Future of tactics FM11 and beyond

I have been thinking for a while about the future of the tactical system and how far it can go in its present format. I understand that the ME hasn't been changed in a while just evolving- getting more accurate with every generation.

With the wizard coming in, which I have been playing on FML, player roles are definately the way forward but the problem I have with it is that it is just the same instructions fed into the ME- just someones interpretation of how that role is translated into sliders. (ok its the likes of WWFan who knows ALOT but not everyone will agree with him)

What I would actualy like to see for the future is sliders being done away with altogether and players instructions to the ME is decided by player roles IE an attacking midfielder behaves a certain way.

I would also like to see players roles and instructions acknowledged by other players, so everyone else knows you have told your winger to cut inside and act accordingly. An addition to this is knowledge of where another player is and what that player can do in relation to the others position.

IE two midfieders both can attack and defend but when one is forward the other always stays back to cover

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It can lead to PPR's (players preferred role- like PPM), It would be alot more intuitive for the user over and above the Wizard.

For that is my main question- how much farther in terms of progress can the current instructions to the ME go? The wizard brings us away from the slider system without replacing it- Is it time to think of an alternative?

Well that's the problem with the instructions you can shout.

I've not seen the code or played the new version, but I imagine it's just a shortcut to preset changes to the sliders - underneath the hood it's still the exact same engine.

I realy hope to be corrected on this, but i think we are reaching the stage in the game where we do not have enough time in the calendar year to completely build new features for the next year's game. As a result we are seeing small aesthetic changes (such as the new UI, shortcuts to the sliders via shouts, etc) that we are getting this year.

It's just unfortunate that the features that will be 'big' take too long to create from one year to the next.

The issue here is that however the match engine works, it will be a number cruncher, and any and all player behaviour will be defined by numbers, whether it be the slider values, or hidden ones.

So if AM's acted in a certain way, it would still be a set of values defined by SI.

I personally think that they way it is going looks really encouraging, but I hope that player personalities show through, providing an element which we can't control, just like RL!!

it would be good for the game to give info about slider levels when u go more advanced than the 'ideal' roles we will get

like with the slider title for example u could have (1-5 ultra defensive 6-10 defensive) etc etc

I realy hope to be corrected on this, but i think we are reaching the stage in the game where we do not have enough time in the calendar year to completely build new features for the next year's game. As a result we are seeing small aesthetic changes (such as the new UI, shortcuts to the sliders via shouts, etc) that we are getting this year.

It's just unfortunate that the features that will be 'big' take too long to create from one year to the next.

I don't work for SI, but I have spent ten years in the game development industry, so I hope you'll allow me to address this one for you.

If code is well-developed, the issue you're describing shouldn't be an issue at all. One developer can make a "branch" of the code base, apply modifications (and build, and test) against that branch while another developer is working on the "main" branch. Later, we can use a merge tool to merge the branches together so that they both apply to the "main" branch.

So, let's say you are my boss at SI Towers, and you task me to build a feature which will take two years to develop. On FM'10's release day, I make my branch. The rest of the team continue working on the "main" branch to develop FM'11. On my branch, I'm basically working on FM'12. Periodically, we'll merge the FM'11 code out to my branch, so that I'm always testing my changes against the latest and greatest build. A year goes by; FM'11 launches. Now, the "main" branch is developing FM'12. When I (and my test team) decide that the FM'12 features are ready for prime time - maybe, November of next year! - we merge my branch down to the "main" branch .. and we're in business.

If you've been reading between the lines, we know that SI are already developing in this manner. The match engine is distinctly a different "module" from other modules; we can see that all the way into the changelists when they do patches, they list it as having its own versions, etc. They even use the ME in both games (FM and FML) in classic code-reuse style, just like its taught in computer science texts.

Discussions of the 3D engine indicate that it was in development for more than three years before we saw it in FM'09, and that patch development and development for the next version happen concurrently. So, we know that SI's development process can handle the classic branch-and-merge approach which I've described above: if you think it through, we know that there has to have been a date where part of the team was working on a patch for FM'07, most of the team was working on FM'08, and some of the team were working on 3-D for FM'09!

Consequently, the worry you've outlined shouldn't be halting development .. and if I'm right, some of the team are working on FM'11 features even now as FM'10 ramps through its final testing and debugging cycle.

Fair enough; thanks for the correction.

I don't work for SI, but I have spent ten years in the game development industry, so I hope you'll allow me to address this one for you.

If code is well-developed, the issue you're describing shouldn't be an issue at all. One developer can make a "branch" of the code base, apply modifications (and build, and test) against that branch while another developer is working on the "main" branch. Later, we can use a merge tool to merge the branches together so that they both apply to the "main" branch.

So, let's say you are my boss at SI Towers, and you task me to build a feature which will take two years to develop. On FM'10's release day, I make my branch. The rest of the team continue working on the "main" branch to develop FM'11. On my branch, I'm basically working on FM'12. Periodically, we'll merge the FM'11 code out to my branch, so that I'm always testing my changes against the latest and greatest build. A year goes by; FM'11 launches. Now, the "main" branch is developing FM'12. When I (and my test team) decide that the FM'12 features are ready for prime time - maybe, November of next year! - we merge my branch down to the "main" branch .. and we're in business.

If you've been reading between the lines, we know that SI are already developing in this manner. The match engine is distinctly a different "module" from other modules; we can see that all the way into the changelists when they do patches, they list it as having its own versions, etc. They even use the ME in both games (FM and FML) in classic code-reuse style, just like its taught in computer science texts.

Discussions of the 3D engine indicate that it was in development for more than three years before we saw it in FM'09, and that patch development and development for the next version happen concurrently. So, we know that SI's development process can handle the classic branch-and-merge approach which I've described above: if you think it through, we know that there has to have been a date where part of the team was working on a patch for FM'07, most of the team was working on FM'08, and some of the team were working on 3-D for FM'09!

Consequently, the worry you've outlined shouldn't be halting development .. and if I'm right, some of the team are working on FM'11 features even now as FM'10 ramps through its final testing and debugging cycle.

Hi, good post but you've go the wrong end of the stick.

I am fully aware of how the development works as I have been a developer for several years myself, albeit more recently in the financial world and the commercial world before that, rather than in the games industry.

What I was saying was what was hinted at in either the official FM10 post or another one, I forget which. Basically, that is that the 'big' features will not be in this release due to the fact that they will now be taking more than 2years to develop. As the last big feature was the 3D that appeared last year, next year's game will have (a) 'larger' feature(s) than we will get this year - my reasons for this are the fact this year's game is being touted as a tweaked version).

I am aware that working on different versions of the code is easily achievable and mismerges are relatively simple to resolve provided your code is checked in, in a fairly regular manner but thanks for taking the time to type out a lengthy reply.

This has probably already been asked somewhere but will it be possible to save edited player roles, if I set up how I want Riquelme to play will I be able to import that into a new save game? This could really help people who have trouble getting certain players to perform.

You can save tactics already, so just save the tactic with his set up and import it into your new game.

Well, you made a point about maybe having two CM's who attack and defend but maybe one could attack whilst the other sticks back. I was thinking that, with th introduction of manager shouts, we should be able to shout things to individual players.

You've mentioned one new instruction already abcf - telling your winger to cut inside. That's a new instruction, along with 'hug touchline' (also for wingers) and 'move into channels' (for central players); we've got some ideas of others for the future too.

In terms of the roles not setting up sliders etc but working directly in the ME then don't forget that that itself would be "someone's interpretation" of how, for example, a poacher should operate. I'd argue that maybe it's actually better to allow people to customize how they see a poacher, winger etc operate rather than what you seem to be suggesting in just having role selection as the only real control available to the user?

Whether the existing 'advanced instructions' are the right ones or not is a matter of debate, but rest assured we will continue to debate both internally and with the community.

I very much like the idea of players reacting directly to each others' instructions by the way - you go forward, I'll stay back etc.

Thanks for the feedback.

Thanks Ov for the reply

I am just a layman neither an expert at tactics nor programming- just I feel that that player roles and personality should dictate the type and style of play and then you ask them to pass longer or tackle harder.

IE you can tell Steven Gerrard to pass longer and tackle harder but he would still play like Steven Gerrard (I have rewrote that paragraph 3 times and still not sure if I expressed myself properly lol)

Another thing I was wondering about is would it ever be possible to have place your players like you do on Pro Evo Soccer- instead of placing a player in FCr and asking him to play wider or drop deeper but instead click and drag the player position further to the right or further back.

excuse me why are we talking about fm11? fm10 hasn't even come out yet there is still 14 months to go just sounds a bit crazy to me.......

I much prefer giving worded instructions over sliding over notches.

Instructions like, "hug line" are nicer to me than fiddling with a "width" slider. Each individual notch does not give me any relevant indication to what it means.

i like that I can check box "tight marking". Either I tell them to mark tightly or not. Imagine if that was on a slider!

Imagine a slider on holding up play, as you can influence the degree of how often/long a player will do it. It would be more dependant on the player's own decision making.

I think we're getting a good shift on telling a player how to play and then the impetus being placed on the player's stats and personality to determine how effective and by how much the player manages to match the required role.

excuse me why are we talking about fm11? fm10 hasn't even come out yet there is still 14 months to go just sounds a bit crazy to me.......

Because I am talking about the future of the tactical system- apart from polish and minor bug fixes FM10 is pretty much set in stone and I have already been using the system in FML (albeit not all the shouts have been added yet)

what happened to the thing from the old CM series? you could like, tell each player where they should be when the ball is in a certain place. The pitch on tactic screen was divided in to about 16 squares and you could say like 'if the ball is in square 8, then my CM should be in square 9, if we have the ball.' or if the ball is in square 12, then my LW should be in square 11, if we don't have the ball'.

I only remember using it once or twice but I miss it, it seemed useful.

crusty, i think it was exploited for super tactics

Ov, that is awesome

AB: you could tweak from outside the wizard.

i think its good players have these instructions now

it is hard for people new to fm and possibly intricate football tactics to understand the combination of instructions needed to cut inside or go box to box etc etc

i think this is the element of football manager 10 im looking most forward to, but do you have the option of setting a role and adjusting the sliders a bit still?

I really think that a system revamp should account for the basic notion that roles are attached to the players, not to the tactics. One of FM's longstanding problems is that I can set up a nice tactic with everything working ok, but then when I'm up 1-0 at 80' and I replace my playmaker with a midfield fighter whose only purpose is to work as an additional defender, he will still play in my playmaker's role unless I tell him otherwise tweaking pretty much every slider in his profile. This is inaccurate, therefore the creation of a tactic should involve the creation of "profiles" to be assigned to players (more than one, of course), each one of them belonging to the overall tactic I'm using.

In the tactics screen we could right click on the player and find his, let's say, 3 profiles, with one set as default (which will be used unless I change it). Each profile can be changed from the current "player instructions" menu. So let's say I was playing AC Milan with my accurate 4-3-2-1 from the Ancelotti era. I take Pirlo out and send Gattuso in to protect the score. When this happens in real life, Gattuso won't be taking on Pirlo's duties (long balls, holding up the ball, dictating play). On the other hand, he will do things that Pirlo could not do (basically hunt down every opponent on the pitch). In real life this happen automatically, the manager doesn't have to specify it, because that's simply Gattuso's way of playing. With a "profile" system, I would send in Gattuso and he would be playing according to the player instructions of his default profile.

I think this would be a major improvement, allowing for greater flexibility. Another example: imagine England national team of some time ago (well, not that much time actually). 4-4-2, Beckham on the right. With Becks being a particular kind of right midfielder (not a dribbler, not a runner, basically a wide playmaker and a crosser), if I send in, let's say, Lennon, Bentley, Wright-Philips (all of which have played there in recent years) they need different instructions from Beckham. So, instead of having to tweak Beckham's instructions to suit those three quick paced, cutting-in, agile wingers, they would automatically play according to their default profile.

If I have a player who, within the boundaries and needs of my current tactic, can play different roles (either different interpretations of the same role or different roles altogether - i.e. fullback and winger), he can have more profiles. Everytime he's brought in ----> right-click on the player ----> select 1,2,3. Obviously my regular starting 11 would all play on their default profiles, basically making the system work exactly like it works now, but I could always introduce a small change on them as well (right click... ok, you get it).

Those who can't be bothered could always leave things unchanged and they would have the same game we have now. You don't have to create multiple profiles for every players, and only the default one is activated with the creation of your tactic. It's basically as it is now but with more depth and with the solution to one of FM's long-standing inconsistencies. Even the interface doesn't have to change much. What do you think (I already suggested this two or three years ago, I haven't played FM09 much but I'm getting FM2010 for sure!)?

I do think one of the big things in my opinion in whats missing in the game is a communication stat. I mean you could maybe say teamwork covers it, but Im not so sure.

After playing for many years myself, one of the most improtant things in football is communcation, telling your teamates they have time, they can turn, they need to hold it up or flick it on etc.

Not so much manager settings but the general communication between players on a pitch, for instance if 2 midfielders play together with instructions to go forward, they would need to communicate with each other to see which one sits and which one goes forward, for cbs whos going up for the header and whos covering etc. Some players are naturally quiet and others are loud and good communicators, would be another good stat to think about when picking a captain aswell as influence.

Poorly described I guess but not that bad an idea

I really think that a system revamp should account for the basic notion that roles are attached to the players, not to the tactics. One of FM's longstanding problems is that I can set up a nice tactic with everything working ok, but then when I'm up 1-0 at 80' and I replace my playmaker with a midfield fighter whose only purpose is to work as an additional defender, he will still play in my playmaker's role unless I tell him otherwise tweaking pretty much every slider in his profile. This is inaccurate, therefore the creation of a tactic should involve the creation of "profiles" to be assigned to players (more than one, of course), each one of them belonging to the overall tactic I'm using.

In the tactics screen we could right click on the player and find his, let's say, 3 profiles, with one set as default (which will be used unless I change it). Each profile can be changed from the current "player instructions" menu. So let's say I was playing AC Milan with my accurate 4-3-2-1 from the Ancelotti era. I take Pirlo out and send Gattuso in to protect the score. When this happens in real life, Gattuso won't be taking on Pirlo's duties (long balls, holding up the ball, dictating play). On the other hand, he will do things that Pirlo could not do (basically hunt down every opponent on the pitch). In real life this happen automatically, the manager doesn't have to specify it, because that's simply Gattuso's way of playing. With a "profile" system, I would send in Gattuso and he would be playing according to the player instructions of his default profile.

I think this would be a major improvement, allowing for greater flexibility. Another example: imagine England national team of some time ago (well, not that much time actually). 4-4-2, Beckham on the right. With Becks being a particular kind of right midfielder (not a dribbler, not a runner, basically a wide playmaker and a crosser), if I send in, let's say, Lennon, Bentley, Wright-Philips (all of which have played there in recent years) they need different instructions from Beckham. So, instead of having to tweak Beckham's instructions to suit those three quick paced, cutting-in, agile wingers, they would automatically play according to their default profile.

If I have a player who, within the boundaries and needs of my current tactic, can play different roles (either different interpretations of the same role or different roles altogether - i.e. fullback and winger), he can have more profiles. Everytime he's brought in ----> right-click on the player ----> select 1,2,3. Obviously my regular starting 11 would all play on their default profiles, basically making the system work exactly like it works now, but I could always introduce a small change on them as well (right click... ok, you get it).

Those who can't be bothered could always leave things unchanged and they would have the same game we have now. You don't have to create multiple profiles for every players, and only the default one is activated with the creation of your tactic. It's basically as it is now but with more depth and with the solution to one of FM's long-standing inconsistencies. Even the interface doesn't have to change much. What do you think (I already suggested this two or three years ago, I haven't played FM09 much but I'm getting FM2010 for sure!)?

excellent point, i've often thought about this, dreading the annoyance of altering sliders when i swap a target man for a poacher or an amc for a dm/cm

You've mentioned one new instruction already abcf - telling your winger to cut inside. That's a new instruction, along with 'hug touchline' (also for wingers) and 'move into channels' (for central players); we've got some ideas of others for the future too.

It would be really good to have the following options in addition to those you mention:

1) 'Withdrawing' instruction so that a player will move from his natural position when off the ball into a deeper related adjacent position (e.g. MC dropping to DM).

2) 'Advancing' instruction so that a player will move from his natural position when on the ball into a more advanced related adjacent position (e.g. MC moving to AMC or AMR to FR).

3) 'Playing wide' or 'coming inside'/'playing narrow' instruction where the player will play wider or will play narrower in reference to his assigned position, (e.g. the middle ground between MC and MR or the middle ground between FR and FC).

I very much like the idea of players reacting directly to each others' instructions by the way - you go forward, I'll stay back etc.

I'd also like to see better player swapping controls.

For instance, I think it would be good to have the following player swap options: position only / swap instructions / swap position & instructions / alternate forward runs but keep other instructions.

Regards,

C.

I really think that a system revamp should account for the basic notion that roles are attached to the players, not to the tactics. One of FM's longstanding problems is that I can set up a nice tactic with everything working ok, but then when I'm up 1-0 at 80' and I replace my playmaker with a midfield fighter whose only purpose is to work as an additional defender, he will still play in my playmaker's role unless I tell him otherwise tweaking pretty much every slider in his profile. This is inaccurate, therefore the creation of a tactic should involve the creation of "profiles" to be assigned to players (more than one, of course), each one of them belonging to the overall tactic I'm using.

In the tactics screen we could right click on the player and find his, let's say, 3 profiles, with one set as default (which will be used unless I change it). Each profile can be changed from the current "player instructions" menu. So let's say I was playing AC Milan with my accurate 4-3-2-1 from the Ancelotti era. I take Pirlo out and send Gattuso in to protect the score. When this happens in real life, Gattuso won't be taking on Pirlo's duties (long balls, holding up the ball, dictating play). On the other hand, he will do things that Pirlo could not do (basically hunt down every opponent on the pitch). In real life this happen automatically, the manager doesn't have to specify it, because that's simply Gattuso's way of playing. With a "profile" system, I would send in Gattuso and he would be playing according to the player instructions of his default profile.

I think this would be a major improvement, allowing for greater flexibility. Another example: imagine England national team of some time ago (well, not that much time actually). 4-4-2, Beckham on the right. With Becks being a particular kind of right midfielder (not a dribbler, not a runner, basically a wide playmaker and a crosser), if I send in, let's say, Lennon, Bentley, Wright-Philips (all of which have played there in recent years) they need different instructions from Beckham. So, instead of having to tweak Beckham's instructions to suit those three quick paced, cutting-in, agile wingers, they would automatically play according to their default profile.

If I have a player who, within the boundaries and needs of my current tactic, can play different roles (either different interpretations of the same role or different roles altogether - i.e. fullback and winger), he can have more profiles. Everytime he's brought in ----> right-click on the player ----> select 1,2,3. Obviously my regular starting 11 would all play on their default profiles, basically making the system work exactly like it works now, but I could always introduce a small change on them as well (right click... ok, you get it).

Those who can't be bothered could always leave things unchanged and they would have the same game we have now. You don't have to create multiple profiles for every players, and only the default one is activated with the creation of your tactic. It's basically as it is now but with more depth and with the solution to one of FM's long-standing inconsistencies. Even the interface doesn't have to change much. What do you think (I already suggested this two or three years ago, I haven't played FM09 much but I'm getting FM2010 for sure!)?

I think you nailed it- Its what I was trying to say, I just couldnt put it into words.

In FM there seems to be no player styles- you look at his attributes and then you try and set him to play a certain way, but in reality the players style decides how he plays.

Take your Beckham and Lennon examples- So instead of AMR it should be WideMidfielderRight (Becks) and FastWingerRight (Lennon) because those two players shouldnt play exactly the same just because you didnt change the tactics.

In my opinion each player should have a playing style which decides his behaviour on the pitch and then you work your tactics around this. Lennon should BE a fast winger and then you tell him to be more attacking, pass longer etc.

And let us not forget that it is impossible to tell a player to stay for two hours after training and shoot about 300 free kicks, to become a master. This is ridiculous. How about special keeper penalty training based on videos of the opponent of a very important final?

Please, those issues must be addressed.

I'd also like to see better player swapping controls.

For instance, I think it would be good to have the following player swap options: position only / swap instructions / swap position & instructions / alternate forward runs but keep other instructions.

Regards,

C.

I want that!