+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 148

Thread: New tactics creator ideas and suggestions

  1. #1
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default New tactics creator ideas and suggestions

    I’ve been playing FM series since 2005 and for a long time thought it was the best football videogame. But I was disappointed for a couple of years by lack of progress in ME and TC development. I’m glad that SI team is working hard behind scenes on ME development. And I hope that they also work on a new tactics creator. The problem with current TC is that it has a lot of limitations and we can’t tweak our tactics in such ways like RL managers do. There are a lot of simplifications in current TC. For example a lot of teams play different formations when they attack and when defend. Simplifying it to one formation creates some limitations. And the problem with ME is that it is very difficult to program AI what to do in every certain situation in every part of the field. At the same time we can’t tell our players what to do in every situation like RL managers do. So, may be giving us more options in TC can solve both these problems. I’d like to share some of my ideas about new TC with you and I hope that you’ll add some your ideas.

    First of all, I think that there must be an option to use two different formations while attacking and while defending. Furthermore, there must be an option to alter your formation depending on where the ball is. So, theoretically there can be six different variations of the tactic: when the team is attacking and the ball is near our penalty area, in the middle of the pitch, near the opposition penalty area, and when the team is defending and the ball is near our penalty area, in the middle of the pitch, near the opposition penalty area. And of course there must be an option to precisely tweak every player position in all these six situations. In FM we can just choose where the player will play what role and duty. We can alter his precise position a bit with mentality and width sliders but there are huge limitations. The problem is we can’t foresee exactly where the player will play if his mentality is 1, 3, 5, 7 clicks… We have to experiment a lot and only then we could anticipate how his mentality affects his position. But it is ridiculous. IRL manager just tells the player where exactly to play or points his place on the scheme, he doesn’t guess where the player will play. So, I’d like an option freely move the player on the pitch. As shown in figure 1, central defender can be positioned anywhere inside highlighted area.


    Figure 1. Central defender in attacking formation when the ball is near our penalty area.

    If I want my player to play outside this area, I have to change his position. As shown in figure 2 when the team attacks and the ball is near the opposition penalty area I can’t move my player further than shown in 2.b. So, I have to change his position to defensive midfielder in order to move him up the pitch, as shown in figure 2.d.


    Figure 2. Central defender is advancing to defensive midfielder while attacking when the ball is near the opposition penalty area.

    The same refers to a defensive formation. If I want my midfielders or strikers to drop deeper when defending, I have to change their positions. As shown in figure 3, I can’t move my MR deeper while team is defending and the ball is near our penalty area. So, I have to change his position to DR, as shown in figure 3.d.


    Figure 3. MR drops to DR while the team is defending and the ball is near our penalty area.

    Now I’d like to show you, how it can work with current TC team instructions. TC will automatically move players depending on team instructions. Figure 4.a shows deep defensive line. Figure 4.b shows high defensive line. And of course we can make any changes to this formation. For example, I want one of my DCs drop to SW position when the team attacks near the opposition penalty area, as shown in figure 4.c.


    Figure 4. Defensive line: a) deep; b) high; c) custom.


  2. #2
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    The same refers to other team instructions. Let’s take width for example. Figure 5.a shows narrow playing style, 5.b – wide. But sometimes it is necessary to change width of certain line of the team. For example I want my team to play wide but my strikers to play more narrowly. So, I just move my strikers as shown in figure 5.c.


    Figure 5. Width: a) wide; b) narrow; c) custom.

    Summing up, let’s see how we can use these ideas to implement the tactic some Spanish teams play – DM dropping behind two DCs, who play wider, when the team is attacking near the opposition penalty area. It is shown in figure 6. As you see in 6.c, DR and DL advance to RWB and LWB and DCs move wider while DM drops to SW position.


    Figure 6. DM drops behind DCs when the team is attacking near the opposition penalty area.

    I suggest almost no changes to team instructions – only an option to set different attacking and defending formations and instructions for three areas where the ball is. But I suggest crucial changes to the player individual instructions. First of all I suggest dividing attacking and defensive instructions to different screens since we’ll have attacking and defensive formation. Overall view of personal attacking instructions is shown in figure 7.


    Figure 7. Player attacking instructions screen.

    As you see, we can still change player’s position, role and duty. It’ll change his instructions but we can manually tweak them as we wish. And we can set different instructions, different positions, roles and duties depending on three areas where the ball is – near our penalty area, in the middle of the pitch and near the opposition penalty area. Every single instruction has its own tempo. It doesn’t correlate with team tempo instruction. Team tempo instruction defines how fast the tam will try to get to the goal (in how many passes or other movements), while individual tempo defines how fast the player will perform certain action – for example one touch pass, or he will hold up the ball look for his mates and only then pass. It can help, for example, to vary the tempo while attacking – playing slowly when starting to build the attack near own penalty area and faster when finishing it near the opposition penalty area.

    You have noticed that there is no mentality slider. Mentality defines player’s position on the pitch and his passing direction. Since I suggest setting both these instructions separately there is no need in this slider no longer.

    You can also see that near Swap position instruction there is a box Swap instructions. If you tick it, the player will swap his position and instructions with his team mate. If you decide to untick it, the player will swap only his position but will implement his initial instructions, keeping as possible his role and duty – it is best if you want your players just to swap their places on the pitch. You can also tick New instructions box – in this case you’ll create a new set of instructions, set new role and duty which the player will implement when he swaps with his team mate.

    Let’s take a closer look at every instruction. Such instructions as Run with the ball and Passing can have up to three different variations in priority order. Each variation has its own tempo and frequency instructions. Run with the ball instructions are shown in figure 8.


    Figure 8. Run with the ball instructions.

    A player has such Run with the ball options:
    cut inside – he’ll run through the center;
    move into channels – he’ll try to run through the gaps between the opposition defenders;
    hug touchline – he’ll run down the flank;
    specific – you can manually set his run destination.

    Every option is displayed on the pitch panel with a yellow arrow.

    Frequency defines how often and when the player will implement certain instruction. He can try it only when he is sure that he’ll succeed; sometimes; and anytime. Tempo defines how fast the player will do his run, it varies from Hold up the ball (the player will run slowly, stopping sometimes) to Sprint (the player will run as fast as possible).

    As you see player is instructed to run with the ball rarely, but if he decides to run he‘ll have two options – cut inside which he will try only if he is sure he’ll succeed, and specific run destination which was set manually and which he’ll try anytime.

  3. #3
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Passing instructions are shown in figure 9.


    Figure 9. Passing instructions.

    Every passing option is displayed on the pitch with a green arrow. You can also see orange arrows – they show other players runs without the ball, so you can see where it is better to tell the player to pass. Frequency and tempo instructions are similar to those we’ve already seen. In this case Tempo means how fast the player will try to give the pass. It varies from Hold up the ball (the player will stop the ball, hold it up for a moment and then pass) to One touch (the player will make the pass without stopping the ball).

    As you see, there are such passing types: short; medium; long; float cross; drill cross; through ball.


    Figure 10. Passing directions.

    As shown in figure 10, there are eight possible passing directions: forward; sideways; left; right; back; specific; specific player; specific position. If you choose specific direction you can manually set the pass destination pointing it on the pitch image, as shown in figure 11. Specific player direction will instruct the player to pass the ball to a certain player, no matter what position he plays. The same refers to specific position – the player will pass the ball to the player who plays certain position, no matter who plays there. These two instructions will be useful if you have some players swapping their positions and you wish to specify whether the player should make a pass to a certain position or a certain player.



    Figure 11. Specific passing direction.

    Shooting instruction allows to define the distance from which the player is allowed to shoot. It can vary from short to long. You can also define manually specific area in which the player will attempt to shoot by drawing the square on the pitch image, as shown in figure 12. Tempo instruction works the same way as with Passing, varying from Hold up the ball to One touch.



    Figure 12. Specific shooting area.


  4. #4
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Under heavy pressure instruction defines what the player will do when the opposition is pressing him heavily. All available options are shown in figure 13.



    Figure 13. Under heavy pressure options.


    Dribble – the player will try to dribble past his opponents;
    Pass to the nearest team mate – the player will try to pass the ball to the nearest available team mate;
    long ball forward – the player will launch the ball forward even if there are no his team mates;
    pass back – the player will pass the ball back to defenders or keeper;
    clear the ball – will be suitable for goalkeeper or the last defender.

    Without the ball instructions define what actions the player will perform when his team is attacking but he doesn’t have the ball. As you can see in figure 14, in this case all other players passing instructions are shown on the pitch image as green arrows, so it is easier to make a decision and set player’s instructions.



    Figure 14. Without the ball options.


    Usually the player will stick to his position, but you can tell him to do something else. In this case you can set how often he will do it – rarely, sometimes or often. You can tell the player to shake off the player who is marking him. It will require a lot of movement and will depend on his Off the ball skill. Come closer to the player with the ball option will be the most suitable for a playmaker. Roam from the position will instruct the player to find his place on the pitch himself, as it works in current TC. Stick to the position will tell the player to play exactly there, where you placed him on the pitch. If you choose run down the flank, run through the middle or run into channels, these options will be shown on the pitch with orange arrows. You can see it in figure 15.


    Figure 15. Move into channels instruction.


    If you choose Specific option, you can manually point on the pitch where the player should run without the ball, as shown in figure 16.



    Figure 16. Specific without the ball instruction.


  5. #5
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Now let’s take a look at individual defending instructions screen. It is shown in figure 17.


    Figure 17. Player defending instructions screen.


    As you see, there are not so many changes but may be you can suggest more… There is one important addition – Covered by instruction. It defines who will cover the player while defending if he is out of his position (injured, closing down the opposition, roamed far away). You can choose specific player or specific position there. The difference is the same as in passing direction instruction.

    Note, that there are two sliders for Tackling. The first one defines how often the player will dive into tackle. The second one defines how aggressively he will tackle. I think it is very important to separate these two instructions as it gives us more tactical options. For example in later stages of the match it is useful to make numerous but insignificant, so called “tactical”, fouls. We can easily instruct our players to do so by setting the tackling to often and aggressiveness to low. Of course it will depend on every player’s Aggressiveness and Dirtiness attributes.

    As you see, there are some changes to Closing down instruction. You can set the closing down intensity. It defines how fast the player will close down his opponent and how close to him he’ll try to stand. You can also specific the area in which the player will start closing down his opponent. It is shown as a red square in figure 18. You can freely change its dimensions.


    Figure 18. Specific closing down area.


    One small addition should be made to overall team instructions. I’d like to choose how many players can close down the opposition together at the same time. If an opposition player appears in closing down area of more than one player, it can be useful to close him down together. But it can disrupt our formation, so this option should be set separately to every area of the pitch.

    Few words about set pieces. I think, free kicks and throw-ins should also be set individually for all three areas of the pitch. In current TC set piece instructions define only set pieces when the ball is near the opposition penalty area. In other areas of the pitch players act at will. I think it is not right, because it is very important carefully set instructions for set pieces near own penalty area and in the middle of the pitch. I also think that there must be up to three variations of every set piece which also should be learnt by the team as three different tactics since FM 2011. The more they are learnt the more successful they should be in the match. So, I’d like to see set piece preparation similar to match preparation.

    It would be very important option to create our own role and duty presets. If we change current presets significantly shouts won’t work because individual instructions are prior to shouts. But creating own presets based on existing roles and duties can solve this problem. For example I wish to create a trequartista who plays no through balls, or inside forward who makes only short passes.

    It may seem a bit complicated for some new FM players, but it’s not. For those, who use TC only for choosing formation, players roles and duties nothing will really change, as there are almost no changes in team instructions. But for those, who like manually tweaking tactics it will give far more options making tactics creating process more interesting and realistic. Thank you for reading such a big post. I’d like to see your ideas and comments. And of course I hope that SI will borrow some of these ideas.)


    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________





    Well, I believe neither SI nor users are ready to such radical changes as I wrote in opening posts. But I think it's possible to make TC more realistic without such dramatical changes. Maybe returning to wibble wobble isn't really as good and realistic idea as I thought. I don't know how it works in ME but I feel that even allowing to choose separate attacking and defensive formations requires so significant ME recoding that we'll never see this in FM again. In this case tricks like DM dropping to SW position or DC advancing to ST should be made via team PPMs, as they can't be done with any instruction in current TC. I'm sure that TC should evolve the same way it did in 2009 - more realistic instructions and less unclear and unobvious sliders. I won't use any images this time because all my suggestions are pretty simple.

    Team instructions.

    I have only two additions here:

    1. Among Philosophy and Strategy instructions I'd like to see something like Playing model - a combo box with such variants as British, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, Brazilian, Argentinian. And this choice should define not only different sliders values as it works with Philosophy and Strategy, but also different AI models. I don't know what variables in ME are responsible for that but there should be some specific AI tendencies different for every playing model which can't be set only with sliders and instructions. And of course it should affect player roles instructions. For example, wide midfielders in british football and in spanish are different players. British one prefers more run with the ball, direct passing, more crossing, less through balls, while spanish - less run with the ball, short passes, less crosses, more through balls. In current TC if you wish to recreate some specific playing styles, you need manually tweak some individual instructions thus making some shouts useless because they are overridden with individual instructions. With Playing model will have to make less manual tweaks, it'll be easier just to choose playing style you want your team to play and some player roles will be specific for that playing style.

    2. Team PPMs. I suggest to separate attacking and defensive moves. There are already some team PPMs in current TC - counter-attacks, use a playmaker, use a TM , move through the centre, move down the flanks (attacking), Ofside trap, Tight marking (defensive). Since we can't use different attacking/defensive formations it'll be useful to make such attacking PPMs as DM dropping deep and Overlapping defender enabling us to choose, which DM will drop to SW, and which DC will advance to attack. Maybe there are some more such tricks but as far as I know only two these can't be fully replicated in current TC. And also there should be some PPMs more specificly describing some playing combinations which cannot be set via instructions. For example, fake runs, triangle passing, square passing, one-twos, one-touch passes, one-touch shots and others. Even if they repeat some instructions, overall effect should be strengthened. It will be good to link some playing models with specific PPMs. For example, spanish playing style includes such PPMs as using playmaker, move through the centre, one-twos, one-touch passes, fake runs. Adapting PPMs should take some time and it'll be good to make different adaptation levels. It would be brilliant to see oppositions team PPMs in scout reports about next opponent. I think playing model and favorite PPMs should also be displayed in a manager's profile. And every team should have traditional formations, playing styles and PPMs which will affect on future manager choosing.

    Individual instructions

    I'd like to see as few unclear sliders here as possible. Without making players robotic but making instructions more flexible I think following is possible:

    1. Player positioning. We can adjust player position with mentality and width sliders but it's too complicated. I think it's better just dragging him on the pitch image and dropping where you want him to play.

    2. I'd substitute mentality slider with riskiness slider or something like this, which will define only how risky the player plays.

    3. As we have Run from deep slider it'll be good to add Run back slider, which will define how much and how often the player will try to help his team in defense.

    4. Separate Wide play sliders for the situations when the player has the ball and when he runs without the ball. I still don't know in which case this instruction works now, so it's better to make it clear and more flexible.

    5. If the AI is not improved dramatically I still think Under heavy pressure option is needed. I'm absolutely sure IRL managers give their players such instructions if needed so it's quite realistic. Possible options - clear the ball, short pass, long ball forward, dribble. Maybe it can be done in a postmatch private chat with a player.

    6. If someday the AI understands that there is no sense crossing to a low player or play through ball to a slow player there will be no need in this instruction, but till then I think it's needed - Player supply. To feet, to head, run onto ball.

    7. Swap instructions box and New instruction option for Swap position instruction. It's described in my opening post.

    8. Tackling frequency and aggressiveness separate sliders. Also described in OP.

    9. Covered by combo box. Described in OP.

    10. More player PPMs. I think Plays one-touch passes and Tries one-touch shots are needed.

    11 False nine and False ten player roles.
    Last edited by Exius; 10-12-2011 at 12:56. Reason: Added another less radical suggestions

  6. #6
    Amateur
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Posts
    123

    Default

    This would be good idea because you could actually have the flexibility to create real liberos or enable your DM to cover for attacking fullbacks. The current system is okay but ultimately too rigid and simplistic.

    hopefully SI take something like this into account when working on the new engine

  7. #7
    Amateur
    Join Date
    1st November 2008
    Posts
    246

    Default

    Setting player positions with and with out the ball was the way it worked back in the CM days and it made it very easy to make tactics that exploited the ME.

    I agree that currently some formations cant be accurately recreated because players operate in two different positions when attacking and defending. I don't think the ME can cope with the formation that England used during Euro 96 where when attacking one of the CBs moved up into a DM position and the FBs moved inside to become part of a back three.

    Your "swap instructions" button is a fantastic idea and I'd love to see it in FM13.

  8. #8
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whilewolf View Post
    Setting player positions with and with out the ball was the way it worked back in the CM days and it made it very easy to make tactics that exploited the ME.

    I agree that currently some formations cant be accurately recreated because players operate in two different positions when attacking and defending. I don't think the ME can cope with the formation that England used during Euro 96 where when attacking one of the CBs moved up into a DM position and the FBs moved inside to become part of a back three.

    Your "swap instructions" button is a fantastic idea and I'd love to see it in FM13.
    I think it was a huge step back. The game has to move forward, progress and there can't be such excuses as poor ME. The best way is to improve ME but not limiting and simplifying tactics creator - this is a step back. I hope that SI will finally understand it. They are working on a new ME, so may be at last we'll have a new TC either. I'm sure that a lot of people love this game first of all because it gives them an opportunity to make tactical decisions, create various tactics, experiment with them... And such simplistic TC disappoints me a lot.

  9. #9
    Amateur
    Join Date
    14th November 2008
    Location
    Save football, kill the Premier League.
    Posts
    148

    Default

    The problem was the exploits where not realistic; it may have been a step back in what you could do, but it was a step forward in realism without the over-powered tactics that wouldn't work in real life dominating the game.

    The Tactics system does need an over-haul IMO, but SI need to be very careful about how they go about it.

  10. #10
    Moderator
    Join Date
    2nd November 2009
    Posts
    5,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DMN (YCFC) View Post
    The problem was the exploits where not realistic; it may have been a step back in what you could do, but it was a step forward in realism without the over-powered tactics that wouldn't work in real life dominating the game.

    The Tactics system does need an over-haul IMO, but SI need to be very careful about how they go about it.
    +1, there was little point in maintaining a system that exploited the ME so heavily, and unrealisitically

  11. #11
    Amateur
    Join Date
    23rd November 2011
    Location
    Bahrain
    Posts
    54

    Default

    I was thinking about this for a while now, and i'm very happy to see this thread, well done.

    I have some ideas too, but I need sometime to put them togather, I'll post them here when i'm done, but one of the most important thing I have in mind, is shouts

    as IRL, I could give sideline shouts to a specific player, but not the team.
    I could tell one of my CB's to hassle opponnents, but tell the other to stand-off

    I could ask one of my strikers to play ball in box, but the other one to shoot on sight!
    that's what real football manager do right?

    TC available now is good, but could be much much better.

  12. #12
    First Team Squad Member
    Join Date
    9th November 2010
    Location
    Standing free, wherever i may be
    Posts
    15,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    I think it was a huge step back. The game has to move forward, progress and there can't be such excuses as poor ME. The best way is to improve ME but not limiting and simplifying tactics creator - this is a step back. I hope that SI will finally understand it. They are working on a new ME, so may be at last we'll have a new TC either. I'm sure that a lot of people love this game first of all because it gives them an opportunity to make tactical decisions, create various tactics, experiment with them... And such simplistic TC disappoints me a lot.
    Anything that prevents unrealistic situations coming up the game is a step forward, the way things were before was highly unrealistic, its not perfect now, but the TC was a huge step forward for FM and one of the most important features they have come up with so far in the series.

  13. #13
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by themadsheep2001 View Post
    +1, there was little point in maintaining a system that exploited the ME so heavily, and unrealisitically
    So, it's ME problem, not TC. They need to improve AI on the pitch and tactical AI - and there will be no such unrealistic exploits. Limiting and simplifying TC is the easiest and the worst way. The year is 2011 but not 2001. Look at other football videogames - they have much more complicated AI.

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Join Date
    2nd November 2009
    Posts
    5,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    So, it's ME problem, not TC. They need to improve AI on the pitch and tactical AI - and there will be no such unrealistic exploits. Limiting and simplifying TC is the easiest and the worst way. The year is 2011 but not 2001. Look at other football videogames - they have much more complicated AI.
    Considering the actions of the TC impact on the ME its both. Of course they should be looking to improve the AI and they always are, you talk like it can be done in an instant, when it cant, otherwise we wouldnt even be having this discussion. What other football games have better AI and are comparable to FM?

    There is no point in having such choice (yet) if it leaves the game so exploited and unrealistic.

    The TC is a good start, and i wholeheartedly agree there is so much more it can do, but that must work hand in hand with the ME
    Last edited by themadsheep2001; 30-11-2011 at 12:05.

  15. #15
    First Team Squad Member
    Join Date
    9th November 2010
    Location
    Standing free, wherever i may be
    Posts
    15,275

    Default

    There isnt a game out there that comes close to matching FM in what it does, there are only two football management sims out there anyway and FIFA certainly does not come close. PES and the real FIFA also do not come close to replicating a real game of football.

  16. #16
    Moderator
    Join Date
    2nd November 2009
    Posts
    5,866

    Default

    Dont get me wrong Exius though, I very much like what you have come up

  17. #17
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milnerpoint View Post
    PES and the real FIFA also do not come close to replicating a real game of football.
    Yes I was talking about PES and FIFA. IMHO AI in these games looks stronger than in FM. Of course it's incorrect to compare AI of football sim and football manager, but it looks so.


    milnerpoint, themadsheep2001, guys I see your point of view and agree, the game has to be as realistic as possible. And I want it to be realistic in all areas - including tactics creating. Maybe in 2001 there were no other ways except limiting TC. But a lot of time has passed. We know that new ME is coming and maybe a new improved AI. So, maybe such limitations won't be needed anymore.

  18. #18
    Amateur
    Join Date
    1st November 2008
    Posts
    246

    Default

    Exius what did you use to create your images?

  19. #19
    Moderator
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milnerpoint View Post
    There isnt a game out there that comes close to matching FM in what it does, there are only two football management sims out there anyway and FIFA certainly does not come close. PES and the real FIFA also do not come close to replicating a real game of football.
    But that doesn't mean the AI is better. FM is able to present a generally more realistic game of football because it only has to account for a very limited set of potential player inputs dictating on-the-pitch behavior. There isn't even anything that really reflects major cultural differences in footballing philosophy. You don't ever really see tika-taka or true totaalvoetbal in Football Manager, because of the tight constraints of ME behavior. However, the FIFA 12 AI, in particular, is reasonably well programmed to cope with the virtually limitless scope of potential player inputs and in-game player movements. It is still ultimately done-in by permitting total player freedom, but the franchise is definitely moving in the right direction and their programmers are trying to bridge the gap between player control and realistic match behaviors. The Football Manager series, on the other hand, has spent the last few iterations adding fluff around the edges.
    Last edited by The Hand of God; 30-11-2011 at 12:28.

  20. #20
    First Team Squad Member
    Join Date
    9th November 2010
    Location
    Standing free, wherever i may be
    Posts
    15,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    Yes I was talking about PES and FIFA. IMHO AI in these games looks stronger than in FM. Of course it's incorrect to compare AI of football sim and football manager, but it looks so.


    milnerpoint, themadsheep2001, guys I see your point of view and agree, the game has to be as realistic as possible. And I want it to be realistic in all areas - including tactics creating. Maybe in 2001 there were no other ways except limiting TC. But a lot of time has passed. We know that new ME is coming and maybe a new improved AI. So, maybe such limitations won't be needed anymore.
    Yeah thats the thing to remember, FM and PES or FIFA are two very different kinds of games, PES and FIFA obviously look miles better, they really should as they have been doing that for years and years, FM 3D is relatively new, and as such its only the past few years we have actually seen what is really going on when the ME is in action.

    I do also agree with you to a point Exius, the entire tactical system could do with a re-vamp for various reasons, but id loath for them to go back to anything that could replicate the problems the ME used to have because of the unrealistic input the human user could put into it. That would be a huge step backwards.

  21. #21
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaa View Post
    as IRL, I could give sideline shouts to a specific player, but not the team.
    I could tell one of my CB's to hassle opponnents, but tell the other to stand-off

    I could ask one of my strikers to play ball in box, but the other one to shoot on sight!
    that's what real football manager do right?

    TC available now is good, but could be much much better.
    Yes, I agree, IRL managers can say something to certain players but not the whole team. But I think different situations and tactical variations are discussed with the team before the game so they have some options to change team tactic during the match.

  22. #22
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    10th July 2006
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    Yes I was talking about PES and FIFA. IMHO AI in these games looks stronger than in FM. Of course it's incorrect to compare AI of football sim and football manager, but it looks so.
    A football match in either of those usually consists of two 4-6 minute halves. FM has to simulate a full game of football and there's no direct human input involved. Watch AI play another AI team for 90 minutes in fifa and tell me if you still think it's stronger than FM.

  23. #23
    First Team Squad Member
    Join Date
    9th November 2010
    Location
    Standing free, wherever i may be
    Posts
    15,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hand of God View Post
    But that doesn't mean the AI is better. FM is able to present a generally more realistic game of football because it only has to account for a very limited set of potential player inputs dictating on-the-pitch behavior. There isn't even anything that really reflects major cultural differences in footballing philosophy. You don't ever really see tika-taka or true totaalvoetbal in Football Manager, because of the tight constraints of ME behavior. However, the FIFA 12 AI, in particular, is reasonably well programmed to cope with the virtually limitless scope of potential player inputs and in-game player movements. It is still ultimately done-in by permitting total player freedom, but the franchise is definitely moving in the right direction and their programmers are trying to bridge the gap between player control and realistic match behaviors. The Football Manager series, on the other hand, has spent the last few iterations adding fluff around the edges.
    Yes but remember there is no direct human control in the same sense in an FM match, if you watch the FIFA AI play against itself it looks nothing like a real game of football, it looks like a computer game and it does not follow anything you would really expect.
    SI have worked on the ME constantly for years, yes its limited by certain bits of code which is why they are re-writing it, but the fluff wont have taken anyone away from the ME, Paul will have his team that works only on the ME and ME animations, so adding fluff as you put it will make very little difference to their output come release time.

  24. #24
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by themadsheep2001 View Post
    The TC is a good start, and i wholeheartedly agree there is so much more it can do, but that must work hand in hand with the ME
    Totally agree. TC and ME development should correlate with each other and I think that's the way it really works in SI.

    Quote Originally Posted by whilewolf View Post
    Exius what did you use to create your images?
    These are screenshots from a leaked FM 2013 beta.))) I'm kidding. Adobe Photoshop.

    Quote Originally Posted by milnerpoint View Post
    I do also agree with you to a point Exius, the entire tactical system could do with a re-vamp for various reasons, but id loath for them to go back to anything that could replicate the problems the ME used to have because of the unrealistic input the human user could put into it. That would be a huge step backwards.
    Yes, I think in fact it's a matter of realization. Even the best idea can be implemented awfully. With current ME such system will create unrealistic exploits you are talking about. So, it can be implemented only in case of improving ME and AI slightly.

  25. #25
    Moderator
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Äktsjon Männ View Post
    A football match in either of those usually consists of two 4-6 minute halves. FM has to simulate a full game of football and there's no direct human input involved. Watch AI play another AI team for 90 minutes in fifa and tell me if you still think it's stronger than FM.
    With FM, you're just watching the AI vs. the AI with the AI balanced against itself whereas FIFA focuses on programming a human player vs. the AI. The latter is much more difficult to program and requires a far more complex and adaptive AI, even if you're only talking about 10 minute matches.

    Granted, the FIFA design team is larger and has a much, much higher budget, but whereas FM presents an impressive game of scripted AI football, FIFA's AI is still ultimately the greater technical achievement simply because their task is that much more complex and difficult.

    EDIT: But obviously, I personally still prefer to play FM.
    Last edited by The Hand of God; 30-11-2011 at 12:45.

  26. #26
    Moderator
    Join Date
    2nd November 2009
    Posts
    5,866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    Totally agree. TC and ME development should correlate with each other and I think that's the way it really works in SI.


    These are screenshots from a leaked FM 2013 beta.))) I'm kidding. Adobe Photoshop.


    Yes, I think in fact it's a matter of realization. Even the best idea can be implemented awfully. With current ME such system will create unrealistic exploits you are talking about. So, it can be implemented only in case of improving ME and AI slightly.
    assuming the new ME can handle it (whenever it comes out) I would love to see a lot of your ideas here implemented, particularly post #2 where you talk about changing the width of a certain part of the pitch

  27. #27
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    10th July 2006
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Hand of God View Post
    With FM, you're just watching the AI vs. the AI with the AI balanced against itself whereas FIFA focuses on programming a human player vs. the AI. The latter is much more difficult to program and requires a far more complex and adaptive AI, even if you're only talking about 10 minute matches.
    Apples and oranges. FM has to simulate a match where every recorded statistic has to be similar to figures in real life over a 90 minute match. While doing that it also has to maintain that a match involving a human controlled team involves no artificial advantages for either side. Fifa only has to challenge a human playing against the AI which it can give as many advantages as necessary to keep things competitive. And it does not need to reflect real life statistics in almost any way. It wouldn't be capable if it tried, you only need to try out FIFA Manager to see that.
    Last edited by Äktsjon Männ; 30-11-2011 at 12:51.

  28. #28
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Äktsjon Männ, The Hand of God, guys I think you've lost the point here. I meant that in FIFA or PES AI player sometimes chooses better passing options than in FM, knows that sometimes there is no sense in trying to reach the ball coming out, etc. Of course it's obvious that AI in these games has to interact with human player and in FM - produce RL statistic.

  29. #29
    Amateur
    Join Date
    4th July 2007
    Posts
    123

    Default

    In the old wibble/wobble you could position players too precisely so they need to apply the same concept but just make it less flexible. For example they could divide the field into 6 major areas and within these 6 areas you have 6 smaller squares so you would have 36 possible positions for your 11 players at one time. You could reduce or increase the number of possibilities depending on the caliber of AI.

    I think the wibble/wobble idea needs to come back in some form in order for the game to properly emulate real life management but It just needsto be done in away that balances the capabilities of the AI with the options available to the Manager.

  30. #30
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Well, I don't think that precise player positioning is something that overwhelms the AI. For example in PES you can position your players as you wish and it doesn't lead to any exploits. The thing is that manually tweaked tactical combinations can beat the AI. So the problem is that tactical AI isn't as inventive as human and maybe never will.

  31. #31
    Reserves
    Join Date
    8th January 2004
    Posts
    11,947

    Default

    Just a few points as this has been discussed to a certain extent in the past.

    Real life players don't play in two positions on the field (With & without ball), arguably they don't even play in one position. They are simply given an area of the field to work in along with offensive & defensive instructions - Just like FM. The wibble/wobble your asking for is already there in the instructions its just not shoved in your face with a graphic. What can be improved is the range of instructions but SI need to balance this between being effective and being too detailed with players following them like robots.

    FM's ME is light years ahead of anything FIFA or PES has produced. If you watch AI vs AI as have been pointed out earlier in the thread the football is terrible whereas with decent tactical instructions FM looks like a football match.


    EDIT
    For example in your fig 6 Exius you have a DMC dropping into the sweeper position. This already exists in FM - Place as a sweeper/libero with the correct tactical instructions to push up into midfield when the team is attacking.
    Last edited by Cougar2010; 03-12-2011 at 10:24.

  32. #32
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar2010 View Post
    For example in your fig 6 Exius you have a DMC dropping into the sweeper position. This already exists in FM - Place as a sweeper/libero with the correct tactical instructions to push up into midfield when the team is attacking.
    It is impossible in FM. SW will never act totally as DM whatever tactical instructions you give him. The thing is that DM drops to SW only when the ball is near the opposition penalty area in case of a counter-attack. If there is no quick counter he plays as a DM. SW will always stay back. So, with current TC it is impossible and it's not only my opinion. A lot of people tried to recreate such tactic and couldn't succeed. Maybe current TC isn't so bad but don't idealize it.

  33. #33
    Reserves
    Join Date
    8th January 2004
    Posts
    11,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    It is impossible in FM. SW will never act totally as DM whatever tactical instructions you give him. The thing is that DM drops to SW only when the ball is near the opposition penalty area in case of a counter-attack. If there is no quick counter he plays as a DM. SW will always stay back. So, with current TC it is impossible and it's not only my opinion. A lot of people tried to recreate such tactic and couldn't succeed. Maybe current TC isn't so bad but don't idealize it.
    Well as the initial position you give is the defensive one its clear that in your example that the player should be a sweeper. So what needs improving is the way the ME handles sweepers and the instructions that can be given.

    Glancing over some of your other ideas I get the impression that what you really want is a graphical representation of the instructions as many of them already exist as instructions/PPMs etc.

  34. #34
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar2010 View Post
    Well as the initial position you give is the defensive one its clear that in your example that the player should be a sweeper. So what needs improving is the way the ME handles sweepers and the instructions that can be given.

    Glancing over some of your other ideas I get the impression that what you really want is a graphical representation of the instructions as many of them already exist as instructions/PPMs etc.
    His defensive position is DM. He acts as a SW only when there is a quick counter menace and when the team is attacking. So, SW - is attacking position and only when the ball is near the opposition penalty area. There is no way of creating such tactic with current TC system.

    I think you get the wrong impression. Yes, it would be nice to see a graphical representation of the instructions but that is not the main idea. Different attacking/defensive formations depending on where is the ball, precise player positioning, more flexible instructions - that's what I suggest. Maybe my English is bad that's why I made a lot of images to describe my ideas.

  35. #35
    Reserves
    Join Date
    8th January 2004
    Posts
    11,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    I think you get the wrong impression. Yes, it would be nice to see a graphical representation of the instructions but that is not the main idea. Different attacking/defensive formations depending on where is the ball, precise player positioning, more flexible instructions - that's what I suggest. Maybe my English is bad that's why I made a lot of images to describe my ideas.
    Your English isn't bad its simply that some of your ideas don't really exist in real life.

    Different attacking/defensive formations - No team really does this. Take a 451/433 all that is happening is that the two wide players are pushing up to support the striker when in possession and dropping deep when not. This isn't a change of formation its just the instructions the player has been given.

    Precise player positioning - No manager in the world tells a player which blade of grass to stand on. He gives them an area to work in and instructions then during a match he might tell him to push up, drop back, play narrower, play wider, pick up a particular opposition player. FM attempts to replicate these type of instructions.

  36. #36
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    27th June 2005
    Location
    Bromley researcher
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    I would mostly agree with Cougar2010. Having been in a dressing room of a club which is playable in FM, I can definitely confirm that position was never mentioned in the slightest. Players knew their role and what to do and no manager would ever dream of saying some of this stuff to a player. If you are a left back you know to support your midfield when you have the ball and get back and defend when you don't. Setting someone to wing back or full back tells them what balance to strike and that is easily enough. To say when the ball is 60% of the way up the pitch you must stand 40% up the pitch is a ridiculous nonsense and that is how wibble wobble worked.

    The TC as it is now is much much better than what went before, and IMO than trying to bring back an advanced version of wibble wobble.

    The points about more options/instructions and shouts to single players are very good and I would hope FM expands to that however.

  37. #37
    Amateur
    Join Date
    7th August 2009
    Posts
    355

    Default

    The DM - SW thing is an acknowledged impossibility within the ME, but it's about the only one (assuming that they've sorted out 3-man defences in FM12 - haven't tried one yet). And all it would really need is some sort of fourth option on the forward run" slider, even further back than "rarely" to encourage a player to actively retreat when his team are in possession. It would also be useful for false 9s, although that is a position one can make work in the current ME anyway, albeit not so much with default TC settings.


    The insanely detailed stuff in the OP is way over the top, though: managers just do not have that much control over players. Why would you position your CB precisely as you want him to stand in the penalty box? You want him to stand next to the opposition ST and stop him getting the ball - not glued to some fixed point on the pitch.

    If you want your CM to spray it to the wings, set passing to focus down the wings, give him the passing freedom to hit the long balls, maybe train him with useful PPMs, and set up your wingers so they're actually in space.
    If he still won't do it, buy a CM who's less stupid - but don't try to overwrite his brain with tactical instructions.

    Whats' the point of mental stats if you can set up your players' reaction to every single incident? If your players stand in stupid places, buy ones with better positioning. If they're never in space, change your tactical approach or train their off-the-ball.

    With things like variable widths, "move into channels" and "roam from position" and "hug touchline" are your friends: they kick in essentially only when you have the ball, and if combined with a narrow team width, will see you compact in defence and spread out further upfield.

    Similarly, specific man marking for wingers will cause them to drop deeper than they otherwise might (IRL, a marking job on a tricky FB is the main reason wingers do this)
    An aggressive CB, with high closing down and forward runs set to often, can push far higher up the field in defence than you're claiming, and a DM with sufficiently restrained settings will sit deep enough to pretty much be a CB. There's a lot more fluidity than you're crediting.

    I think a "retreat" setting on the forward run slider is pretty much the only new setting needed, the rest is just better refinement and improvement of the ME, and the individual players' AI

  38. #38
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar2010 View Post
    Precise player positioning - No manager in the world tells a player which blade of grass to stand on. He gives them an area to work in and instructions then during a match he might tell him to push up, drop back, play narrower, play wider, pick up a particular opposition player. FM attempts to replicate these type of instructions.
    But in FM you can't tell the player to push up or drop back. You can change his mentality but it also affects his passing. And if I want him to push up but playing the ball sideways or backward? With attacking mentality he'll push up but most of his passes would be forward. Play wider or narrower - you can set this instruction only for the whole team, not for certain player. For example, it is also impossible to recreate DM dropping to SW because you can't tell your DCs to play as wide as they IRL play in this case. I tried instructing them to "hug touchline" - it doesn't work at all.

  39. #39
    Reserves
    Join Date
    8th January 2004
    Posts
    11,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    But in FM you can't tell the player to push up or drop back. You can change his mentality but it also affects his passing. And if I want him to push up but playing the ball sideways or backward? With attacking mentality he'll push up but most of his passes would be forward. Play wider or narrower - you can set this instruction only for the whole team, not for certain player. For example, it is also impossible to recreate DM dropping to SW because you can't tell your DCs to play as wide as they IRL play in this case. I tried instructing them to "hug touchline" - it doesn't work at all.

    I more or less agree with everything you've said there.

    Mentality is a real problem for what you describe and something I would like to see changed. Overall though the ME & TC do a good job we just want them improved/refined in some areas.

  40. #40
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hluraven View Post
    I would mostly agree with Cougar2010. Having been in a dressing room of a club which is playable in FM, I can definitely confirm that position was never mentioned in the slightest. Players knew their role and what to do and no manager would ever dream of saying some of this stuff to a player. If you are a left back you know to support your midfield when you have the ball and get back and defend when you don't. Setting someone to wing back or full back tells them what balance to strike and that is easily enough. To say when the ball is 60% of the way up the pitch you must stand 40% up the pitch is a ridiculous nonsense and that is how wibble wobble worked.

    The TC as it is now is much much better than what went before, and IMO than trying to bring back an advanced version of wibble wobble.

    The points about more options/instructions and shouts to single players are very good and I would hope FM expands to that however.
    When you were in dressing room maybe you heard a manager telling his players to play with a mentality 10 clicks from the left, or passing style 8 clicks from the right? Such instructions don't take place IRL so this is as ridiculous as wibble wobble. The thing is IRL you can tell the player to play more aggressively or more defensively, push up or drop back and he will understand what do you want of him. But AI player isn't as smart as RL player so you have to instruct him how much exactly you want him to push up. And I think it's more realistic to make this instructions graphically or allowing you to position him yourself, because IRL manager can show with a chalkboard the player where does he want him to play, but not with sliders.

  41. #41
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dekker2 View Post
    Whats' the point of mental stats if you can set up your players' reaction to every single incident? If your players stand in stupid places, buy ones with better positioning. If they're never in space, change your tactical approach or train their off-the-ball.

    With things like variable widths, "move into channels" and "roam from position" and "hug touchline" are your friends: they kick in essentially only when you have the ball, and if combined with a narrow team width, will see you compact in defence and spread out further upfield.
    And what's the point of mental stats IRL? Don't you think that IRL manager can tell his player to play the ball to the keeper under heavy pressure if he constantly clears it and it leads to dangerous throw ins or corners? The player will try to implement his manager's instructions and his mental stats define how successfully and precisely he will do it. Maybe anyway he'll do what he thinks is right, but maybe he'll stick to instructions. It depends on certain player's mental stats. That's the way it works IRL and that's the way it works in FM. But in FM we are limited in the ability to give the player such instructions.

    What you say about variable widths is the only way to make it with current TC and it is very limited. It doesn't give as much flexibility as width slider for every playing third would.

  42. #42
    Reserves
    Join Date
    27th October 2002
    Posts
    14,748

    Default

    You have obviously put a lot of work into this, but to me it basically sounds like a resurgence of the wibble/wobble screens from the CM days.

  43. #43
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pangaea View Post
    You have obviously put a lot of work into this, but to me it basically sounds like a resurgence of the wibble/wobble screens from the CM days.
    I haven't played CM when there was wibble/wobble system, so these are just my ideas and suggestions. I do understand why it didn't work good ten years ago, but nowadays it is possible to create AI and ME which wouldn't be so easily overwhelmed with such system.

  44. #44
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    By the way, I found this video on Youtube, it describes some tactical application for football managers and coaches. http://youtu.be/cB0DDgLuKJg I think, SI can borrow some ideas, especially set-pieces instructions.

  45. #45
    Tactics and Match Engine Moderator
    Join Date
    3rd December 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,408

    Default

    As always with these kinds of threads, there are some excellent ideas which are obscured by the OP forgetting that sport is dynamic. Too late for me to provide any detailed feedback at the moment. I will try tomorrow.

  46. #46
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd August 2011
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Very interesting thread, I hope SI research as seriously as Exius in improving the tactical part other than by adding artificial features.

    I just want add one thing, SI should not hesitate to add tactical options but the player/manager must always have the choice to choose or not apply a tactical option. Why ? IRL, the density of tactical coaching is not the same in the different coutries : the italian Serie A is surely the most tactical league in the world and nothing is ever left to chance, in FM an italian manager would probably use all the tactical options available (and use also probably the Exius proposals) whereas a spanish manager let the most options to "normal".
    Last edited by speedas; 04-12-2011 at 13:10.

  47. #47
    Amateur
    Join Date
    5th March 2011
    Posts
    224

    Default

    I'd rather have a restricted TC that led to more realistic football than a limitless TC that is easily exploitable.

    I agree that it is something that should be sorted for future versions, but in the mean time the game is in a much healthier position realism wise than it has ever been.

    The Diablo era was just awful, I know you could just decide to not use it, but then what's the point in trying to make a tactic that is as good as possible? You have to decide for yourself where the exploit line is, which isn't much fun. I love trying to create new tactics to create beautiful football whilst knowing that I can't just exploit the AI.

    Having said all that, even if there was a Diablo style tactic I actually wouldn't use it these days. In FM 2011 I had a great save where I went through various clubs and eventually, after many many years ended up as Barcelona manager. I had a brilliant first few years with them, some really close title chases and an absolutely gutting Champions League final defeat.

    Around the time FM 2012 came out I decided to download a tactic and I got spectacular results, but I got so bored so quickly because I knew it wasn't my work. It's so much more satisfying creating your own tactics than downloading a ready made one, even if you get better results.

    I've kind of just gone completely against the point I was trying to make in the begining of this post, so I'm not really sure why I'm still going to hit reply.

  48. #48
    Youth Team
    Join Date
    19th March 2011
    Posts
    4,566

    Default

    Not so radical idea as the OP, but still I think this is necessary:

    Player Instructions

    Attacking Mentality
    |-----------------------------|---------------------------|

    Defensive Mentality
    |-----------------------------|---------------------------|

    As it is now, the mentality slider regulates how eager a player is to take the ball from the opponent players, how much or little he backtracks to do so, his willingness to take risks with his passing and dribbling, his inclination to shoot and his willingness to do attacking movement contra covering defensive space.

    That's too much for one slider to cover, and it creates a situation where defensive mentalities lead to passive behaviour in your own half which leads to the opponent getting to do whatever they want to do undisturbed, and attacking mentalities causes irresponsible defensive behaviour but better defending overall because of a much higher willingness to win possession back.

    I believe that a two-slider mentality system like this will allow SI (and us) to better control what we want from a player regarding attacking and defensive behaviour, separating the willingness to go into tackles or challenges from attacking mentality (because that is really defensive behaviour). This way attacking mentality regulates off-the-ball movement; the willingness to ignore defensive work in order to lose his man so that he can become available for a pass, willingness to go on forward runs, willingness to shoot when the opportunity arises and general risk-taking. Defensive mentality regulates the willingness to ignore attacking duties for the sake of winning back possession of the ball, willingness to mark zones or men at the cost of being available for a pass, and general defensive awareness.

  49. #49
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    I don't like the idea of mentality slider at all. Two main things which it defines are player position and his passing directions. IRL both these instructions are separated. I can't imagine RL manager telling his player "I want you to play with attacking mentality". He'll tell "I want you to push up on the pitch and pass more balls forward" instead. I think TC should be more realistic. One more thing I hate in mentality slider and slider system at all - you can't say exactly what means minimum/maximum slider value. If manager tells his player to push up, he can show him where does he want him to play on a chalkboard. The same refers to passing style slider. He can't tell the player "I wan't you to play medium passes with 70% probability" or "I wan't you to pass the ball rather on 30 metres" or anything else what passing slider means. He'll tell instead "I want you to play normal balls often, pass them sideways". So, what I mean with all these images - more realistic instructions and all instructions available to RL managers.

  50. #50
    Third Team
    Join Date
    7th March 2007
    Location
    Pro-consumer, anti-DRM. Never be satisfied with any answer. Dig until you drop.
    Posts
    6,670

    Default

    I don't see what's really wrong with exploit tactics. The game should be smart enough to deal with exploit tactics, and that's where the issue lies.

    We should be able to play Bielsa-like tactics with unusual formations and roles, and the AI should be able to counter it.

    As long as users have an abstraction that makes it easy for tactics, but with the ability for advanced users to tinker, it is all good.

  51. #51
    First Team
    Join Date
    5th June 2007
    Location
    Wishing Brendan Rodgers had been this good in 2010
    Posts
    22,222

    Default

    Exius, you've clearly put a lot of thought into this. I think some of your ideas are very good. However, there comes a point where it would be too complex for people to handle. The current system, or even the classic tactics system, is incredibly simple, but people complain that they don't understand what things mean. One good idea you've had is better description, which might go some way to solving that problem, but the sheer number of options could well be overwhelming.

    Also, football is one of the least robotic sports in the world. If all your ideas were implemented, either the players would have to ignore most instructions they were given, or play would be too stifled, too mechanical.

    One thing we do need is the ability to easily set rough formations for with and without the ball. SI removed the arrows a few versions ago, which were a system that allowed you to set a dynamic formation that changed somewhat but was not robotic, and now it's a lot harder to do things like that. I'd like to see some concept of attacking and defending formations come back into the game.

  52. #52
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by x42bn6 View Post
    I don't see what's really wrong with exploit tactics. The game should be smart enough to deal with exploit tactics, and that's where the issue lies.

    We should be able to play Bielsa-like tactics with unusual formations and roles, and the AI should be able to counter it.

    As long as users have an abstraction that makes it easy for tactics, but with the ability for advanced users to tinker, it is all good.
    Absolutely agree. It must be a reason to improve AI but not to restrict our tactical abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by SCIAG View Post
    Exius, you've clearly put a lot of thought into this. I think some of your ideas are very good. However, there comes a point where it would be too complex for people to handle. The current system, or even the classic tactics system, is incredibly simple, but people complain that they don't understand what things mean. One good idea you've had is better description, which might go some way to solving that problem, but the sheer number of options could well be overwhelming.

    Also, football is one of the least robotic sports in the world. If all your ideas were implemented, either the players would have to ignore most instructions they were given, or play would be too stifled, too mechanical.

    One thing we do need is the ability to easily set rough formations for with and without the ball. SI removed the arrows a few versions ago, which were a system that allowed you to set a dynamic formation that changed somewhat but was not robotic, and now it's a lot harder to do things like that. I'd like to see some concept of attacking and defending formations come back into the game.
    Yes, it is a very important issue - complexity of instructions. And I think the main reason are unrealistic instructions and poor official manual. As I said in previous post sliders have nothing similar with RL tactical instructions. And they are not even explained properly in manual. I've been playing since 2005 and I still can't tell exactly what passing style slider actually defines - whether it is a probability of certain passes or passing range or something else. So, these instructions should be closer to real life and should be explained better how they work in ME. This is ridiculous giving us so many options but not telling what they exactly do in game terms.

    And as I said in my opening posts, all these ideas won't make the game more complicated because team instructions won't change. People who think that it's too complicated just set team instructions, choose players roles and duties and use shouts during the match. They usually don't tweak individual instructions. If these ideas were implemented they would do the same things - choose formation, philosophy, strategy, other team instructions, player roles, duties... So, the game wouldn't become too complicated.

  53. #53
    Tactics and Match Engine Moderator
    Join Date
    3rd December 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,408

    Default

    The core question regarding this thread is exactly how much control the manager has over match play through his tactical instructions. From my understanding, and I'm ready to be corrected, it is far from the intricate and exact control discussed in the OP. In fact, the only micro control tactical system I've read about is Sacchi's zonal marking system at Milan, which was precisely modelled around where the opposition players and ball were. However, that seems to be very unusual and also failed when he tried to implement it at every team other than his first period at Milan.

    Consequently, I don't think the micro-level instructions suggested by the OP are viable. The wibble-wobble style individual placement is a) unrealistic and b) will lead to exploit tactics. The very precise passing and movement instructions will result in the robotic player movement that arrows produced. In match dynamism will be undermined by static micro-instructions. However, the OP does have some valid observations.

    Firstly, shape. The TC does not allow the user to have enough control over shape. The commonly discussed example is the TC being unable to mimic the Barca DMC dropping into a cover position between the DCs and/or the DCs drifting wider to cover behind the advancing FBs (especially on the right hand side). You could have mimicked the DCs drift with the old sidewards arrows. However, I don't think it has ever been possible to push a DMC back into defence when in possession. I'd certainly like to see the TC to evolve to replicate such patterns. The DCs could have a drift wide option and M and DM strata an option to drop/cover in and out of possession.

    A second issue in terms of shape is the press/track movement of advanced strata (F, AM) players. It would be very useful to instruct them to press, press and track, or drop and track (with the middle option requiring serious levels of fitness). Further, the option to 'ignore defensive duties' would be useful.

    A third issue is strata widths. Some kind of system instructing individual or combined strata to narrow/widen would be an interesting addition.

    Secondly, systems. I'd like to see the introduction of different passing and marking systems, and perhaps some further options for crossing, tackling etc. This should enable user and AI teams to be observably different in playing style.

    Thirdly, roles. I'd certainly like more of them and some flexible way of customising them and attaching them to a player. However, they cannot be exact as the OP is suggesting. The roles in the game are interpretations of how such roles operate in real life. They are then virtually re-interprated by the AI players, who, through their own playing preferences and idiosyncrasies, perform them in different ways. I think this is very realistic. The manager can ask a player to perform in a certain way, but cannot prevent the player's natural style from having an impact. In this respect, the player is just as, if not more, important than the tactical role. Micro-control would unrealistically reduce or remove this tension. More customisation of roles, yes, exact level control, no.

  54. #54
    First Team
    Join Date
    5th June 2007
    Location
    Wishing Brendan Rodgers had been this good in 2010
    Posts
    22,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wwfan View Post
    Consequently, I don't think the micro-level instructions suggested by the OP are viable. The wibble-wobble style individual placement is a) unrealistic and b) will lead to exploit tactics. The very precise passing and movement instructions will result in the robotic player movement that arrows produced.
    It's unrealistic if it is robotic, it is realistic if it is fairly fluid and something reasonable. The arrows didn't produce robotic player movement at all and the briefest of inspections of an FM ME with arrows would show this. It's been claimed in the past that the way they worked was changed for an FML ME, the new way was deemed unrealistic and consequently the arrows were removed, which seems to be one of the biggest mistakes made by SI in recent years.

    I want my defensive midfielder to cover my attacking right wing back by dropping into that area of the pitch when he overlaps. There's currently no way to set this simple instruction under the current tactical settings. Similarly, if I want my defensive midfielder to drop back and play as a back three with my centre backs when we are attacking, I cannot tell him to do that currently, and even if I make my best shot at it by removing RFD and setting mentality to the lowest, it just doesn't work that way.

    I'd like an option for a "defensive formation" and an "attacking formation". These would only be rough guides rather than robotic movements. Players (aside from goalkeepers) could be moved to any of the immediately adjacent positions (up to 9). This would allow a DM to drop to DC, a WBR to fall back to DR, or an ML to advance to AML. I think I'd like players who are the only central player in their stratum to be able to move to the wide positions on their stratum and the one behind them (e.g. DMc can move to DR, STc can move to STL or AML).

    Furthermore, who really cares if there is the potential for exploits? People can exploit the ME by playing in ridiculous ways if they want

  55. #55
    Tactics and Match Engine Moderator
    Join Date
    3rd December 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SCIAG View Post
    It's unrealistic if it is robotic, it is realistic if it is fairly fluid and something reasonable. The arrows didn't produce robotic player movement at all and the briefest of inspections of an FM ME with arrows would show this. It's been claimed in the past that the way they worked was changed for an FML ME, the new way was deemed unrealistic and consequently the arrows were removed, which seems to be one of the biggest mistakes made by SI in recent years.

    I want my defensive midfielder to cover my attacking right wing back by dropping into that area of the pitch when he overlaps. There's currently no way to set this simple instruction under the current tactical settings. Similarly, if I want my defensive midfielder to drop back and play as a back three with my centre backs when we are attacking, I cannot tell him to do that currently, and even if I make my best shot at it by removing RFD and setting mentality to the lowest, it just doesn't work that way.

    I'd like an option for a "defensive formation" and an "attacking formation". These would only be rough guides rather than robotic movements. Players (aside from goalkeepers) could be moved to any of the immediately adjacent positions (up to 9). This would allow a DM to drop to DC, a WBR to fall back to DR, or an ML to advance to AML. I think I'd like players who are the only central player in their stratum to be able to move to the wide positions on their stratum and the one behind them (e.g. DMc can move to DR, STc can move to STL or AML).

    Furthermore, who really cares if there is the potential for exploits? People can exploit the ME by playing in ridiculous ways if they want
    I know we have this disagreement every six months or so. Arrows, as they were coded, were robotic. Players moved along the set arrow path no matter where the ball was on the pitch. It was proved very conclusively. However, that doesn't mean that some of the arrows didn't work well or weren't useful. Indeed, short back and side arrows were very useful and we have lost the flexibility they provided. Something is definitely needed in this area. However, as FWRs and lateral movement instructions do pretty much all the forward movements you are after, I don't think we need forward arrows at all.

    As for exploits, there are none in real life football, so there should be none in FM. If you are driven by creating realism and immersion, imagine how it feels to discover that a few simple slider changes undermines everything you've worked towards. I'd always err towards some form of control restriction ahead of knowingly allowing exploits. Too much ME development time was spent on fighting those exploiting holes (as it made any form of online play (FM or FML) unsustainable), which hindered its overall progress.

  56. #56
    Third Team
    Join Date
    7th March 2007
    Location
    Pro-consumer, anti-DRM. Never be satisfied with any answer. Dig until you drop.
    Posts
    6,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wwfan View Post
    As for exploits, there are none in real life football, so there should be none in FM.
    You arguably can't stop exploits, since there are too many possibilities.

    Either way, software cannot mimic "the lack of something", let alone "the lack of exploits" - it would be like proving a negative. Software works on specified behaviour, not "not unspecified" behaviour.

  57. #57
    Tactics and Match Engine Moderator
    Join Date
    3rd December 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by x42bn6 View Post
    You arguably can't stop exploits, since there are too many possibilities.

    Either way, software cannot mimic "the lack of something", let alone "the lack of exploits" - it would be like proving a negative. Software works on specified behaviour, not "not unspecified" behaviour.
    Of course you can't completely prevent them. However, by removing the core exploit creating mechanisms, you can reduce the potential for game breaking ones. The core mechanisms were exact movement instructions, such as wibble-wobble and arrows. By removing those, the likelihood of game-breaking exploits has been reduced (although the issue with set-pieces illustrates how this can come apart).

    The key questions is how to reintroduce some of the flexibility of wibble-wobble and arrows without re-entering game breaking exploit territory. Brining them back is not an option. However, alternate tactical instructions that do similar things without the exact movement issues are. Thinking abut what they could be would be very useful.

  58. #58
    Third Team
    Join Date
    7th March 2007
    Location
    Pro-consumer, anti-DRM. Never be satisfied with any answer. Dig until you drop.
    Posts
    6,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wwfan View Post
    Of course you can't completely prevent them. However, by removing the core exploit creating mechanisms, you can reduce the potential for game breaking ones. The core mechanisms were exact movement instructions, such as wibble-wobble and arrows. By removing those, the likelihood of game-breaking exploits has been reduced (although the issue with set-pieces illustrates how this can come apart).

    The key questions is how to reintroduce some of the flexibility of wibble-wobble and arrows without re-entering game breaking exploit territory. Brining them back is not an option. However, alternate tactical instructions that do similar things without the exact movement issues are. Thinking abut what they could be would be very useful.
    I just think there's too much paranoia over exploit tactics and not enough worrying about the match engine and AI.

    SI are hardly going to lose a huge number of sales if FM10's corner bug stayed in the game.

    If users are going to apply stupid tactics to exploit the AI, then the AI needs to get smarter - not removing "potentially-exploitable" mechanisms. After all, everything in the game can theoretically be exploited.

  59. #59
    Tactics and Match Engine Moderator
    Join Date
    3rd December 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by x42bn6 View Post
    I just think there's too much paranoia over exploit tactics and not enough worrying about the match engine and AI.

    SI are hardly going to lose a huge number of sales if FM10's corner bug stayed in the game.

    If users are going to apply stupid tactics to exploit the AI, then the AI needs to get smarter - not removing "potentially-exploitable" mechanisms. After all, everything in the game can theoretically be exploited.
    We are talking at cross purposes. The tactical instructions were not "potentially-exploitable". They were exact movement instructions that make players move robotically. This type of movement does not exist in real life sport, therefore should not exist in FM. User manipulation resulted in them exploiting the ME, as it was impossible for the AI to cope with instructions it was not designed to cope with. As these instruction controls were flawed when placed against how players move and play in reality, it was them that needed to go rather than the ME/AI being improved to cope with them. The former improves the game, the latter leads to a logistical and never-ending nightmare.

  60. #60
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    I understand some concerns about making the game more robotic. All these instructions should not be the only thing that the player will do on the pitch. It's the matter of finding balance between the player sticking to instructions and improvising. You can see frequency slider near every instruction. If it's set to "often" it doesn't mean that the player will implement this instruction 100% in every single situation. Maybe 70%, 50% - I don't know, it should be tested and the balance should be found between implementing instructions and improvising. So, that is not the problem.

    And I don't see something unrealistic in such micro-control. wwfan, are you sure that IRL managers don't train their players to play certain combinations? Maybe teams with world-class players don't need it, but I'm sure that small teams use pre-trained combinations. What I agree that these combinations are not bound to certain area of the pitch but I don't see any possibility to create TC which allows such things.

  61. #61
    Youth Team
    Join Date
    19th March 2011
    Posts
    4,566

    Default

    Attacking and defending patterns, combinations and other limitations on player choice are uncommon in England but much more common elsewhere. Most English clubs play like a bunch of mad sheep on steroids and speed. The exceptions are the clubs on the top of the Premier League table, and while those clubs also have the best players I think there is a connection between the lack of attacking patterns and league table position. The English manager school evidently teaches their students to say "go out and play football, lads" in an encouraging tone rather than giving specific instructions... but not everyone is Harry Redknapp.

    Maybe the English way of thinking football is finally outdated?

    SI should be cautious about becoming too Anglo-centric in the way tactics are implemented in their game.

  62. #62
    Tactics and Match Engine Moderator
    Join Date
    3rd December 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    And I don't see something unrealistic in such micro-control. wwfan, are you sure that IRL managers don't train their players to play certain combinations? Maybe teams with world-class players don't need it, but I'm sure that small teams use pre-trained combinations. What I agree that these combinations are not bound to certain area of the pitch but I don't see any possibility to create TC which allows such things.
    There's a difference between training to play a certain way and micro-control. Whereas I'd expect well gelled, well-trained, tactically sophisticated teams to be fully aware of teammate movement and play balls into areas they are expected to be, I don't see that as being part of the TC. Instead, it is simulated through match preparation and squad gelling. I'm all for addressing elements of these parts of the game that might be missing in conjunction with adding sophistication to the TC.

    However, this is fundamentally different to telling players exactly where to move and who to pass to when the ball is in certain parts of the pitch. It is the difference between expecting your AMR to be pushing up ahead of you and cutting into the channel and knowing he will. A subtle difference, but one, I feel, that must be maintained for the tactical modules and ME AI to remain stable and realistic.

    Attacking and defending patterns, combinations and other limitations on player choice are uncommon in England but much more common elsewhere. Most English clubs play like a bunch of mad sheep on steroids and speed. The exceptions are the clubs on the top of the Premier League table, and while those clubs also have the best players I think there is a connection between the lack of attacking patterns and league table position. The English manager school evidently teaches their students to say "go out and play football, lads" in an encouraging tone rather than giving specific instructions... but not everyone is Harry Redknapp.

    Maybe the English way of thinking football is finally outdated?

    SI should be cautious about becoming too Anglo-centric in the way tactics are implemented in their game.
    You can be quite tactically sophisticated just through using the TC and the shouts. Ball retention, shape and movement are key to sophisticated football, all of which are core components of the TC. There's no way in which the TC is restricted to British football. It is not sophisticated enough to fully simulate all forms of play, but that is as true to the extremes of the British game as it is to the technical mastery of the Spanish.

    The problem that nobody seems to be recognising is the difference between exact movement control and movement tendencies or expectations. The former is not realistic, even for the most tactically prepared teams. The latter is. Simply put, I'd reject any aspect of the former ever becoming part of the TC. That does not mean the TC can't improve, only that the manner in which it improves has to be consistent with the dynamism of sport. Arrows, wibble-wobble, ultra exact passing instructions et al do not fit with that dynamism as they will produce robotic rather than nuanced play.

  63. #63
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wwfan View Post
    There's a difference between training to play a certain way and micro-control. Whereas I'd expect well gelled, well-trained, tactically sophisticated teams to be fully aware of teammate movement and play balls into areas they are expected to be, I don't see that as being part of the TC. Instead, it is simulated through match preparation and squad gelling. I'm all for addressing elements of these parts of the game that might be missing in conjunction with adding sophistication to the TC.

    However, this is fundamentally different to telling players exactly where to move and who to pass to when the ball is in certain parts of the pitch. It is the difference between expecting your AMR to be pushing up ahead of you and cutting into the channel and knowing he will. A subtle difference, but one, I feel, that must be maintained for the tactical modules and ME AI to remain stable and realistic.
    Exact movement or movement tendencies - anyway it requires more micro-management. Besides we can tell the players where to move and to pass in current TC, but it's too limited. Mentality slider defines player passing direction - backwards, sideways or forward, and wide play - where the player will move. And I don't see any reasons why I can't tell my defenders to pass the ball only to DM, or to tell that my AMC should be supplied only to feet while SC - to head and AMR - run onto ball. These instructions should be obvious and clear like they are IRL, but not hidden in sliders or associated instructions.

    I think it's useless to argue. The only men who know how it works IRL are RL managers. But listening their interviews and watching their chalkboards I still think that sometimes they tell the players what to do in every certain situation, use arrows to show them where to move and to pass. I don't know, do SI consult with managers while developing their game? And of course it would be great to hear some thoughts from SI officials concerning this problem.

  64. #64
    First Team Squad Member
    Join Date
    9th November 2010
    Location
    Standing free, wherever i may be
    Posts
    15,275

    Default

    Im not sure if your aware Exius, but wwfan actually helps with the coding of the TC, so technically you are hearing from SI's side when it comes to this aspect.

  65. #65
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    20th June 2004
    Posts
    2,019

    Default

    less micro control, more intelligent player ability. less tactical micro managment, more realistic man managment. better match engine. introduction of different football styles instead of strategy oriented tactical setups.

  66. #66
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd August 2011
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitja View Post
    less micro control, more intelligent player ability. less tactical micro managment, more realistic man managment. better match engine. introduction of different football styles instead of strategy oriented tactical setups.
    Well said, I always think sliders tactic are absurd. When SI will revolutionize his tactic system, less micro control surely mean revolution of training system for me.

  67. #67
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Less micro control? All you want is choosing formation and player roles? You actually can do it in TC. Nobody forces you to tweak sliders - you can use shouts. But is it interesting, creating a tactic in two minutes? For me one of the most interesting aspects of FM is tactics creating and tweaking. So I want to be able to tweak all details of the tactic. But not with sliders - they have no analogue IRL.

  68. #68
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    20th June 2004
    Posts
    2,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BiggusD View Post
    Not so radical idea as the OP, but still I think this is necessary:

    Player Instructions

    Attacking Mentality
    |-----------------------------|---------------------------|

    Defensive Mentality
    |-----------------------------|---------------------------|

    As it is now, the mentality slider regulates how eager a player is to take the ball from the opponent players, how much or little he backtracks to do so, his willingness to take risks with his passing and dribbling, his inclination to shoot and his willingness to do attacking movement contra covering defensive space.

    That's too much for one slider to cover, and it creates a situation where defensive mentalities lead to passive behaviour in your own half which leads to the opponent getting to do whatever they want to do undisturbed, and attacking mentalities causes irresponsible defensive behaviour but better defending overall because of a much higher willingness to win possession back.

    I believe that a two-slider mentality system like this will allow SI (and us) to better control what we want from a player regarding attacking and defensive behaviour, separating the willingness to go into tackles or challenges from attacking mentality (because that is really defensive behaviour). This way attacking mentality regulates off-the-ball movement; the willingness to ignore defensive work in order to lose his man so that he can become available for a pass, willingness to go on forward runs, willingness to shoot when the opportunity arises and general risk-taking. Defensive mentality regulates the willingness to ignore attacking duties for the sake of winning back possession of the ball, willingness to mark zones or men at the cost of being available for a pass, and general defensive awareness.
    spot on. I agree mentality is responsible for too many tactical problems and impossibility to replicate some real life actions. it covers far too much stuff for one slider. I doubt any future changes could be succesfull without changing this instruction. and there's also one important thing you forgot to mention - it effects passing direction.

    another problem with mentality is that interfears with other instructions too often. attacking riskness is/should be covered by creative freedom slider. shooting/dribbling/through ball frequancy already covered by those instructions. passing decisions already covered by passing and tempo slider, defensive behaviour - marking, pressing and tackling instructions, movement - forward runs and wide play instructions etc..

    most logical thing would be, as you described, that defensive mentality slider would instruct player how much he should concentrate on defending or ignoring defensive responsibilities. also there should probably be specific instructions for backtracking..

    I don't agree with you what you said about attacking part of mentality. it shouldn't effect both movement, passing and riskness and some other stuff, it's too much for one slider and it is already covered by other instructions. movement should be improved further, things like dropping deep were already mentioned in this thread. also there's already forward runs, wide play and free role instructions. with some small tweaks that's tactically detailed enough. riskness should be part of creative freedom really. shooting is all about player ability, decisions and habits imo managers can't influence it too much.

    so there's only one important thing that's left and that's passing direction. either leave this to deal solely with passing, tempo and time wasting instructions or change (attacking) mentality slider to:
    posession------------------------------------counter-attack
    /-----------------------/-----------------------/
    Last edited by Mitja; 06-12-2011 at 11:46.

  69. #69
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    20th June 2004
    Posts
    2,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    Less micro control? All you want is choosing formation and player roles? You actually can do it in TC. Nobody forces you to tweak sliders - you can use shouts. But is it interesting, creating a tactic in two minutes? For me one of the most interesting aspects of FM is tactics creating and tweaking. So I want to be able to tweak all details of the tactic. But not with sliders - they have no analogue IRL.
    you've written a good thread and some good ideas but as other's have already pointed some of your ideas of micro control would bring to even more robotic player behaviour. such static (like wibble wobble) and too detailed instructions are not particulary wanted becouse there needs to be feeling of players using their heads and some inpredictability which is typical for football. not to mention it's not how things work in real life.

    what I'm saying is that I'd like to see ''Xavi play like Xavi'' without having to deal with a couple of dozen instructions-micro control, mostly becouse it's not realistic. better ME, better AI, improved tactical system which hasn't changed for too long now, linking tactics to training even further... and most important a try to replicate real football, so when you play against Mourinho it feels like you play against him.

  70. #70
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitja View Post
    what I'm saying is that I'd like to see ''Xavi play like Xavi'' without having to deal with a couple of dozen instructions-micro control, mostly becouse it's not realistic. better ME, better AI, improved tactical system which hasn't changed for too long now, linking tactics to training even further... and most important a try to replicate real football, so when you play against Mourinho it feels like you play against him.
    It would be great, but I doubt that we'll see it even in FM 2022. Besides, I see no reasons why Xavi wouldn't play like Xavi without microinstructions. Ideally you can set his creative freedom to high and he should play like he does IRL. But AI will never be as smart as human.

    You are right that tactics IRL are pretty much integrated in training process. And perhaps such precise instructions take place during training routine. And don't forget that usually managers shout their instructions during the match - they shout where to move, where to pass, what to do... It will never be implemented in FM because it doesn't allow direct control, but all these take place IRL.

  71. #71
    Amateur
    Join Date
    25th October 2006
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Very good post!

    I don't see "wibble/wobble" coming back as it was back in the ol' days (unfortunately), but we NEED more control. The current set of controls could be expanded to give us more control on both attacking and defensive positioning/moves. I love the tactical aspect of FM, but it's frustrating with all it's limitations. There are so many exciting tactics being used in RL today, and it's impossible to make them work with the current ME options.
    I have high hopes for the next version of FM.

  72. #72
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    10th July 2006
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    What's definitely needed in the game imo is much more flexible positioning. Not through tactical instructions though, instead the players should be more capable of reacting to situations in a match and adjust their position accordingly. Let's take a bog standard 4-4-2 for example. The most common way to set this up is to play a stopper/cover pairing in defense (something I do not agree with at all, but it's conventional choice in FM so let's go with that), a ball winner alongside a more attack minded player in the centre of midfield and a more advanced striker being supported by one playing closer to midfield in attack. The problem is that all those pairings get undermined by their rigid positioning. The defense can fall apart when the opposition is running at the defense from the side where the covering player is. The midfield doesn't function properly because the more attacking player will rigidly stick to his side of the pitch instead of using the space vacated by the ball winner staying back to screen the defense. And the screening doesn't properly work either because the MCd won't deal with threats that come from the other side of the pitch. Bith strikers will look only for space on the side of the pitch they're assigned to making them easy to pick up etc. Central positions in the game should be much more interchangable depending on match situations and player attributes.

  73. #73
    Part-Timer
    Join Date
    12th September 2011
    Location
    Twitter : @FMmanagers
    Posts
    1,883

    Default

    some very good ideas there. I do agree with the fact that too detailed instructions could make the players behave more robotically BUT the match engine is very limiting, would be nice to be able to put in some of the things mentioned in the opening post. As you said IRL a manager would say to a MR I want you to get forward when the ball is in A position but when the ball is in Position B I want you to be here. That would be an amazing addition

  74. #74
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    20th June 2004
    Posts
    2,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    It would be great, but I doubt that we'll see it even in FM 2022. Besides, I see no reasons why Xavi wouldn't play like Xavi without microinstructions. Ideally you can set his creative freedom to high and he should play like he does IRL. But AI will never be as smart as human.
    I think current ME allows some decent real life football simulation. but in classic mode, it doesn't count for AI. I'm sure with improved ME and changed TC this could be brought to the next level in next couple of years. the game really needs some fresh air in its most important part.

    what you say about Xavi might be true. personally I'd like to see the change from current let's say quite robotic system to a more instinctive system where players ''use their heads''. maybe player instructions need to change and be replaced with different ones (attacking and defensive movement come first to my mind). take long shots for example - there are so many different instructions influencing something as simple as shooting, which should merely depend on a simple player decision (attributes) and a habit (ppm).

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    You are right that tactics IRL are pretty much integrated in training process. And perhaps such precise instructions take place during training routine. And don't forget that usually managers shout their instructions during the match - they shout where to move, where to pass, what to do... It will never be implemented in FM because it doesn't allow direct control, but all these take place IRL.
    another reason why I think the game would benefit with slight simplification of tactical system and I'm against micro control concerns the AI. imo tactical system needs to be simple for the AI to be succesfull. look at two new features TC and shouting instructions, AI can't use it effectivly enough. it's a kind of new exploit or at least it gives too much of advantage for humans. there's no point of having features which AI can't use well enough.

    imo there are far too many shouting instructions already. those couple of basic shouts should be completly understandable to AI when to use and how to use, which is not the case right now. another question is how much tactics change from what teams have learned during training when using a couple of shouting combinations. yes, managers can shout whatever they want during games, but that wouldn't be possible to replicate in FM. that's why I like simplicity.

    tactics and playing styles are not being made in a week or a month. match prep are a good idea and this needs to improve further. I don't think Barca are the best team only becouse they have the best players. Messi, Xavi...are a product of FC Barcelonas 20 years of hard work and investment in all possible departments. what I want to say it should be hard to develop good tactics and it should take time..
    Last edited by Mitja; 06-12-2011 at 15:10.

  75. #75
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    20th June 2004
    Posts
    2,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbobBRFC View Post
    some very good ideas there. I do agree with the fact that too detailed instructions could make the players behave more robotically BUT the match engine is very limiting, would be nice to be able to put in some of the things mentioned in the opening post. As you said IRL a manager would say to a MR I want you to get forward when the ball is in A position but when the ball is in Position B I want you to be here. That would be an amazing addition
    yeah it would but how could AI use it? this would lead to exploits. and I'm sure real managers don't say anything like that...

  76. #76
    Third Team
    Join Date
    7th March 2007
    Location
    Pro-consumer, anti-DRM. Never be satisfied with any answer. Dig until you drop.
    Posts
    6,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitja View Post
    yeah it would but how could AI use it? this would lead to exploits. and I'm sure real managers don't say anything like that...
    I think it's a plausible way of doing things... ("I want you to cover this player when defending... Ignore their winger - he's only Shaun Wright-Phillips.")

    So what if it leads to exploits? That's a given. You don't have to play with exploit tactics.

  77. #77
    First Team Squad Member
    Join Date
    9th November 2010
    Location
    Standing free, wherever i may be
    Posts
    15,275

    Default

    I dont understand the argument that people want more realistic controls which would lead to unrealistic results and thats deemed as being better than what we have now?

  78. #78
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitja View Post
    another reason why I think the game would benefit with slight simplification of tactical system and I'm against micro control concerns the AI. imo tactical system needs to be simple for the AI to be succesfull. look at two new features TC and shouting instructions, AI can't use it effectivly enough. it's a kind of new exploit or at least it gives too much of advantage for humans. there's no point of having features which AI can't use well enough.
    IMO good AI - that's what is needed for the AI to be successful.) I can't imagine more simplified TC. Do you think, it's really interesting just to choose formation and player roles?

  79. #79
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitja View Post
    yeah it would but how could AI use it? this would lead to exploits. and I'm sure real managers don't say anything like that...
    Any reason why RL managers can't say such things?

  80. #80
    Third Team
    Join Date
    7th March 2007
    Location
    Pro-consumer, anti-DRM. Never be satisfied with any answer. Dig until you drop.
    Posts
    6,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milnerpoint View Post
    I dont understand the argument that people want more realistic controls which would lead to unrealistic results and thats deemed as being better than what we have now?
    Of course, the AI should improve to keep up with these additional, realistic controls.

  81. #81
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by x42bn6 View Post
    I think it's a plausible way of doing things... ("I want you to cover this player when defending... Ignore their winger - he's only Shaun Wright-Phillips.")

    So what if it leads to exploits? That's a given. You don't have to play with exploit tactics.
    Such exploits could be really a big problem, so it's pretty obvious that such system can work successfully only if AI is slightly improved.

  82. #82
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    10th July 2006
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    Any reason why RL managers can't say such things?
    Because it wouldn't make sense. You tell your player to take up a position when the ball is in one place, and another position when the ball is elsewhere. What about the the position of opposition players? Possible risks from him making that adjustment? Marking assignments he's supposed to be doing etc? Players are constantly reacting to what happens on the pitch, they have their assignments to fulfil, roles to perform. They can't do that if they have to constantly shuffle around from one position to another whenever the ball reaches a certain area on the pitch.

  83. #83
    First Team Squad Member
    Join Date
    9th November 2010
    Location
    Standing free, wherever i may be
    Posts
    15,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Äktsjon Männ View Post
    Because it wouldn't make sense. You tell your player to take up a position when the ball is in one place, and another position when the ball is elsewhere. What about the the position of opposition players? Possible risks from him making that adjustment? Marking assignments he's supposed to be doing etc? Players are constantly reacting to what happens on the pitch, they have their assignments to fulfil, roles to perform. They can't do that if they have to constantly shuffle around from one position to another whenever the ball reaches a certain area on the pitch.
    Exactly, what would happen if say for example, you set your right hand midfielder to cover your right winger when he roams forward, but the player your worried about has moved 15 yards infield, does the player then ignore the player or does he ignore your instructions? Being able to be that specific would lead to these kinds of situations all over the field where the realistic option would interfere with the human instructions.

  84. #84
    Third Team
    Join Date
    7th March 2007
    Location
    Pro-consumer, anti-DRM. Never be satisfied with any answer. Dig until you drop.
    Posts
    6,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Äktsjon Männ View Post
    Because it wouldn't make sense. You tell your player to take up a position when the ball is in one place, and another position when the ball is elsewhere. What about the the position of opposition players? Possible risks from him making that adjustment? Marking assignments he's supposed to be doing etc? Players are constantly reacting to what happens on the pitch, they have their assignments to fulfil, roles to perform. They can't do that if they have to constantly shuffle around from one position to another whenever the ball reaches a certain area on the pitch.
    This is handled by "common sense"...

    A manager does tell their players to cover certain areas, especially if they don't know the opposition (i.e. they are up against an unknown European side). If the opposition change formation, the player will try to adapt the purpose behind this instruction. For example, if a midfielder is asked to cover the left flank, it is because either the left-back loves getting forward, or the left-winger is dangerous, or both - therefore the player will try to adapt (possibly based on things like his decisions attribute) until the manager changes his instructions.

    Of course, it should be possible to issue "vague" instructions which may be appropriate when there is no single, complex, decisive instruction, such as "watch the left flank" (as opposed to "attack through the middle, but close down the left-midfielder when defending").

  85. #85
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    10th July 2006
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by x42bn6 View Post
    This is handled by "common sense"...

    A manager does tell their players to cover certain areas, especially if they don't know the opposition (i.e. they are up against an unknown European side). If the opposition change formation, the player will try to adapt the purpose behind this instruction. For example, if a midfielder is asked to cover the left flank, it is because either the left-back loves getting forward, or the left-winger is dangerous, or both - therefore the player will try to adapt (possibly based on things like his decisions attribute) until the manager changes his instructions.

    Of course, it should be possible to issue "vague" instructions which may be appropriate when there is no single, complex, decisive instruction, such as "watch the left flank" (as opposed to "attack through the middle, but close down the left-midfielder when defending").
    This is not quite the same thing as having six different formations depending on the position of the ball. I agree that this part of the game needs improvement. As I said, more flexibility is needed especially for central positions and instructions that achieve proper covering and postition swapping would be welcome. But not through complete control over player positioning. There are just too many factors a player has to consider when deciding where to stand on the pitch, there's just no way a manager could have that amount of control over it.

  86. #86
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    20th June 2004
    Posts
    2,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    IMO good AI - that's what is needed for the AI to be successful.) I can't imagine more simplified TC. Do you think, it's really interesting just to choose formation and player roles?
    where did I say that? all I said is that revision of current instructions (I mentioned shooting slider, mentality) would be welcomed and expansion of movement/positioning instructions even more. what is a good AI?

    what you want is ''total control'' of player behaviour. what I want is smarter player behaviour in ME.

  87. #87
    Semi Pro
    Join Date
    20th June 2004
    Posts
    2,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    Any reason why RL managers can't say such things?
    what you're trying to do with wibble/wobble already exists in the game. each role and duty has wide play set - leteral movement. mentality and forward runs affect up and down movement and defensive positioning. problem is in mentality becouse it influences so many different parts of play. I already said the best thing would be that movement and positioning were put out of mentality equasion and replaced with clear attacking movement and defensive positioning instructions.

  88. #88
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Äktsjon Männ View Post
    Because it wouldn't make sense. You tell your player to take up a position when the ball is in one place, and another position when the ball is elsewhere. What about the the position of opposition players? Possible risks from him making that adjustment? Marking assignments he's supposed to be doing etc? Players are constantly reacting to what happens on the pitch, they have their assignments to fulfil, roles to perform. They can't do that if they have to constantly shuffle around from one position to another whenever the ball reaches a certain area on the pitch.
    It doesn't make sense telling your AMR to take DL position when the ball is near the opposition penalty area or something else stupid. But it makes sense instructing your MR to take DR position while defending, or DM dropping to SW position while attacking near the opposition penalty area.

  89. #89
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitja View Post
    where did I say that? all I said is that revision of current instructions (I mentioned shooting slider, mentality) would be welcomed and expansion of movement/positioning instructions even more. what is a good AI?

    what you want is ''total control'' of player behaviour. what I want is smarter player behaviour in ME.
    I already said, it isn't total control. It's just a matter of finding right balance between instructions and improvising. All these instructions should be preferable tendencies but not exactly movement which the player will do every time in every situation.

  90. #90
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitja View Post
    what you're trying to do with wibble/wobble already exists in the game. each role and duty has wide play set - leteral movement. mentality and forward runs affect up and down movement and defensive positioning. problem is in mentality becouse it influences so many different parts of play. I already said the best thing would be that movement and positioning were put out of mentality equasion and replaced with clear attacking movement and defensive positioning instructions.
    It's all unclear and unrealistic with all these sliders. TC must be more friendly to user and more realistic. I already agreed with you about mentality but I'm against sliders at all. They should be replaced with something more realistic.

  91. #91
    Reserves
    Join Date
    8th January 2004
    Posts
    11,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    It's all unclear and unrealistic with all these sliders. TC must be more friendly to user and more realistic. I already agreed with you about mentality but I'm against sliders at all. They should be replaced with something more realistic.
    Its easily possible to use the TC without sliders.

    The ones that exist are under "Advanced" and even these are far less than what we had previously - "Classic"

  92. #92
    First Team Squad Member
    Join Date
    9th November 2010
    Location
    Standing free, wherever i may be
    Posts
    15,275

    Default

    i manually change one slider, tempo, i never touch the rest, but do adjust them with shouts during the game, you dont ever have to even look at the sliders if you dont want too.

  93. #93
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Without tweaking sliders there are too little tactical options. I like the way TC evolved from classic mode to current state, it became more realistic in football terms. But without tweaking sliders all you can do - as I said, just choose formation, roles, duties. It's not interesting.

  94. #94
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd August 2011
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milnerpoint View Post
    I dont understand the argument that people want more realistic controls which would lead to unrealistic results and thats deemed as being better than what we have now?

    Do you read the posts of SCIAG ? He explains the reason (be able to teach simple tactical moves to his players like in real life).

    This afternoon, I read some books about how train your players for coaches who prepare their graduate degrees (a book about physical training, one about academy training and another about professional training during one year). Most sessions was to teach tactical situations at a key moment according to the strategy of the coach (move of the striker to ventilate the aera in order to the winger go in, move for 3 vs 2, 2 vs 3, 2 vs 1, specific tactic for encounter a long pass situation or a counter attack, etc...).
    Each session need a specific time to be learnt. And it's true, real coaches need some months to learn different tactical concept to the players (real madrid is tactically better than last year, sacchi needed four months to learn his pressing to Van Basten & co with the risks involved, etc.)

    It was very fascinating and of course more realistic than understanding a FM tactic and its absurd sliders in a SI thread.
    Last edited by speedas; 06-12-2011 at 20:49.

  95. #95
    First Team
    Join Date
    5th June 2007
    Location
    Wishing Brendan Rodgers had been this good in 2010
    Posts
    22,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wwfan View Post


    I know we have this disagreement every six months or so. Arrows, as they were coded, were robotic. Players moved along the set arrow path no matter where the ball was on the pitch. It was proved very conclusively.
    That simply isn't true, I don't know if you ever viewed the .pkms I uploaded showing a sweeper with an arrow to striker who only left his half once (on a counter attack, with the ball already in the final third)? There was widespread incredulity when it was first claimed that arrows were robotic because it simply didn't tally with people's experiences. But yes, I see that you hold this opinion and will probably continue to cling to it indefinitely. FWIW, last I remember you said that only forwards and backwards arrows were followed robotically.

    Forward runs are an acceptable substitute to forward arrows. Backward arrows and (in some situations) sideways arrows are still yet to be replaced though, and it would be easier to introduce a simple graphical instruction (such as an arrow or a "defensive position") than create long lists of wordy drop down instructions.

  96. #96
    Tactics and Match Engine Moderator
    Join Date
    3rd December 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SCIAG View Post
    That simply isn't true, I don't know if you ever viewed the .pkms I uploaded showing a sweeper with an arrow to striker who only left his half once (on a counter attack, with the ball already in the final third)? There was widespread incredulity when it was first claimed that arrows were robotic because it simply didn't tally with people's experiences. But yes, I see that you hold this opinion and will probably continue to cling to it indefinitely. FWIW, last I remember you said that only forwards and backwards arrows were followed robotically.
    It's not an opinion. It's how they were coded to work. Players would follow the designated arrow movements in and out of possession, with, as you point out, side arrows being slightly different. Once the player began his arrowed movement, he'd follow it no matter what was happening on the pitch, until possession was lost. There might be some other elements that affected when this decision was made (mentality, position: would need to ask Paul to check), but once it was made, he'd follow that line. However, your sweeper failing to get forward might relate to him stuttering his run because possession wasn't properly secured.

    Forward runs are an acceptable substitute to forward arrows. Backward arrows and (in some situations) sideways arrows are still yet to be replaced though, and it would be easier to introduce a simple graphical instruction (such as an arrow or a "defensive position") than create long lists of wordy drop down instructions.
    I agree that some form of drop back or move inside/outside instructions are missing.

  97. #97
    Amateur
    Join Date
    30th April 2011
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wwfan View Post
    It's how they were coded to work.
    That's the thing. Even current TC can be coded such way that the players will look like robots. So, it's only a matter of implementation. I think, some users are against these ideas because they were already implemented in FM once but not in the best way.

  98. #98
    First Team Squad Member
    Join Date
    9th November 2010
    Location
    Standing free, wherever i may be
    Posts
    15,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    I think, some users are against these ideas because they were already implemented in FM once but not in the best way.
    I think you could be right with that, i have re-read your ideas about 6/7 times now (a lot to take in!! hahaha) and i do like a lot of it, but i do really worry about the game going back to a way that allowed exploits more easily, even if unintended.

  99. #99
    Amateur
    Join Date
    3rd August 2011
    Posts
    176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milnerpoint View Post
    I think you could be right with that, i have re-read your ideas about 6/7 times now (a lot to take in!! hahaha) and i do like a lot of it, but i do really worry about the game going back to a way that allowed exploits more easily, even if unintended.
    Having more control doesn't mean a more easy game (if AI have the same tools), more control means a more complex (so more fascinating) gameplay requiring for exemple more spying of your next opponent, a true tactic analysis. I dream of the same (r)evolution for FM that NBA 2K11 experienced, this game really forced you to understand the dimension of basketball. For too many years, FM no longer changes, it's time to make a true and exciting evolution.

  100. #100
    Tactics and Match Engine Moderator
    Join Date
    3rd December 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exius View Post
    That's the thing. Even current TC can be coded such way that the players will look like robots. So, it's only a matter of implementation. I think, some users are against these ideas because they were already implemented in FM once but not in the best way.
    It's a matter of not making tendencies absolutes. The problem with some of your ideas is you are precisely telling players to do certain things in certain areas of the pitch. I don't see how these can be tendencies, which will mean they will be robotic. However, the players should be expected to do certain things on a regular basis. It's a fine balance between not enough control and too much.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts