in at "Hide Attributes From All." Then nobody could bench you for hiding your build!
"But Novus, I don't mind having my build open! Why would you want to force my build to be hidden?"
Well, I don't mind having my tactics open. Why would you want to force my tactics to be hidden? But by -1'ing this, that's exactly what you're telling me.
I'm not forcing you to open your tactics. Don't force me to hide mine.
Novus
offline
offline
By the way...
+1 votes: 26
-1 votes: 4
That's 86.67% Yes, 13.33% No.
Can you spell "landslide"?
+1 votes: 26
-1 votes: 4
That's 86.67% Yes, 13.33% No.
Can you spell "landslide"?
ManOgwaR
offline
offline
Originally posted by sweettnt
Originally posted by jdbolick
It should be a choice, just as it should be the owner's choice to park your ass on the bench for intentionally screwing over the team.
You are sort of making my point for me, because you are already acting hostile toward me and we are just talking hypothetically. This is why I don't feel this is a good idea. So if it's put to a vote, I'll vote against it. Just my .02. I have nothing else to say.
tbh i dunno what point that you are trying to make, but this suggestion is about making the tactics setting easier to arrange for all parties, whether it be agent/coordinator/owner
Originally posted by jdbolick
It should be a choice, just as it should be the owner's choice to park your ass on the bench for intentionally screwing over the team.
You are sort of making my point for me, because you are already acting hostile toward me and we are just talking hypothetically. This is why I don't feel this is a good idea. So if it's put to a vote, I'll vote against it. Just my .02. I have nothing else to say.
tbh i dunno what point that you are trying to make, but this suggestion is about making the tactics setting easier to arrange for all parties, whether it be agent/coordinator/owner
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by sweettnt
You are sort of making my point for me, because you are already acting hostile toward me and we are just talking hypothetically. This is why I don't feel this is a good idea. So if it's put to a vote, I'll vote against it. Just my .02. I have nothing else to say.
Of course I'm being hostile to you, because you're advocating intentionally screwing over a team for your benefit. Remember that you aren't playing this game by yourself. If you don't want to have any consideration for the others who are affected by your choices, then go play Madden.
You are sort of making my point for me, because you are already acting hostile toward me and we are just talking hypothetically. This is why I don't feel this is a good idea. So if it's put to a vote, I'll vote against it. Just my .02. I have nothing else to say.
Of course I'm being hostile to you, because you're advocating intentionally screwing over a team for your benefit. Remember that you aren't playing this game by yourself. If you don't want to have any consideration for the others who are affected by your choices, then go play Madden.
SWVAHoo
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by sweettnt
You are sort of making my point for me, because you are already acting hostile toward me and we are just talking hypothetically. This is why I don't feel this is a good idea. So if it's put to a vote, I'll vote against it. Just my .02. I have nothing else to say.
Of course I'm being hostile to you, because you're advocating intentionally screwing over a team for your benefit. Remember that you aren't playing this game by yourself. If you don't want to have any consideration for the others who are affected by your choices, then go play Madden.
You just misrepresented everything that he's said in the last few pages. He's not advocating that at all.
He's simply discussing the negatives of allowing a tactics-sharing option, mainly that it encroaches upon an agent's freedom. I disagree with his stance, because there would be options to allow one to hide their tactics by making an extra click. But I wouldn't ever go so far as to claim that I have the clairvoyance to read his mind as to his motives. To do so would be to make wild, foolish assumptions.
You, sir, need to get over yourself. There's a reason why what you say carries little, if any, weight in GLB outside your circle of cronies.
Originally posted by sweettnt
You are sort of making my point for me, because you are already acting hostile toward me and we are just talking hypothetically. This is why I don't feel this is a good idea. So if it's put to a vote, I'll vote against it. Just my .02. I have nothing else to say.
Of course I'm being hostile to you, because you're advocating intentionally screwing over a team for your benefit. Remember that you aren't playing this game by yourself. If you don't want to have any consideration for the others who are affected by your choices, then go play Madden.
You just misrepresented everything that he's said in the last few pages. He's not advocating that at all.
He's simply discussing the negatives of allowing a tactics-sharing option, mainly that it encroaches upon an agent's freedom. I disagree with his stance, because there would be options to allow one to hide their tactics by making an extra click. But I wouldn't ever go so far as to claim that I have the clairvoyance to read his mind as to his motives. To do so would be to make wild, foolish assumptions.
You, sir, need to get over yourself. There's a reason why what you say carries little, if any, weight in GLB outside your circle of cronies.
Novus
offline
offline
Please, guys... this ain't nuclear policy. There's no need to accuse anybody of selfish motives.
Sweettnt, jdbolick just wants a better game, and he's passionate about it. No need to get snippy with him.
jdbolick, sweettnt is allowed to be wrong about things, and just because he wants to keep his tactics hidden doesn't mean he's out to sabotage his team. Remember, if we get our way, he'll still be able to hide his tactics ANYWAY. That's the whole point of this suggestion: he'd have a choice. And so would I.
London, you and jdbolick are both +1 on this, right? No need to go after him.
...
Back on topic.
Can someone please explain to me the difference between auto-hiding tactics and auto-hiding builds? If an owner can bench you for hiding your tactics, he can also bench you for hiding your build. So why do we have the choice to open or hide our builds, but we DON'T have a choice to open or hide our tactics?
Sweettnt, jdbolick just wants a better game, and he's passionate about it. No need to get snippy with him.
jdbolick, sweettnt is allowed to be wrong about things, and just because he wants to keep his tactics hidden doesn't mean he's out to sabotage his team. Remember, if we get our way, he'll still be able to hide his tactics ANYWAY. That's the whole point of this suggestion: he'd have a choice. And so would I.
London, you and jdbolick are both +1 on this, right? No need to go after him.
...
Back on topic.
Can someone please explain to me the difference between auto-hiding tactics and auto-hiding builds? If an owner can bench you for hiding your tactics, he can also bench you for hiding your build. So why do we have the choice to open or hide our builds, but we DON'T have a choice to open or hide our tactics?
jdbolick
offline
offline
Originally posted by Novus
jdbolick, sweettnt is allowed to be wrong about things, and just because he wants to keep his tactics hidden doesn't mean he's out to sabotage his team.
Actually, it does. The only reason someone would hide their tactics is if they're doing something they aren't supposed to be doing. Now I'm fine with them still having the right to keep those tactics hidden if they so choose, but it's asinine for sweettnt and others to insist that they should have the right to hide their tactics but owners / coordinator shouldn't have the right to protect their team. If someone has their build hidden, and I have reason to suspect that they've either taken their equipment off or have put it in a place that makes the player a liability for my scheme, then they're getting benched. Tactics would be no different.
Originally posted by
London, you and jdbolick are both +1 on this, right? No need to go after him.
He's obsessed with me and follows me around the forums making snide comments. Just ignore him, as I do.
Originally posted by
Can someone please explain to me the difference between auto-hiding tactics and auto-hiding builds?
There isn't one, but Suggestions is inhabited by some of the most illogical people who play GLB.
jdbolick, sweettnt is allowed to be wrong about things, and just because he wants to keep his tactics hidden doesn't mean he's out to sabotage his team.
Actually, it does. The only reason someone would hide their tactics is if they're doing something they aren't supposed to be doing. Now I'm fine with them still having the right to keep those tactics hidden if they so choose, but it's asinine for sweettnt and others to insist that they should have the right to hide their tactics but owners / coordinator shouldn't have the right to protect their team. If someone has their build hidden, and I have reason to suspect that they've either taken their equipment off or have put it in a place that makes the player a liability for my scheme, then they're getting benched. Tactics would be no different.
Originally posted by
London, you and jdbolick are both +1 on this, right? No need to go after him.
He's obsessed with me and follows me around the forums making snide comments. Just ignore him, as I do.
Originally posted by
Can someone please explain to me the difference between auto-hiding tactics and auto-hiding builds?
There isn't one, but Suggestions is inhabited by some of the most illogical people who play GLB.
Novus
offline
offline
Originally posted by jdbolick
The only reason someone would hide their tactics is if they're doing something they aren't supposed to be doing.
...or if they have some combination of builds and tactics that they think is super-duper awesome, that they want to keep super-duper secret, and their team owner doesn't mind not being able to see them.
I've had guys like that on my teams before, at least as far as keeping their Build secret. They're rare, and I think they're kinda stupid, but as long as their dots are performing well, hey, whatever.
Just pointing out that Builds/Tactics Hidden does not automatically = sabotaging the team.
The overall point I'm trying to make is this: I'm not going to force Sweettnt to make his Tactics open. Sweettnt, however, sees no problem with forcing me to keep my Tactics hidden.
Now, if you'll please calm down, maybe we can get an actual answer from Sweettnt -- or from someone who agrees with him.
The only reason someone would hide their tactics is if they're doing something they aren't supposed to be doing.
...or if they have some combination of builds and tactics that they think is super-duper awesome, that they want to keep super-duper secret, and their team owner doesn't mind not being able to see them.
I've had guys like that on my teams before, at least as far as keeping their Build secret. They're rare, and I think they're kinda stupid, but as long as their dots are performing well, hey, whatever.
Just pointing out that Builds/Tactics Hidden does not automatically = sabotaging the team.
The overall point I'm trying to make is this: I'm not going to force Sweettnt to make his Tactics open. Sweettnt, however, sees no problem with forcing me to keep my Tactics hidden.
Now, if you'll please calm down, maybe we can get an actual answer from Sweettnt -- or from someone who agrees with him.
Novus
offline
offline
Alternative suggestion is alternative.
http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4435732
http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4435732
Daver
offline
offline
I like the idea but didn't read every post. Did anyone complain about the owner who would get pissed cuz he can't see a players tactics and rage bench him.... Thats the only problem I see... I don't have a problem with this so much because if you could at least see most of the players its better than none....
+1
+1
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
