Poor Graphical Representation or Tactical Issue? - Discussion

Please can we discuss this amicably and in a grown up fashion if possible(yes, me too) i can do without any further infractions/bans for one and for another it may actually help towards improving the game.

I'll start with the opening title Poor Graphical Representation or Tactical Issue?

As far as i can tell there is little/no way to understand between the two and without misquoting percentages of others, it is clear enough to see that there are many FM'ers with the same issue.

If we are all agreed that it is now largely necessary to watch matches via the ME in an attempt to not only see first hand if our tactical decisions work or not, but to make tweaks to said tactics depending on situations that occur as those games are played out, then it has to be accepted that those raising obvious issues based on the ME often have a fair point to be made.

WHY?

1. If it is Poor Graphical Representation then how are we to distinguish between that and any tactical errors we may have made?

2. If it is in fact a Tactical Issue then there is a blatant lack of feedback to suggest what such issues may be?

For Example(this is one of my own issues i have seen raised here on many occassions, there are many others that i could have chosen)

A - I concede around 50% of goals from 25 yards plus. In most cases, visually at least, my players have done their job with often as many as two or three players closing down the goalscoring opponent.

B - On the other hand, when i have a player in a position to shoot from 25 yards plus, he may well have a clear line of sight at goal, yet rarely even manage to shoot on target, yet alone score.

What makes this even more frustrating is that in most cases the AI player being closed down has a far inferior skill for shooting from this range as opposed to my own player often highly regarded in such a skill and unlike the AI player, not actually being marked.

If in fact the feedback was much better i may have heard from my Ass Man that we conceded the goal(in his opinion) due to...

Example

A - The D-Line being too deep encouraging the opposition to shoot from range.

B - We conceded due to poor closing down(although not shown visually)

This kind of feedback would help enormously and in my opinion is a absolute necessity to give the Human Manager some kind of understanding as to how his tactics may have been the cause and they could possibly be improved.

I honestly believe that if SI were to concentrate on improving the in-game feedback and ME representation right then this game could be absolutely fantastic, at the moment though it is far from that.

Sadly, the way i see it, SI have tried to run before they could walk with this side to the game.

I applaud the idea of trying to make the game realistic so that making tweaks both home and away as well as based on how games are being played out becoming important.

However, the issues with this are clear and that is that both the visual representation of the ME and the game feedback is lagging massively behind.

Once(if?) it catches up then you will finally have a sophisticated game that will be given all the credit it was due and not before.

(for my examples above i chose the long shot issue, but could easily have chosen others like, goalkeeping, defending, passing, pace, crossing etc)

Fingers crossed that this thread does not immediately get the usual responses my posts tend to receive?

I agree this deserves some serious looking-at. A few days ago a friend came over and laughed at how my striker (being one-on-one with the goalie) just took a turn towards the corner spot. I had to then explain that that was the ME's way of telling me that the striker was unsure of whether to shoot or not.

Now, after the patch, the superkeeper issue shows up. I have no idea if it's GFX or ME related, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

I could live with the game as it is now, because I hace some background in the game and can try and find workarounds. However what are new players to do? They'll think that this is the way the game should be and will carry on with 1 goal/10 cccs, only to become frustrated and drop the game.

Now, after the patch, the superkeeper issue shows up. I have no idea if it's GFX or ME related, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

There isn't Superkeepers. The exact reason for it seeming like "Superkeepers" has been explained many times already and is to do with 1 particular type of chance being created.

There isn't Superkeepers. The exact reason for it seeming like "Superkeepers" has been explained many times already and is to do with 1 particular type of chance being created.

Beg to differ, just had a game I tied with Fulham had 6 CCCs that were not one on ones with no angle and they had two shots, finished 1-1

Can i just say that i am in no way claiming there are "Super Keepers" or "AI Cheating" or anything of the like.

My claim is that because of poor graphical representation or lack of tactical feedback that these things APPEAR as Super Keepers and AI Cheating, not that that is what is actually going on.

There isn't Superkeepers. The exact reason for it seeming like "Superkeepers" has been explained many times already and is to do with 1 particular type of chance being created.

You're right, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it does look like there is this issue. And that's where the frustration comes from. As I said: it may be a goose, but it certainly looks like a duck...

I'll try to reply in a constructive manner, but I should say that am not 100% sure what this thread is trying to achieve. If I sound negative, I apologise up front, because I’m not trying to dismiss this right out of the traps.

BUT… it is often the case that no amount of explanations or tips or acknowledgment of a problem ever stops you trying to make everyone believe you are right and SI are wrong/lying/incompetent. So if people don’t give you a fair crack here, it’s unfortunate.

However, if you are seriously trying to raise a sensible issue, that’s great.

So what IS this trying to achieve, though? At first glance it seems to be more proof that the ME is not 100% perfect. Or that it doesn't represent real life with intricate precision. We all know that, and SI don't pretend otherwise. You just get a lot of flack because the problems you perceive as massive gamebreakers are not actually as bad as they feel at first (eg, injuries, AI comebacks, etc). Or are you just narked that feedback from your assistant isn’t 100% guaranteed to provide you with success?

Re your example and a couple of known problems:

The long-shot issue was a flaw within the ME, which I don't think SI really denied. It's been fixed in 10.2, but there is now a situation whereby ONE type of shot (ST one-v-one with GK, under pressure or too close to the GK) is hit straight at the keeper, giving the false impression of "superkeepers". But if you take this one, single type of shot out of the equation, keepers are not "super" in any way. It's a flaw, and no amount of tactical tweaks or assman advice will eradicate it. Again, SI have also acknowledged this is an issue will aim to be resolved in 10.3.

In both these examples, they are problems within the ME. Acknowledged mistakes that the assistant probably doesn’t see because they shouldn’t be there.

That’s point #1.

Point #2 very simply is that if you are asking for perfect feedback from your assistant, then I vote no. If you are asking that an assistant says “we need to play deeper and counter-attack” that this will guarantee a win/draw then why play the game? Just write the result you want on a sheet of paper and put it in drawer.

Point #3 is that if you want the assistant to analyse the game better, to give more information regarding what the opponents are doing tactically (eg, “your ass-man believes Chelsea have employed Lampard as a playmaker and all their chances have come through him”) then I applaud this and give it a big thumbs-up. Although you could argue we can see this by watching the game, it would be a neat tool to help add realism and aid less experienced players.

As I said, I don’t want to dismiss this right away, and if they point is #3 here, I’ve probably written a very unnecessarily long reply, but I’d like to clarify what you want to achieve in this thread.

super keepers lol, haven't heard that one for a few years. seems to be fine on my game, but i haven't installed any patches.

Can i just say that i am in no way claiming there are "Super Keepers" or "AI Cheating" or anything of the like.

My claim is that because of poor graphical representation or lack of tactical feedback that these things APPEAR as Super Keepers and AI Cheating, not that that is what is actually going on.

If any mods are reading, please can they heed what Hammer says here and enforce it. I know I mentioned superkeepers in my reply above, but Hammer has opened a thread about graphics/ME tactics.

Folks, let's not let it descend into another "superkeeper" arguement. The explanation/proof/debunking is all over the forums.

So what IS this trying to achieve, though?

This:

As far as i can tell there is little/no way to differentiate between the two

Edit: I'll try and make an example (OTOH)

Let's say you're playing a Sniper-type game. You target a soldier, aim, shoot and see that you made a headshot, yet he is still standing. Is it because my ammo is low-quality and merely pricks him on the forehead, or is it because that shot actually got him in the shoulder, but the developers couldn't figure out in time how to display a curved trajectory? You're left guessing, unless you go and read countless threads on forums you shouldn't have to read unless you're really curious.

As far as i can tell there is little/no way to understand between the two

Are you being serious here Hammer? :confused:

The game gives you plenty of clues and information to look at in order to decide upon your approach, before and during the match. I'm not sure it could give you much more in way of hints without sticking up a big sign during the match saying 'we think you should attack now!'

It's just football. I think that needs stressing to you because you don't seem to realise. All you need to do to on FM is to be able to make basic decisions about when to be more attacking, when to become more defensive and when to hold the middle-ground. You need to be able to make basic decisions about when to go for the second goal and when to settle with what you have and slow the game down, for instance.

I'll say it again, it's just football. Nothing particularly terrible or difficult here. I don't know about you but this kind of thing is what I think about every time I watch a real life match.

Why do you refuse to roleplay as a manager? This is the real issue for me. You refuse to put yourself in the shoes of a real life manager, which for me is the whole point of the game. I've always approached this game trying to put real life ideas into it. That's the whole point of it for me and doing anything else just ruins the illusion. I don't treat it like a game or as something that needs to be beaten, as you seem to. Rather, I attempt to make decisions based on what I think I would do in the same real life situation. This has always worked well, no matter the version, and I cannot see why you refuse to play the game in this way.

Regards,

C.

I'll try to reply in a constructive manner, but I should say that am not 100% sure what this thread is trying to achieve. If I sound negative, I apologise up front, because I’m not trying to dismiss this right out of the traps.

BUT… it is often the case that no amount of explanations or tips or acknowledgment of a problem ever stops you trying to make everyone believe you are right and SI are wrong/lying/incompetent. So if people don’t give you a fair crack here, it’s unfortunate.

However, if you are seriously trying to raise a sensible issue, that’s great.

So what IS this trying to achieve, though? At first glance it seems to be more proof that the ME is not 100% perfect. Or that it doesn't represent real life with intricate precision. We all know that, and SI don't pretend otherwise. You just get a lot of flack because the problems you perceive as massive gamebreakers are not actually as bad as they feel at first (eg, injuries, AI comebacks, etc). Or are you just narked that feedback from your assistant isn’t 100% guaranteed to provide you with success?

Re your example and a couple of known problems:

The long-shot issue was a flaw within the ME, which I don't think SI really denied. It's been fixed in 10.2, but there is now a situation whereby ONE type of shot (ST one-v-one with GK, under pressure or too close to the GK) is hit straight at the keeper, giving the false impression of "superkeepers". But if you take this one, single type of shot out of the equation, keepers are not "super" in any way. It's a flaw, and no amount of tactical tweaks or assman advice will eradicate it. Again, SI have also acknowledged this is an issue will aim to be resolved in 10.3.

In both these examples, they are problems within the ME. Acknowledged mistakes that the assistant probably doesn’t see because they shouldn’t be there.

That’s point #1.

Point #2 very simply is that if you are asking for perfect feedback from your assistant, then I vote no. If you are asking that an assistant says “we need to play deeper and counter-attack” that this will guarantee a win/draw then why play the game? Just write the result you want on a sheet of paper and put it in drawer.

Point #3 is that if you want the assistant to analyse the game better, to give more information regarding what the opponents are doing tactically (eg, “your ass-man believes Chelsea have employed Lampard as a playmaker and all their chances have come through him”) then I applaud this and give it a big thumbs-up. Although you could argue we can see this by watching the game, it would be a neat tool to help add realism and aid less experienced players.

As I said, I don’t want to dismiss this right away, and if they point is #3 here, I’ve probably written a very unnecessarily long reply, but I’d like to clarify what you want to achieve in this thread.

The bottom line mate is that our tactics live or die by what we witness via the ME.

I'm sure there are many people who understand how witnessed scenarios via the ME impacts their tactical choices, but there are still many who cannot.

I'm not going to make up any percentages because i dont know what they are, i'd say it was a close split but it would simply be a guess.

Now, i'll try to explain if i can.

Lets say that 50% of the game was about tactics and the other 50% was about representing those tactics via the ME PLUS the tactical feedback we receive.

Now if you imagine that the 50% part of the game that was based simply on tactics was about 47% well represented, then the 50% part of the game that was about representing those tactics via the ME plus the tactical feedback we receive would only be around 20% well represented, i hope you can understand what i'm trying to say, it sounds simple to me but then i am a little strange.

I just want to get this out in the open once and for all but without all the usual abuse and pointless arguing that always goes with it.

Are you being serious here Hammer? :confused:

The game gives you plenty of clues and information to look at in order to decide upon your approach, before and during the match. I'm not sure it could give you much more in way of hints without sticking up a big sign during the match saying 'we think you should attack now!'

It's just football. I think that needs stressing to you because you don't seem to realise. All you need to do to on FM is to be able to make basic decisions about when to be more attacking, when to become more defensive and when to hold the middle-ground. You need to be able to make basic decisions about when to go for the second goal and when to settle with what you have and slow the game down, for instance.

I'll say it again, it's just football. Nothing particularly terrible or difficult here. I don't know about you but this kind of thing is what I think about every time I watch a real life match.

Why do you refuse to roleplay as a manager? This is the real issue for me. You refuse to put yourself in the shoes of a real life manager, which for me is the whole point of the game. I've always approached this game trying to put real life ideas into it. That's the whole point of it for me and doing anything else just ruins the illusion. I don't treat it like a game or as something that needs to be beaten, as you seem to. Rather, I attempt to make decisions based on what I think I would do in the same real life situation. This has always worked well, no matter the version, and I cannot see why you refuse to play the game in this way.

Regards,

C.

Crouchy, i mean this with no ill will or patronizing at all mate, but you are clearly missing the point.

If your next post is "well what is the point?" please feel free to read the thread again until it makes sense.

Thanks

Crouchy, i mean this with no ill will or patronizing at all mate, but you are clearly missing the point.

If your next post is "well what is the point?" please feel free to read the thread again until it makes sense.

Thanks

I don't feel that I am missing the point at all. I am countering it by saying that the game gives you plenty of clues as to where you are going wrong. It is up to you as the manager to make some decisions based on what you see, the statistics available, the assistant manager feedback and so on and so forth.

In the opening post, you mention an issue with conceding from long range shots (i.e. that too many of these long range shots are on target and often resulting in goals). It seems to me that you have correctly identified a tactical issue there. As you suggest, you might want to counter this by putting more pressure on the opposition by pushing higher up and closing down certain individuals more often. The conclusion you have reached seems to indicate that the game is doing a pretty good job of representing the issue here. The potential tactical issue you have successfully identified is that you need to think about making tactical changes to either reduce the space available or more effectively neutralise those who are having long range efforts. Spot on Hammer. Have a gold star.

To give a general answer to your overall point, I think that there needs to be ambiguity in the game just as there is ambiguity in real life. For instance, your long shots issue may also be down to motivational or morale issues. Are the opposition having the game of their life and/or are your players not motivated or lacking in confidence? There are lots of other potential issues.

Your job as manager is to look at a situation like this and think about why it is happening. First of all, you might like to make tactical changes, as you identified, but you also might like to check on motivation feedback and think about making a sub as well.

My answer to this question is that I find the feedback to be perfectly adequate and I am pretty much always able to reach some kind of conclusion about what went wrong and what went right from the information presented to me by the game, whether it be tactical, motivational or just that my team weren't good enough.

Regards,

C.

I don't feel that I am missing the point at all. I am countering it by saying that the game gives you plenty of clues as to where you are going wrong. It is up to you as the manager to make some decisions based on what you see, the statistics available, the assistant manager feedback and so on and so forth.

In the opening post, you mention an issue with conceding from long range shots (i.e. that too many of these long range shots are on target and often resulting in goals). It seems to me that you have correctly identified a tactical issue there. As you suggest, you might want to counter this by putting more pressure on the opposition by pushing higher up and closing down certain individuals more often. The conclusion you have reached seems to indicate that the game is doing a pretty good job of representing the issue here. The potential tactical issue you have successfully identified is that you need to think about making tactical changes to either reduce the space available or more effectively neutralise those who are having long range efforts. Spot on Hammer. Have a gold star.

Actually if i was watching a RL game i would be saying things like "great, let em shoot from there all day" as opposed to watching the opposition getting behind the defence and creating more dangerous efforts.

In fact every football fan i know would be saying/thinking the same thing, even the Ass Man mentions it, he will say something like "we are defending well, only allowing the opposition speculative efforts from distance" so as far as i'm concerned this only backs up my argument rather than taking anything away from it.

Thanks

To give a general answer to your overall point, I think that there needs to be ambiguity in the game just as there is ambiguity in real life. For instance, your long shots issue may also be down to motivational or morale issues. Are the opposition having the game of their life and/or are your players not motivated or lacking in confidence? There are lots of other potential issues.

Your job as manager is to look at a situation like this and think about why it is happening. First of all, you might like to make tactical changes, as you identified, but you also might like to check on motivation feedback and think about making a sub as well.

My answer to this question is that I find the feedback to be perfectly adequate and I am pretty much always able to reach some kind of conclusion about what went wrong and what went right from the information presented to me by the game, whether it be tactical, motivational or just that my team weren't good enough.

Regards,

C.

Crouchy, we both know that if i showed you a thousand PKM's all proving that i was playing with a well gelled, motivated, confident squad, you would still be as equally unconvinced, because you have clearly made your mind up on the subject and that would never falter.

Crouchy, we both know that if i showed you a thousand PKM's all proving that i was playing with a well gelled, motivated, confident squad, you would still be as equally unconvinced, because you have clearly made your mind up on the subject and that would never falter.

Not true. I am very open-minded but I just don't see what you are trying to argue. As I said above, I am pretty much always able to reach some kind of conclusion about what went wrong and what went right for my team during a game from the information presented to me, whether it be a tactical issue, a motivational one, or just that my team weren't good enough.

Upload a PKM. I think that's a terrific suggestion actually. It's the only way that the conversation can progress really.

We need a specific example to discuss, otherwise it just becomes your subjective opinion versus mine. I can't be bothered to play that game. If we have a PKM, we can at least analyse it and it can form the basis of a discussion regarding the feedback that the game gives you.

Regards,

C.

Not true. I am very open-minded but I just don't see what you are trying to argue.

Upload a PKM. I think that's a terrific suggestion actually. It's the only way that the conversation can progress really.

We need a specific example to discuss, otherwise it just becomes your subjective opinion versus mine. I can't be bothered to play that game. If we have a PKM, we can at least analyse it and it can form the basis of a discussion regarding the feedback that the game gives you.

Regards,

C.

Not that it matters, but as i have posted in another topic, my PC has died on me and everything i had on it is lost. I am currently using my GF's laptop on which i do not have FM installed.

There is enough evidence throughout the Forums to suggest that what i have posted is a big problem for a large % of FM'ers, i'd love to hear some feedback from SI suggesting that they accept there are very real issues here, although it is not the same for the whole community.

I'm sorry to hear about your PC but why not install FM on your other laptop and then play some matches and upload a few PKMs?

Evidence would suggest that there are many people without any such problems. Check the LLM forums, the Challenges, Signups & Experiments forum, challenges like Dafuge's challenge, the Career forum etc. Then try FM Britain, the Dugout and other fansites. Plenty of people are really enjoying this game and they appear to be able to make tactical decisions based on what they see and end up being very successful indeed.

Regards,

C.

Out of interest Hammer, have you read the T&T'09 e-book on the tactics forum. There are some good hints and tips there for reading the match engine (something which you say you struggle with) and also for looking at the clues in the game and making tactical decisions based on what you see. In fact, there is a whole chapter dedicated to making tactical decisions and trying to work out what is going wrong. It is based on real life football as well, so I think you'd find it interesting.

C.

Out of interest Hammer, have you read the T&T'09 e-book on the tactics forum. There are some good hints and tips there for reading the match engine (something which you say you struggle with) and also for looking at the clues in the game and making tactical decisions based on what you see. In fact, there is a whole chapter dedicated to making tactical decisions and trying to work out what is going wrong. It is based on real life football as well, so I think you'd find it interesting.

C.

I did mate although it was some time ago.

I dont wish to rant but i do find it absolutely ridiculous that such a thing as TT&F needs to exist to play what is primarily a "GAME".

Not only that but i see little correlation between RL football and that which is played in FM, again no intention to rant, but FM is based almost purely on tactics now, whereas in RL although important there are many other parts of the game just as important.

Anyway, thats a whole other issue.

I dont wish to rant but i do find it absolutely ridiculous that such a thing as TT&F needs to exist to play what is primarily a "GAME".

T&T '10 is basically a football document. It's all about football and not 'gamey' at all.

I would make a comparison between T&T '10 and all of the real life football theory books available out there.

T&T '10 doesn't need to exist but it is very helpful to those who struggle to understand some of the theoretical side of the game of football. Or perhaps those who aren't as familiar with the tactical aspects of the game as they thought they were. Maybe it's your equivalent of a real life football coaching badge.

Not only that but i see little correlation between RL football and that which is played in FM,

It's your opinion, which is fine, but I totally disagree.

I don't think we'll get anywhere by going down this route again. The simple answer is, if you don't like it, don't buy it or play it.

again no intention to rant, but FM is based almost purely on tactics now, whereas in RL although important there are many other parts of the game just as important.

I don't think this is true at all. The game reflects all kinds of aspects of real life football, such as motivation, morale, player consistency, form, weather conditions, pitch size, player personalities, player abilities and just plain old luck.

It's true that if you make poor tactical decisions, you will struggle, and that if you do make the same mistakes over and over again, you will have a difficult time on Football Manager. You have shown this pretty well over many of your threads.

I think we've concluded this time and time again but what we can say is that (in real life and in FM):

- Player quality is important.

- Tactics are also important.

- Issues of motivation and morale are also important.

It's been proved time and time again and it is what is argued by the top coaches and people involved in the game.

How is FM10 any different to real life really?

Good players + good tactics + good morale = success.

Good players + bad tactics + bad morale = underachieving.

Bad players + good tactics + good morale = overachieving.

Anyway, these kind of threads never get anywhere and I don't really have time to go over the same old points. I'm enjoying FM10 too much to spend my time involved in a never-ending subjective argument.

If you want to upload some PKMs sometime and have a real discussion with real proof and evidence, then I'm totally up for that. Otherwise, subjective anecdotes, opinions and rants are just not my cup of tea.

Regards,

C.

Out of interest Hammer, have you read the T&T'09 e-book on the tactics forum. There are some good hints and tips there for reading the match engine (something which you say you struggle with) and also for looking at the clues in the game and making tactical decisions based on what you see. In fact, there is a whole chapter dedicated to making tactical decisions and trying to work out what is going wrong. It is based on real life football as well, so I think you'd find it interesting.

C.

Read it and I'm being subscribed to those sites (and I strongly advise any newbie reading this thread to read and listen to the podcasts from the sites mentioned above... especially the podcasts, they stick with you longer). One of my points of discontent is that FM shouldn't be like a recipe book (read the TT enough times and you'll make a perfect souflée). Even more so when thinking from the point of view of the newcomer. I'm well and fine, after a few years of CM/FM to be able to figure out what's what and how to work around limitations, but a newbie won't even know there is a problem (not to speak of the Tactics Bible and the Tactics and Training section of the forum)... what's he going to think? "Is this football or archery... 'cuz my marksmanship seems pretty good"

And yes, in the lines above I made reference to the "keeper" issue, but that's just an example. Given version 10.1 what would make a new player not buy players only from lists that have an obligatory "Long Shots 18"? Or given 10.2 buy keepers only with "One on One's 17" (I know it's not the deciding factor, but it would look like this to the untrained eye). These are bugs that change the course of a career and people are impatient, especially when they're not winning. Sure, there are those of us who've been through the FM motions, but we're not the only ones playing it.

T&T '10 is basically a football document. It's all about football and not 'gamey' at all.

I would make a comparison between T&T '10 and all of the real life football theory books available out there.

T&T '10 doesn't need to exist but it is very helpful to those who struggle to understand some of the theoretical side of the game of football. Or perhaps those who aren't as familiar with the tactical aspects of the game as they thought they were. Maybe it's your equivalent of a real life football coaching badge.

It's your opinion, which is fine, but I totally disagree.

I don't think we'll get anywhere by going down this route again. The simple answer is, if you don't like it, don't buy it or play it.

I don't think this is true at all. The game reflects all kinds of aspects of real life football, such as motivation, morale, player consistency, form, weather conditions, pitch size, player personalities, player abilities and just plain old luck.

It's true that if you make poor tactical decisions, you will struggle, and that if you do make the same mistakes over and over again, you will have a difficult time on Football Manager. You have shown this pretty well over many of your threads.

I think we've concluded this time and time again but what we can say is that (in real life and in FM):

- Player quality is important.

- Tactics are also important.

- Issues of motivation and morale are also important.

It's been proved time and time again and it is what is argued by the top coaches and people involved in the game.

How is FM10 any different to real life really?

Good players + good tactics + good morale = success.

Good players + bad tactics + bad morale = underachieving.

Bad players + good tactics + good morale = overachieving.

Anyway, these kind of threads never get anywhere and I don't really have time to go over the same old points. I'm enjoying FM10 too much to spend my time involved in a never-ending subjective argument.

If you want to upload some PKMs sometime and have a real discussion with real proof and evidence, then I'm totally up for that. Otherwise, subjective anecdotes, opinions and rants are just not my cup of tea.

Regards,

C.

All i will say is that this earlier post of mine explains perfectly why FM and RL Football are eons apart.

Actually if i was watching a RL game i would be saying things like "great, let em shoot from there all day" as opposed to watching the opposition getting behind the defence and creating more dangerous efforts.

In fact every football fan i know would be saying/thinking the same thing, even the Ass Man mentions it, he will say something like "we are defending well, only allowing the opposition speculative efforts from distance" so as far as i'm concerned this only backs up my argument rather than taking anything away from it.

Thanks

The bottom line mate is that our tactics live or die by what we witness via the ME.

I'm sure there are many people who understand how witnessed scenarios via the ME impacts their tactical choices, but there are still many who cannot.

I'm not going to make up any percentages because i dont know what they are, i'd say it was a close split but it would simply be a guess.

Now, i'll try to explain if i can.

Lets say that 50% of the game was about tactics and the other 50% was about representing those tactics via the ME PLUS the tactical feedback we receive.

Now if you imagine that the 50% part of the game that was based simply on tactics was about 47% well represented, then the 50% part of the game that was about representing those tactics via the ME plus the tactical feedback we receive would only be around 20% well represented, i hope you can understand what i'm trying to say, it sounds simple to me but then i am a little strange.

I just want to get this out in the open once and for all but without all the usual abuse and pointless arguing that always goes with it.

Thanks for the reply, Hammer. Perhaps it's me that's strange, but it sounds like you are suggesting that what you see in the 3D graphics isn't quite what has happened "under the bonnet", so to speak. That our tactical settings are not represented on screen?

Well-known bugs notwithstanding I've only ever noticed tiny issues with this, such as keepers appearing to teleport maybe one in a thousand games (not an accurate statistic, just a turn of phrase) or a defender making an impossible tackle from behind. Minor glitches.

If I tell my players to retain possession they do their damndest to do so; if I tell them to work the ball into the box, I see them passing it around until they get forward and then try to slip it in there; if I say get the ball forward, the ball goes forward; if I tell a player to defend he makes fewer forward runs and plays less risky balls.

If you are suggesting this doesn't happen, I'll just respectfully bow out now. I think you are wrong in essence, but I'm sure you or I could easily go into full detail and find examples of this not happening. It probably does. Just not often enough to bother me.

If you are suggesting we have to use unrealistic tactics to win games, then I'll also bow out. I'm in agreement. I know I shouldn't HAVE to tell a right-footed player on the left wing to "cut inside", but I accept that I do have to on FM. I also accept FM for what it is - a computer game. And that SI work hard to make it better, and with the exception of a couple of patches in FM09, I think it is continually made better with each patch/year.

But that's opinion. I don't get into the minutae of the ME and have had a lot of success in FM10 with Leeds, Newcastle and the empirical Man City. My Man City save is getting a little dull so I'm about to shoot off to Spain or Italy as soon as a job comes up, and will probably do okay there too.

FM is based almost purely on tactics now, whereas in RL although important there are many other parts of the game just as important.

Should say, I'm in near-complete agreement here. There is more reliance on spoon-feeding your players tactics than in real life. I know a world class team, 1-0 up with 10 mins to go against a similar or better team will simply know to go ultra defensive and only hit on the break. But then if a gamer wants to go all out attack in the last few minutes, he's going to get annoyed that his players automatically defend.

My biggest gripe with tactics and the ME is the effect of press conferences and team talks. Get that wrong and you are screwed.

If you are suggesting we have to use unrealistic tactics to win games, then I'll also bow out. I'm in agreement. I know I shouldn't HAVE to tell a right-footed player on the left wing to "cut inside", but I accept that I do have to on FM.

You definitely don't have to do this.

I've used the normal 'wide play' option with a player on the opposite flank to his preferred foot and he naturally cuts inside.

I've even got a fullback playing on the left who is right footed, and is playing on a 'wingback' role, who has scored a couple of cracking goals by cutting inside to shoot on his preferred foot.

So you definitely don't have to tell a player to cut inside. It's a useful instruction to use if that's what you want him to try to do most often but he will do it anyway as a result of his preferred footedness.

Just thought I would let you know.

C.

Should say, I'm in near-complete agreement here. There is more reliance on spoon-feeding your players tactics than in real life. I know a world class team, 1-0 up with 10 mins to go against a similar or better team will simply know to go ultra defensive and only hit on the break. But then if a gamer wants to go all out attack in the last few minutes, he's going to get annoyed that his players automatically defend.

It wouldn't be much of a game if the players on the pitch made decisions like that automatically, would it.

My biggest gripe with tactics and the ME is the effect of press conferences and team talks. Get that wrong and you are screwed.

I think this is a bit of a myth, as per Paul C's recent comments that in every PKM he has been presented by a user who felt that their team talk or press conference had had an unrealistically significant effect, it actually turned out that this was only a small factor in contributing to the overall performance and result.

C.