Ditch the "mentality" slider altogether.

This version of FM, 9.0,1,2 and 3 have blown my mind. It is the worst version I've played in my view entirely because of this slider.

It's gone beyond the "it's not clear what it does" stage, and it's entered into the: "in conflict with itself and other instructions/positions/settings" stage.

There is no way that a slider can represent BOTH:

A) HOW DEFENSIVELY OR ATTACKINGLY MINDED A PLAYER IS.

AND

B) HIS POSITION WITHIN HIS POSITION.

This conflict has destroyed the game for me and has made it unplayable- i cannot work it out, and i cannot bow down to this WWFan logic which, i think, tries to urge that we see the "mentality" slider PURELY as "PLAYER'S POSITION WITHIN HIS POSITION", but also claims it has something to do with his attacking/defensive tendencies.

This combination works fine when, for example, you want a player to be both attackingly placed and minded. But what if you want him to be defensively placed and attack minded? For example, if we want a central midfielder to be attack minded, this means we have to push his "position" 5 or 10 meters up the pitch. This pushes him in front of the oppositions MC's rather than goal side of them, totally alters the players he should be pressing, and basically completely ****s him. But I want him to be attack-minded and get into the box so what can I do? What I want is for him to maintain his normal position- goalside of his direct opponents, but GIVE MORE IMPORTANCE TO GETTING FORWARD THAN TO DEFENDING. TO SOMETIMES TOTALLY BE LEFT WITH THE STRIKERS WHEN PLAY IS CONTINUING AT THE COST OF MAKING THAT FORWARD RUN BECAUSE "ATTACK IN FAVOURED" FOR THIS PLAYER.

I do not want him to be permanently pushed into this useless position 5 meters forward and for that to be the end of it. The two parts of this slider are in conflict.

It is expressed most in the central midfield players.

If SI want to give us this option- almost akin to the old WIDGET system- to be able to set a players position within his position, then they should have A SEPARATE SLIDER FOR THIS. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO COMBINE THEM. it is unplayable.

We should also have a slider for: THIS PLAYER'S COMMITMENT TO EITHER DEFEND OR ATTACK- WHICH ONE THEY WILL FAVOUR AND WHICH ONE THEY WILL NEGLECT. AND AT WHAT LEVEL.

as i said- mind blown.

9.3 is fine visually, players are passing better and a lot of the silly things that were happening have been fixed, but this is game stopping for me and anyone else baffled by this mentality slider.

It's been explained many, many times and for me is pretty straight forward. If there's a viable alternative that SI can provide for FM10 then fine, but I can't understand the vitriol directed at the slider system.

Of course an attacking mentality affects a player's position on the pitch. If anything, it would be illogical NOT to have this.

But what if you want him to be defensively placed and attack minded? For example, if we want a central midfielder to be attack minded, this means we have to push his "position" 5 or 10 meters up the pitch. This pushes him in front of the oppositions MC's rather than goal side of them, totally alters the players he should be pressing, and basically completely ****s him. But I want him to be attack-minded and get into the box so what can I do? What I want is for him to maintain his normal position- goalside of his direct opponents, but GIVE MORE IMPORTANCE TO GETTING FORWARD THAN TO DEFENDING.

I understand your general problem, but I am not sure I understand the example you 've given (possibly because of english not being my mother language). Anyway, have you tried combining attacking mentality with NO forward runs? Generally, I try to attack these positioning problems by tweaking mentality and forward runs.

This is my biggest bugbear too. I really don't see why relative position should be included with a player's mentality. For example, I want my strikers to play pretty deep, but I don't want them to be thinking more of defence than attack. I really am no expert at this game nor am I a real-life tactical guru, but I cannot work out why it hasn't been split into two sliders. It'd be far easier to understand that way, surely? I can only assume that it might open up some exploits by being able to shift players up and down the pitch in that way.

Oh, and in a similar vein, I want to be able to attack very wide, but the resulting space between my CBs when width is pushed up to full makes me a very sad panda. Surely a real-life manager could have both?

Of course an attacking mentality affects a player's position on the pitch. If anything, it would be illogical NOT to have this.

Flawed logic. What if I want a player in midfield positioned a bit deeper (but not right in front of the back four, which is what DMC means) and not making many forward runs but looking for the adventurous pass all the time? Current system totally restricts this. The player can either play further upfield attempting adventurous passes or stay deeper playing it safe. That's how the Match engine calculates mentality. No combination of creative freedom and passing style will make a low mentality player look for a risky pass.

mentality could easily be ditched, i've been saying that for long time. it has too much influence over features which should be seperated and thus more controlable:

passing direction - should be influnced by tempo and passing style (and time wasting indirectly),

positioning & movement - there should be far better features for player positioning and movement than via mentality,

riskiness = creative freedom,

agression - tackling (also dependent on agression stat).

Another example: a few weeks back i was having trouble with Aquilani (DMC/MC/AMC), basically the italian lampard, getting very low ratings. His goals from outside the box was the issue i focused on though there were others like he wasn't assisting. (basically 18-20 for all 3 stats) Personally i thought it was just the long shots that was bugged.

anyhow- wwfan suggested I drop his mentality to "put him in more space, facing the goal, to make use of his long shot stat" - this is a POSITIONAL suggestion. Now... because the two meanings of mentality are COMBINED, by doing this, I have to make a Central Midfield player, like Gerrard, Scholes, Lampard- whoever.... DEFENSIVELY MINDED!!!!!!!!

There is an inherent contradiction, conflict with this slider that can't be surpassed and it's exploding the entire game...

JUST BECAUSE I WANT A PLAYER IN A CERTAIN POSITION, DOESN'T MEAN I WANT HIM TO HAVE A MENTALITY CORRESPONDING TO THAT POSITION!!

I agree with you. But drop Caps Lock if you want more people to take you seriously.

You are misinterpreting the advice.

I suggested that if you wanted to make best use of a player with good passing, creativity and long shots, it would be best to have him operating a little deeper rather than having him moving into the box at all times. I also pointed out that your whole mentality system was flawed, which wasn't helping.

At no point did I tell you that the player had to be defensive minded.

The way mentality works is roughly thus:

There are five main team strategies: Defensive, Counter Attacking, Balancing Risk and Reward, Controlling Possession, Aggressive. You can roughly split the mentality slider into fifths along these lines. Thus, bottom four notches defensive, next four Counter Attacking and so on.

To make this slightly more complex, you can then spread player mentalities within an eight notch margin that ranges from most aggressive attacker to most defensive defender. By doing that you can have more cautious or aggressive variants of each team strategy. Thus, if you are an aggressive manager, your Counter-Attacking Strategy would start higher up the overall scale than it would do if you were more cautious.

From this point on you arrange individual mentalities within the overall system. Exactly how this works needs to take the main movement slider (Forward Runs) into consideration. The best way to explain this is to look at how different aggressive systems can get full backs to play. If we look at the Rule of One and Role Theory systems, we will see that both systems have the full backs with FWRs Often. However, in RoO their mentality will be 14, in Role Theory 18. This means that in Role Theory they will get forward 20% earlier in a move than they would do in RoO, making them more of a key component in attacking plays. They will overlap quickly and more regularly as they are much more likely to start thier run earlier in the move as they have a more aggressive mentality. However, if you take away thie FWRs, they won't go forward and overlap, no matter their mentality.

In applying that logic to a different player, asking a high mentality player who is making forward runs into the box all the time to take long shots often is illogical. He won't be dropping into the correct spaces to take the shots as his combined FWR and high mentality gets him too far ahead of play to do so. There are two options to fix this. One is to lower his mentality so he makes his runs later. The other is to lower his forward runs. In the former, although he will still make runs into the box, he will do so later, which will free him up to have more chance of a long shot. In the latter, he'll patrol the edges of the box and shoot on sight. It's up to you, as manager, to decide which one best suits your philosophy and his overall play.

As such...

Flawed logic. What if I want a player in midfield positioned a bit deeper (but not right in front of the back four, which is what DMC means) and not making many forward runs but looking for the adventurous pass all the time? Current system totally restricts this. The player can either play further upfield attempting adventurous passes or stay deeper playing it safe. That's how the Match engine calculates mentality. No combination of creative freedom and passing style will make a low mentality player look for a risky pass.

... this is perfectly possible as long as the manager understands how the player's aggression fits in with the overall structure of the system. You can have a risk taking MC pinging adventurous passes from deep whilst staying back in the 'quarter back' position. Alongside hm you could play a more cautiously minded, lower mentality MC who will sit back and protect the d-line until one of these passes comes off and sets up an attacking move, which will then allow him to move forward into a more aggressive position.

You are misinterpreting the advice.

I suggested that if you wanted to make best use of a player with good passing, creativity and long shots, it would be best to have him operating a little deeper rather than having him moving into the box at all times.

that is absurd. it smacks of making a compromise with the match engine- we have to do this in so many aspects of the game right now and while that remains true the match engine needs real work on it, not people blindly defending it. some of the defences of the match engine on here remind me of creationists defending their religious beliefs- staunchly militant in the face of obvious flaws.

3 easy examples that suggest asking a player to operate deeper rather than moving into the box all the time to get more goals from range:

1) paul scholes in his twenties.

2) frank lampard

3) steven gerrard

I read your post suggesting that with a high mentality they would be taking too many shots on the turn, which of course is utter nonsense, suggesting that they would be playing with their backs to goal. this is why what says pauly1616 is correct- mentality should be the inclination to attack, rather than position on the pitch.

The rigid starting positions is more of a problem than the mentality slider.

agree since the introduction within the game engine of this slider the game is not as enjoyable. Look at how many complaints you get to prove this.

It's becoming a game where you have to find out what works and not getting your team to play how you want, as that usually ends up with your team getting beat. It's like trying to find the perfect formation within the game and not how you actuallywant your team to play.

Real life football does not work like how this game does and neither do the tactics.

Lets simplify the tactics and make slider or instructions understandable without the need to read a guide within the forums. Not everyone comes here and views the forums ya know.

It's the use of the word 'mentality' which causes me puzzlement.

As far as I understand it, the 'mentality' sliders actually affect the position of the player relative to his colleagues. To start talking about aggressive or defensive in this connotation seems to me to be misleading. It's not how he is thinking but where he is on the pitch. The number of forward runs he makes has more connection with his outlook, surely?

I'm not quite clear about wwfan's use of the words 'later' or 'earlier' either. To describe a player as starting his forward run later is confusing to me. Surely it's a case of starting the run from a deeper position?

this match engine has NOTHING to do with real football.

As far as I understand it, the 'mentality' sliders actually affect the position of the player relative to his colleagues.

Unfortunately that's not all it does, it does affect their mentality as well as their starting position. So as well as starting deeper on a defensive mentality, they will also play more defensively - these options really need to be split. Whether it's by two different sliders, or having a more flexible starting position on the whiteboard.

Unfortunately that's not all it does, it does affect their mentality as well as their starting position. So as well as starting deeper on a defensive mentality, they will also play more defensively - these options really need to be split. Whether it's by two different sliders, or having a more flexible starting position on the whiteboard.

I'd love to know how this playing more defensively manifests itself. Their tackling, closing down, forward runs, running with the ball, passing, crossing, etc are set by other sliders. So how do they actually change their behaviour? It's very far from clear.

Indeed it is, it's one of the main gripes of the masses - lack of transparancy of what the sliders actually do!

Indeed it is, it's one of the main gripes of the masses - lack of transparancy of what the sliders actually do!

Absolutely!

As far as position setting is concerned, the sliders are inefficient. I cannot set for width, for example. The only way I can do anything like this is to vary the whole team width setting. That isn't necessarily what I need. I might well want one winger to play wide in order to get crosses in from the byline by going round his full back, whereas my other winger might be best played narrower to cut inside his fullback. With the current setup, I can't arrange for that.

A 'Positions' screen where you could place your players exactly where you wanted rather than having to choose from a number of pre-set alternatives would be much better.

that is absurd. it smacks of making a compromise with the match engine- we have to do this in so many aspects of the game right now and while that remains true the match engine needs real work on it, not people blindly defending it. some of the defences of the match engine on here remind me of creationists defending their religious beliefs- staunchly militant in the face of obvious flaws.

3 easy examples that suggest asking a player to operate deeper rather than moving into the box all the time to get more goals from range:

1) paul scholes in his twenties.

2) frank lampard

3) steven gerrard

I read your post suggesting that with a high mentality they would be taking too many shots on the turn, which of course is utter nonsense, suggesting that they would be playing with their backs to goal. this is why what says pauly1616 is correct- mentality should be the inclination to attack, rather than position on the pitch.

exactly...

It is a compromise. If I have Paul Scholes circa 1998 do i have to sacrifice either him getting into the box OR scoring long shots? It's absurd.. And why on earth would a central midfielder having a high mentality lead to him playing with his back to goal? Did scholes play with his back to goal? does gerrard? No.. they simply play closer to the strikers and link more...

In applying that logic to a different player, asking a high mentality player who is making forward runs into the box all the time to take long shots often is illogical. He won't be dropping into the correct spaces to take the shots as his combined FWR and high mentality gets him too far ahead of play to do so. There are two options to fix this. One is to lower his mentality so he makes his runs later. The other is to lower his forward runs. In the former, although he will still make runs into the box, he will do so later, which will free him up to have more chance of a long shot. In the latter, he'll patrol the edges of the box and shoot on sight. It's up to you, as manager, to decide which one best suits your philosophy and his overall play.

so... what exactly do you define as a long shot? i would class anything 20 yards or over... All i want is for my MC to take a short pass from a striker playing with his back to goal, take a decent touch and strike it. I don't expect it to go in every time but i do expect that that logic i've just given... is not flawed...

I think something that is very telling is Paul C's genuine surprise given at the beginning of your guide. The game was not designed with the things in your guide in mind, there is a reason it's not working properly. I sincerely hope that the makers don't start to code it with this in mind, it is flawed horribly, and whilst your guide is a great attempt to make sense of something that is flawed, there will always be these contradictions and they should go in a totally opposite direction.

IMO positioning a player on the field shouldn't have to do with his mentality, which should be clearly, as the OP stated, his commitment to attack or defend. So, apart from the standard positions that we can now place our players, we should have the chance to "drag and drop" them on the field in any position we think it will benefit our tactic, WITHOUT changing their mentality or the teams width.

It's the most common order given by any manager during a game - "drop back a little, move upfield a little more, play wider" etc- .This way we can have i.e an attacking minded MC droped back to find more space without turning into a DM, or wingers playing wider but the defence being tight.

that is absurd. it smacks of making a compromise with the match engine- we have to do this in so many aspects of the game right now and while that remains true the match engine needs real work on it, not people blindly defending it. some of the defences of the match engine on here remind me of creationists defending their religious beliefs- staunchly militant in the face of obvious flaws.

3 easy examples that suggest asking a player to operate deeper rather than moving into the box all the time to get more goals from range:

1) paul scholes in his twenties.

2) frank lampard

3) steven gerrard

I read your post suggesting that with a high mentality they would be taking too many shots on the turn, which of course is utter nonsense, suggesting that they would be playing with their backs to goal. this is why what says pauly1616 is correct- mentality should be the inclination to attack, rather than position on the pitch.

Did you read this part:

In applying that logic to a different player, asking a high mentality player who is making forward runs into the box all the time to take long shots often is illogical. He won't be dropping into the correct spaces to take the shots as his combined FWR and high mentality gets him too far ahead of play to do so. There are two options to fix this. One is to lower his mentality so he makes his runs later. The other is to lower his forward runs. In the former, although he will still make runs into the box, he will do so later, which will free him up to have more chance of a long shot. In the latter, he'll patrol the edges of the box and shoot on sight. It's up to you, as manager, to decide which one best suits your philosophy and his overall play.

That makes perfect sense to me.

I think the main problem is. If what wwfan says about the mentality blocks IS correct (and we don't know that it is... just that it works), why isn't it clear in the game?

[i'm not disregarding any of the fantastic work done by wwfan et al., just that we need to KNOW how the sliders work, not have to find out from people who've had the time to experiment.]

A 'Positions' screen where you could place your players exactly where you wanted rather than having to choose from a number of pre-set alternatives would be much better.

I (and many others) completely agree. But unfortunately we're heading into the realms of wanting wibble/wobble back and that's never going to happen.

I (and many others) completely agree. But unfortunately we're heading into the realms of wanting wibble/wobble back and that's never going to happen.

Yes, but tell them that sometimes you have to make a step back to move forward.

I (and many others) completely agree. But unfortunately we're heading into the realms of wanting wibble/wobble back and that's never going to happen.

Well, they have said that they are going to be looking at the whole business of the sliders, so we can live in hope I suppose.

Of course, we can also look to see what the new CM will do. Maybe they will get it right.

I don't actually want a completely free drag and drop system, it would be too complicated with regards to players trained positions.

What I would like is a wide circle around each of the current set positions that you can drag the players too, so you can affect the starting position (depth and width) a bit more but they still be classed as that set position.

Did you read this part:

In applying that logic to a different player, asking a high mentality player who is making forward runs into the box all the time to take long shots often is illogical. He won't be dropping into the correct spaces to take the shots as his combined FWR and high mentality gets him too far ahead of play to do so. There are two options to fix this. One is to lower his mentality so he makes his runs later. The other is to lower his forward runs. In the former, although he will still make runs into the box, he will do so later, which will free him up to have more chance of a long shot. In the latter, he'll patrol the edges of the box and shoot on sight. It's up to you, as manager, to decide which one best suits your philosophy and his overall play.

That makes perfect sense to me.

no. it doesn't. it makes absolutely no sense because the mentality slider is linked to BOTH position and MENTALITY.

you can't drop his position without dropping his attacking inclination. Does this mean that players like Deco, Gerrard, Modric, Kaka, Scholes, etc etc etc. Can't take long shots? It's absurd, and it has absolutely no connection to reality whatsoever.

That is not the main issue- that is a side issue. The issue put simply is Mentality can only be one of these things, but it is both. If we separate the issue into two things: position and defensive/attacking inclination, what is a good question is the one raised earlier:

if forward runs, passing length, tempo, crossing, running with the ball and through balls are already specified, what exactly does having an "attacking mentality" define? Whether he looks for the attacking or the defensive pass? I don't think so.. How can he look for a defensive pass if he's set to direct?

similarly... if i want an attacking central midfielder, does this have to mean that his starting position is going to be 5 or 10 yards in front of his opposition midfielders? It doesn't mean that at all and it never should. It should just mean he is more likely to abandon defense for attack, not that he is going to robotically position himself like a r*tard

It might solve a lot of confusion if we just renamed and thought of the mentality slider as position. But is this the case and the is the rest just waffle? I don't get that impression...

The problem with all of this, is if it's implemented is the AI needs to be on an even playing level, so it would need to be built into the AI to know where to play players in regards to position as well as mentality.

That could be quite a massive piece of work.

I get the feeling that the best we'll get is a bit more transparancy around what the current sliders mean.

Did you read this part:

In applying that logic to a different player, asking a high mentality player who is making forward runs into the box all the time to take long shots often is illogical. He won't be dropping into the correct spaces to take the shots as his combined FWR and high mentality gets him too far ahead of play to do so. There are two options to fix this. One is to lower his mentality so he makes his runs later. The other is to lower his forward runs. In the former, although he will still make runs into the box, he will do so later, which will free him up to have more chance of a long shot. In the latter, he'll patrol the edges of the box and shoot on sight. It's up to you, as manager, to decide which one best suits your philosophy and his overall play.

That makes perfect sense to me.

it doesn't- we are talking about players playing in the flat part of midfield- i.e. MC, not strikers playing on the shoulder of the last defender- so to suggest the midfielder would need to drop into space to shoot from range is incorrect, or it should be. understand my point is that the match engine is flawed, I am not asking for tactical help. unfortunately people have devised clever ways of circumventing these flaws, which is good for them, however once these guides start attracting as much attention as they do people begin to accept that there is a correlation between the logic shown in the guide and the logic of the sport- which is an untruth becoming increasingly ignored; with the greatest respect I sincerely hope the people who code these games are not working with, or using the guide as an approximation, because that will lead to the game becoming less and less of a simulation of football.

and you've also missed the point which is that mentality should not have any bearing on position, it's not a physical instruction! the clue is in the name- it's a mental thing- the inclination to be attacking or defensive from the position they have been assigned to, it should not be a "position within a position".

p.s. and a forward run is not a run at a single speed, in a straight line, from a fixed starting point to a fixed destination.

perhaps they should have looked at this before they started:

men⋅tal⋅i⋅ty

   /mɛnˈtælɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [men-tal-i-tee] Show IPA

–noun, plural -ties.

1. mental capacity or endowment: a person of average mentality.

2. the set of one's mind; view; outlook: a liberal mentality.

It's available on dictionary.com.......

at no point does it mention anything about position.

Does this mean that if i want my Flat MC's goalside of their opponents when they have the ball, that I can't have my AMC with an attacking mentality because they'll be too far apart? oh ok- so i'm getting this, I have my attacking midfielder on a defensive mentality, and then if i want him to link close with my strikers i....................... ug

The thing is that the mentality slider is more important than many think. First of all, it is the main 'component' that triggers the attacking or defending mechanism that builds up the football game. Second, it creates values of your teams overall capabilities (in attacking or defending), and you can use this 'tool' to combat the AI's attacking or defending match plan. It also helps in structuring the values it creates in the ME, so that teams, for example, playing on Home Field can have a 25% advantage (creating the illusion). It is not that easy to just remove this slider mechanism, and on top of that if this aspect is taken out of Human User's hands/control, I personally don't think will be a good thing...

We are talking about the individual mentality sliders here, LL, not the team one.

The thing is that the mentality slider is more important than many think. First of all, it is the main 'component' that triggers the attacking or defending mechanism that builds up the football game. Second, it creates values of your teams overall capabilities (in attacking or defending), and you can use this 'tool' to combat the AI's attacking or defending match plan. It also helps in structuring the values it creates in the ME, so that teams, for example, playing on Home Field can have a 25% advantage (creating the illusion). It is not that easy to just remove this slider mechanism, and on top of that if this aspect is taken out of Human User's hands/control, I personally don't think will be a good thing...

yeah but you can't give people tuna and tell them it's cream cheese...... eventually you're going to get some pretty ****ed up sandwiches...

if forward runs, passing length, tempo, crossing, running with the ball and through balls are already specified, what exactly does having an "attacking mentality" define? Whether he looks for the attacking or the defensive pass? I don't think so.. How can he look for a defensive pass if he's set to direct?

You are right of course! Passing focus, length and tempo are already set by other sliders, as well as how often you do through balls. So what the hangment is left for 'aggressive' or 'defensive' mentality to do here?

yeah but you can't give people tuna and tell them it's cream cheese...... eventually you're going to get some pretty ****ed up sandwiches...

I don't think it's exactly like that. It is more like: let's say that you are in the Locker room before a match. You are playing away against Man U. You tell your team to not stand too far forward and play safe. It is basically this, if you didn't have this the ambitions of your players will probably leave your team totally unstructured (both in RL and in the game). Many coaches tell their teams to be more cautious regardless of their attacking talent, and to get an important result from time to time. I can't see the reason to take away this element. Many coaches don't allow their players to do what they want on the football field...

Some interesting views and good points.

Thing is after we lost the arrows we lost all options to really position players in defense/attack. Lot's of options disappear as the only position tool we have is Mentality that also works as a "aggression" setting. It can't be both but it is at the moment. You could work around the mentality slider with the arrows and get your player to play in the positions you wanted without having to compromise with the mentality slider.

We need some sort of control of our players "aggression" and position for both attack and defense.

One thing that has puzzled me in this version is how people talk about individual & team mentality.

Years ago i was told that individual mentality overrides the team mentality except when going all out attack or ultra defensive.

So if you have your hole team on individual mentality it doesn't matter what your team setting is as the individual one is the one that counts. So even when you move the team slider in game it doesn't change anything except when you go all out.

I i remember correctly this was also confirmed bye SI at the time.

No this version is the first time since CM4 that i have downloaded tactics and i have noticed that in all sets i have looked at people set their mentality according to different systems( RoO, RoT....) but also set their team mentality.

Anyone know why is this? Has the rules for Individual / Team mentality changed?

Why change the team setting if you still give individual settings?

could you rephrase that in terms of sandwiches please?

Who said mentality had anything to do with positioning? It only affects positioning when combined with forward runs, which are attacking moves. The higher the mentality, the more often (i.e. earlier in a move) the player will make a forward run. Mentality itself only determines the risk and reward attitude of the player. Gaps appear in the team when players with high mentalities and FWRs move forward whereas low mentality players with no FWRs stay back. There is also confusion in the ranks about exactly how the manager wants the team to be playing, with the defenders thinking the overall strategy is defensive while the attackers are flying forward at every opportunity.

Other stuff you are quoting as gospel that I simply haven't said:

Aggressive midfielder playing with his back to goal??? Where did that come from?

Further more, the arguments make no sense:

My post:

I suggested that if you wanted to make best use of a player with good passing, creativity and long shots, it would be best to have him operating a little deeper rather than having him moving into the box at all times.

The reply:

3 easy examples that suggest asking a player to operate deeper rather than moving into the box all the time to get more goals from range:

1) paul scholes in his twenties.

2) frank lampard

3) steven gerrard

How is that different form what I said and why is it being used as an argument against my advice? It is exactly the same thing. Perhaps I'm being dense, but how are the two quotes at odds?

Likewise:

If I have Paul Scholes circa 1998 do i have to sacrifice either him getting into the box OR scoring long shots? It's absurd.. And why on earth would a central midfielder having a high mentality lead to him playing with his back to goal?

How does that conflict with my advice?

One is to lower his mentality so he makes his runs later. Although he will still make runs into the box, he will do so later, which will free him up to have more chance of a long shot.

I'm all for trying to help, but when the advice I've given is being interpreted as evidence of flaws despite it being exactly the same as the real life examples, I'm not sure if we can get anywhere.

so... it is your view that steven gerrard and paul scholes 98... drop deep in order to shoot? i think you are being a little dense there... you're clearly wrong on this one.. try harder.

and no- you wouldn't be well advised asking a player who is a good passer to do it further from the goal... this is why we try to get closer to the goal before passing it. there are more angles, there are better runs blah blah blah blah

and your comment about aggressive midfielders is here:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=103509&page=8

"Forward runs, mentality and free role matter enormously, because they determine the positions the player is going to get into during the game. If you are pushing your player forward (FWRs Often) then he is regularly going to be ahead of the ball. Thus, with Long Shots Often, he will have to turn and shoot, which means shots will be snatched and hurried."

which makes perfect sense... because paul scholes was really suffering from those forward runs... destroying his game with his 15 goals per season..

All this slider theory just drives me nuts. What is someone new to the game who doesn’t know about this site going to make of it?

With these slider combinations for certain behaviours, we might just as well be playing Pro Evo and controlling every player’s move; except with Pro Evo it is actually explained what you need to do in order a get a player to behave as you want.

I find it ludicrous when defenders of the system come out with this “you wouldn’t give the same winger instructions to Beckham, who can’t dribble, than do Messi, who can”. As if you need to tell Beckham “hey, you’re not much cop at dribbling, try and avoid doing it”.

An approach nearer to xperteleven (which is very basic, but can obviously be more detailed) would be far more interesting and enjoyable.

Try and predict how the opposition will play; choose a formation appropriate for your team, how you want to play and how you think you’ll stop the opposition; train your team for the formation you want to play and for your plan b & c. Let them play without having to be able to read the minds of SI programmers to get them to do what you want.

i accept that a lot is possible with the current slider system but the issue is FM breaks the mantra of any good strategy game, by being difficult to learn and easy to master: when it of course should be, easy to learn and difficult to master. i say this because i've introduced friends to this game and they struggle without me having to explain every single intricacy, something like wwfan often has to in threads like this. and anyway here, cross-posting a post i made that fully represents my point on this issue:

"i fundamentally disagree with anyone saying the current slider system is a "pretty good" way of translating instructions to the players in the game - no, they WORK yes, but they are not a good or efficient system for it, if anything it offers TOO much "depth". most of which is artificial, there really isn't a 20 level scale in real life football that FM tries to recreate, and in any case, number scheme only adds to the confusion for players not already acclimatised to the system. oh, "mentality" is a poor name for what it actually represents in the game too.

it isn't the "sliders" itself there is an issue with, but how they are used. condensing my thoughts:

1/ fm shouldn't ever need a mixture of various sliders to give simple instructions (see: cutting in.)

2/ sliders shouldn't be named as ambiguously

3/ 20 points on a slider scale creates artificial depth for the wannabe-mourinho's and too much 'space' for those who would like to keep football simple.

4/ i genuinely believe a 10 (maybe 12) point scale with a better defined role for each slider (i have severe doubts that even half of FM's playerbase knows what CF, Mentality really represents)

5/ perhaps simplifying each slider (which would need the creation of more sliders, but there's nothing wrong with that) into allowing player-induced collation of several simple sliders to draw advanced plays rather than now where it takes playing with several ambiguous sliders to incite simple football moves."

wwfan, the answer to your rhetorical question about mentality and positioning is 'The game manual'.

The manual - section 6.1.2 - Team instructions

Mentality

Mentality directly affects a player's position on the field.

- Section 6.1.3 -Player instructions

Mentality

When set for a player, it applies in the same manner as it does for the team as detailed in Section 6.1.2.

In Section 6.1.2 the issue is then confused by the manual saying this

His set position on the tactical pitch display is where he will line up as a base default but depending on the mentality set he may be more restrained or cavalier in his approach.

This is, of course, immediately unclear. The only specific which that paragraph goes into is that players may be more ambitious (ie put in more forward passes) if they are more aggressive.

Nowhere in that section does the manual say that mentality settings only affect position when combined with forward runs. Forward runs are not mentioned at all.

Is it any wonder that people are totally confused?

there are some very good posts in this thread, great discussion. it's a shame a poll wasn't made in this thread, asking people should mentality slider be ditched..

wwfan, the answer to your rhetorical question about mentality and positioning is 'The game manual'.

The manual - section 6.1.2 - Team instructions

Mentality

Mentality directly affects a player's position on the field.

- Section 6.1.3 -Player instructions

Mentality

When set for a player, it applies in the same manner as it does for the team as detailed in Section 6.1.2.

In Section 6.1.2 the issue is then confused by the manual saying this

His set position on the tactical pitch display is where he will line up as a base default but depending on the mentality set he may be more restrained or cavalier in his approach.

This is, of course, immediately unclear. The only specific which that paragraph goes into is that players may be more ambitious (ie put in more forward passes) if they are more aggressive.

Nowhere in that section does the manual say that mentality settings only affect position when combined with forward runs. Forward runs are not mentioned at all.

Is it any wonder that people are totally confused?

what's even more confusing is how can positional and passing direction instructions be the same thing, isn't it..

Would love to see some SI feedback on this as this is a major problem within the enjoyment of the game.

Lets look at another angle on it.

My opinion is as a manager you have your ideas on how you want to play (if this turns out to be a winning formula or not is down to may other features inc. player's and how you've set your tactics). So you really should have to figure out all this stuff on how the game works. The tactics should be easy to manipulate to put your idea's down. Lets say Sir Alex Ferguson picked up this game and tried to set his tactics, I could tell you now he'd fail and would look useless as a manager yet we all know this isn't true.

Yes we all know it's a game and should be treated that way but if you decided to tell everyone that before buying it then i'm sure we would start too look elsewhere. This isn't jsut a game for some out there it's a way to show you can be the best manager out there even if it is just a game. The game has a mass following for a reason. But since the last couple releases of the game it seen more complaints in my opinion and most of it boils down to understanding of the tactics. Make them easier even if it does mean more option to check. At least we know what setting we are altering

Is it any wonder that people are totally confused?

No, not at all. Until reading this thread I had no idea that mentality settings only affect position when combined with forward runs and I did read most of the guides posted on these forums. It's really no wonder I can't get my team to play the way I want them, regardless of whether it's successful or not.

I'm not a fan of the slider system at all and if SI don't want to change it, they should at the very least clear the confusion once for all. After all these years people are still debating what the sliders actually do. That's ridiculous imo.

The way mentality works is roughly thus:

There are five main team strategies: Defensive, Counter Attacking, Balancing Risk and Reward, Controlling Possession, Aggressive. You can roughly split the mentality slider into fifths along these lines. Thus, bottom four notches defensive, next four Counter Attacking and so on.

we're grateful you're willing to help us work out the problems and to explain things which should have been explained in manual long ago. i also understand your need to defend this game but i don't think Pauly is looking for help as the thread's name suggests. and i totally agree with it and i'm sure everyone would when person thinks about this problem logically. not to mention we still don't know what is the difference between 5th or 8th notch.

as has been said many times in this thread there are too many instructions that mentality effects and these instructions should be seperated or are already existing tactical instructions, for example passing direction should be a mixture of passing length (how can you pass direct but defensive - back), tempo (faster the tempo sooner the ball should get forward), creative freedom (more CF more unpredictable and risky passes) and time wasting (more TW more back- and side-passes).

what is mentality in the first place? i think mentality is a 'sum' of all given instructions. i'm sure managers don't instruct their players with 'be defensive' or 'play offensive' (Evra and Scholes might both play 'offensive' but their roles and instructions are completly different), manager would give them concrete instruction. he will tell them what to do and overall tactical instructions will apear as defensive, balanced, attacking etc. i'm sure you agree with that. that's why i think mentality as such could easily be ditched, just like arrows, and be replaced with simplier, concrete instructions ('pass safely', 'cut inside', 'hug line', 'shoot from distance', 'hold up ball' etc).

now i can see people attacking this as 'it would be too easy', 'it leads to exploits'. my argument is, what do real managers do? they instruct their players with concrete instructions and they play to their squad's strenghts and opponents' weaknesses. they don't use scale or number instructions and then experimente in matches to figure it out what it does! i think that's not what best footy game deserves..

finally does the mentality slider between 4th and 8th notch really simulates counter attacking style? can i have everything else on mixed just tick 'Counter attack' and that's it? does 5th notch instructs a player to run his ass up becouse we're playing on counters? isn't Counter Attacking strategy based on passing, movement and tempo most importantly (aswell as Possesion or Agressive strategies)? what i want to say is that i really don't know what does 'counter attacking mentality' meen by default. i hope you get my point here..

It's been explained many, many times and for me is pretty straight forward. If there's a viable alternative that SI can provide for FM10 then fine, but I can't understand the vitriol directed at the slider system.

Of course an attacking mentality affects a player's position on the pitch. If anything, it would be illogical NOT to have this.

I would be in agreement IF there were 10 notches not 20 with the shortfall moved into player mental stats and physical ability and more of the ME performances mitigated directly by player form and player ABILITY not sliders.

Who said mentality had anything to do with positioning? It only affects positioning when combined with forward runs, which are attacking moves.

The higher the mentality, the more often (i.e. earlier in a move) the player will make a forward run.

first, as above the game manual explicitly states mentality and position are related. secondly, you can have two MC's on no forward runs, one on 20 one on 1 and you will see the positioning in the pitch is different- if they are told NO forward runs why on earth are they no longer be adjacent? in other words why would the midfield cease to be flat? because mentality does, clearly, as the makers themselves say (and that alone is more concrete than theory) affect position

Other stuff you are quoting as gospel that I simply haven't said:

Aggressive midfielder playing with his back to goal??? Where did that come from?

again, proven wrong- refer to the thread pauly1616 has highlighted- have you changed your stance on the issue since then?

Further more, the arguments make no sense:

My post:

I suggested that if you wanted to make best use of a player with good passing, creativity and long shots, it would be best to have him operating a little deeper rather than having him moving into the box at all times.

The reply:

One is to lower his mentality so he makes his runs later. Although he will still make runs into the box, he will do so later, which will free him up to have more chance of a long shot.

How is that different form what I said and why is it being used as an argument against my advice? It is exactly the same thing. Perhaps I'm being dense, but how are the two quotes at odds?

Likewise:

How does that conflict with my advice?

with respect, have you ever seen these three players play football in any other form than top down coloured circle form? all examples are of players who constantly get forward and also score from outside the box. you imply that you can have a player who either gets into the box from midfield, or stays outside it shooting from range. If this is the case then "football manager 2010" would be an inaccurate name for the next game, and I'd like to suggest si consider "football manager manager 2010" or "archaic and flawed interpretation of football interactive speadsheet controller 2010".

those players are clear examples of players that contradict what you are saying- they have a strong inclination to attack (now we understand what the word mentality means), who get forward a lot and also shoot from range. their success at doing those things should be determined by off the ball, decisions, long shots, finishing amongst other less important statistics.

to suggest they should get make fewer forward runs or have less of an inclination to attack is utterly false. I'd like to repeat at this point I am talking about the legitimacy of the match engine- what you say may well work in the game, I have no doubt that it does- that is what worries me most. I hope you see now that in fact there is a massive difference in reality and the game's interpretation. I would also like to ask if you think that there are any flaws in the match engine, and if so, what are they? and also, if you have any shares in sports interactive?

I'm all for trying to help, but when the advice I've given is being interpreted as evidence of flaws despite it being exactly the same as the real life examples, I'm not sure if we can get anywhere.

apparently my message is too short so here is some superfluous text.

I am going to come out in support of the sliders not that I don’t think the game could be improved. I used to think the loss of wiblwoble screen was a disaster, but now like the system we have better.

For me it allows you to play about with things, and none of the sliders can really be used on their own they all have an interlinking cause on the way your team plays

I use three basic tactics and tweek them, with the sliders I am able to get my AMC into the box often and will play “beyond the strikers” for example, by not having fwr on the strikers and setting their mentality to lower that the AMC who has forward runs.

Combined with holding up the ball, and a free role on the second striker with high CF, he drops deep and the AMC plays 1-2 of the main striker to get through on goal making it hard for the opposition to mark.

At the same time my attack minded central midfielder will get forward to support the front three but tends to lurk out side the box.

By setting my entire team to play a fast narrow game with a reasonably high attacking mentality, but the teams starting positions deep, with counter attack on, I get good results away from home in big games

I understand that not everyone wants to get into the tactical detail as much as maybe I do and instead of getting rid of the sliders or tactical freedoms, would be better IMO to have some sort of “difficulty levels that lowers the tactical acumen of the AI managers for example? Or even in game tactical advice that helps for those that don want to spend hours tweeking the game to get results