Open letter to SI: The Realism or Without Arrows

It's obvious that the arrows, as they have been since the beginning of the CM/FM series, no longer exists, and what we have now is nothing more than a decoration, which allows us to talk about their some what different purpose with an "innocent" tone. Or in other words, SI singed off on their ability to balance the game engine in the privies form.

I should remind you that this is not the first step in the direction of an artificial limitation of the tactical freedom of the user. During the transition to the CM4, the option of manually positioning players depending which team had the ball and in which of the 12 zones of the field was it, was cut. The approach also doesn't completely comply with the reality although more flexible than the next one. The reasons were obvious – "bad people abused the poor AI, using their cheating techniques, some of which seemed pretty far fetched". Sounds fresh, doesn't it? The transition was successfully smoothened by the revolutionary 2D, and the "bad people" mellowed with time and started making their diablo tactics.

Next I should explain why I consider these restrictions artificial. Nothing but common sense can prevent the coach from making a player run to the right corner flag of the opposing team on each attack even if that player is a left defender. Only common sense can make you think that

(A) inevitably that player will tire and will have to be replaced

(B) during a fast attack he will not have time to cover such a critical zone by the corner flag

© if the ball is lost, he will not have time to cover his own zone in the defense

(D) spends most of his time at midfield

(E) it's unlikely to have a positive affect on the team's scores

(F) will allow him to question, along with the rest of the players and management, the mental health of the coach and ect.

Things don't just pop out of nowhere, and so is our common sense, instead it's quite naturally based on the laws of physics. Let's imagine an alternative reality, in which the left defender doesn't only not tire and has enough time to be where he's spouse to be but also brings results, and the coach is seen as a genius (those how could imagine can just think of the 8.02). What does our common sense tells us now?

It's called – feel the difference.

Considering that common sense is a subjective term which is based on curtain conditions, constricting anything based on it is at the very least strange. Thus I consider only two constrictions to by acceptable and natural: the laws of physics and football rules. The arrows on its own don't seem to contradict ether of those.

Never the less there will be no arrows, and the key words in the argumentation will be "in reality" and "realism". Diagonal movements, concentrating players in a constricted zone on the field, active addition of players to the first line of attack and ect, all these are considered unreal (which means that all of the above are not being used in modern football ). I would say that the engine of the match doesn't quite cope with all these things. There is a range of reasons for that, including a few objective ones, but I haven't seen a word about it.

However I have seen a great quote:" One solution is that an excessive use of arrows should lead to a heavy drop in player conditioning. I can see the logic in that, but don’t think it gets to the core of the issue, which is the realism of the engine. ".

So what can be said about the center defenders, who under similar conditions tire about as much as the ones on the flanges covering about twice as much distance in a match? What about the difference in condition between the players who run forward and the ones who don't?

Generally speaking the accents are placed in a strange manner or plain out wrong to be precise. Instead of bringing the laws of physics of our alternative FM reality to a normal state, in which the distance and the speed its cover on, are substantially effect the players condition, where the ball moves faster than the player and the defender who joins the attack can't return to his defender position in time to prevent the counterattack of the opposing team and so on and so on and so on………perhaps they will get to it later , but why did the arrows sufere.

TriAn, Croatian, grokk, vladik-kiev, denykteam, slavutich, MerlinGM, ildan, and other users (FMFan.ru)

Was going to make a post exactly like this when I first heard the rumour of arrows being removed but you've expressed it far more eloquently.

In relation to the condition effect if the synch between FM Live and FM 09 is accurate then this http://footballmanagerlive.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/talking-to-god/

suggests player stats will include 'distance covered' in FM Live version 1.01 (whatever that means) so maybe it will be in FM 09. It might not solve your issue but it will make it more transparent and objective in terms of describing an issue (assuming the numbers don't lie to cover up a vast AI conspiracy ). I guess we'll know when the demo comes out but I hope it's included.

I agree 100% with the removal of the arrows feeling like a shortcut and feel like it is being done with reference to crazy tactics in FM Live and the use of the same engine, rather than getting to the frailties with respect to:-

1. Defensive player positioning and difficulty coping with overloading of areas

2. AI manager inability to use tactical tools to deal with specific circumstances rather than generalised approaches

3. Player capability of performing the all action roles

I'm with you on a manager being able to do what he wants and do not see why those who use the arrows for what are in my opinion perfectly legitimate reason should lose tactical control because other users manipulate the arrows to break the engine. Football is free and if a manager says to an AM L (via curved farrows in FM) get in the box everytime we break forward then the effectiveness of this instruction should be limited by player match ups rather than removing the ability to apply said instruction because it is deemed unrealistic.

Football evolves and in my opinion the concept of what is 'realistic' today might not be the same tomorrow. Just a few examples:-

1. The winger transition from bomb to the byline to more free flowing

2. The concept of playing without an out and out big man up front

The football historians on here could probably tell us about formations that only appeared at a given moment in time. I'm basing my dates on wikipedia so possibly not accurate but according to there the 433 concept appeared in the early 1960's. Thus if there had existed computers and 'Football Manager 1955' then a 433 would have been deemed an unrealistic formation.

The question of whether or not the 'realistic' (obviously subjective) uses of arrows are possible in the new engine with use of general sliders we'll have to wait until the demo to find out. If I'm honest I'm expecting a rough teething period as the Tactics forum gets flooded with people asking how to do this and how to do that. I think it will add a new level of frustration for users who don't particularly enjoy figuring out the sliders, especially if they see AI managed players doing things that previously they themselves could do with one simple right click of the mouse but now despite hours of tweaking cannot get working. For example the barrowed MC or the Sarrowed striker. Both of these are in my opinion legitimate approaches so I really hope the nature of the match engine in relation to sliders is changed such that an intuitive combination of the remaining options can be used to replicate this behaviour.

Of course being a football fan as opposed to a programmer I have zip knowledge of how difficult it would be to create AI that allows teams to cope (where possible with respect to players) with the more colourful tactics. My hope would be that as AI and the match engine evolve tactical freedom will be restored and arrow effectiveness will have more to do with player ability to perform those roles rather than being a general engine buster.

It's obvious that the arrows, as they have been since the beginning of the CM/FM series, no longer exists, and what we have now is nothing more than a decoration, which allows us to talk about their some what different purpose with an "innocent" tone. Or in other words, SI singed off on their ability to balance the game engine in the privies form.

I should remind you that this is not the first step in the direction of an artificial limitation of the tactical freedom of the user. During the transition to the CM4, the option of manually positioning players depending which team had the ball and in which of the 12 zones of the field was it, was cut. The approach also doesn't completely comply with the reality although more flexible than the next one. The reasons were obvious – "bad people abused the poor AI, using their cheating techniques, some of which seemed pretty far fetched". Sounds fresh, doesn't it? The transition was successfully smoothened by the revolutionary 2D, and the "bad people" mellowed with time and started making their diablo tactics.

Next I should explain why I consider these restrictions artificial. Nothing but common sense can prevent the coach from making a player run to the right corner flag of the opposing team on each attack even if that player is a left defender. Only common sense can make you think that

(A) inevitably that player will tire and will have to be replaced

(B) during a fast attack he will not have time to cover such a critical zone by the corner flag

© if the ball is lost, he will not have time to cover his own zone in the defense

(D) spends most of his time at midfield

(E) it's unlikely to have a positive affect on the team's scores

(F) will allow him to question, along with the rest of the players and management, the mental health of the coach and ect.

Things don't just pop out of nowhere, and so is our common sense, instead it's quite naturally based on the laws of physics. Let's imagine an alternative reality, in which the left defender doesn't only not tire and has enough time to be where he's spouse to be but also brings results, and the coach is seen as a genius (those how could imagine can just think of the 8.02). What does our common sense tells us now?

It's called – feel the difference.

Considering that common sense is a subjective term which is based on curtain conditions, constricting anything based on it is at the very least strange. Thus I consider only two constrictions to by acceptable and natural: the laws of physics and football rules. The arrows on its own don't seem to contradict ether of those.

Never the less there will be no arrows, and the key words in the argumentation will be "in reality" and "realism". Diagonal movements, concentrating players in a constricted zone on the field, active addition of players to the first line of attack and ect, all these are considered unreal (which means that all of the above are not being used in modern football ). I would say that the engine of the match doesn't quite cope with all these things. There is a range of reasons for that, including a few objective ones, but I haven't seen a word about it.

However I have seen a great quote:" One solution is that an excessive use of arrows should lead to a heavy drop in player conditioning. I can see the logic in that, but don’t think it gets to the core of the issue, which is the realism of the engine. ".

So what can be said about the center defenders, who under similar conditions tire about as much as the ones on the flanges covering about twice as much distance in a match? What about the difference in condition between the players who run forward and the ones who don't?

Generally speaking the accents are placed in a strange manner or plain out wrong to be precise. Instead of bringing the laws of physics of our alternative FM reality to a normal state, in which the distance and the speed its cover on, are substantially effect the players condition, where the ball moves faster than the player and the defender who joins the attack can't return to his defender position in time to prevent the counterattack of the opposing team and so on and so on and so on………perhaps they will get to it later , but why did the arrows sufere.

TriAn, Croatian, grokk, vladik-kiev, denykteam, slavutich, MerlinGM, ildan, and other users (FMFan.ru)

I'm agreeable

I think FM Live is the main reason for this change. In PvP it could be exploitable and it needed very much work done to tweak it and make realistic so no exploits were possible.

Without FML it could be done over a few next versions as there is no really great problem with it in FM08. AI don't exploit it and the player don't do it if he wants. But with FML SI didn't have time and they decided to go for a cheaper solution.

And we will suffer FML influences on ME in future too. From the one hand FML gives a massive advantage with all the testing, on the other hand it will be quite hard to implement new serious tactical features cos they will need ages to balance.

i allways thought using any other formation that isn't used by AI also, is cheating. for example, 442 with ML going to AMC position rather than AML. why would only one - (human) manager have such advantage? it's like you're playing a formula 1 game and the best car could be used only by human player.

what i would like to see in new match engine is more 'positional freedom' of players. with arrows or without arrows, player's movement was too predictable and static by now. (IRE, players don't stand in same position whole game). let's say i want to play 4411 formation, very cautios, with players holding their positions and tactical scheme or on the other hand if i want to play same formation but arsenal/barca style, where players have freedom to roam and decide on there own. both formations are 4411 but players' attcaking positioning and movement has to be different and obvious to us. sliders like creative freedom for 'tactical freedom' and thus also for 'positional freedom', mentality for 'positional distance', free role for 'positional freedom' and forward runs for 'moving forward' should in theory let us have those tactical possibilities.

i agree that arrows are a tool which is used IRE. imo, mentality ('positional distance') should be used for that, in FM. but i doubt any manager says to his player 'i want you stand 'x' and no where alse', becouse that's basicly all what arrows used to do.

I promise the removal of arrows has taken the match engine up a new level and you can do almost everything you used to do except give individual players defensive width. Players marking has improved enough though to handle this.

I don't think it's quite fair to say

But with FML SI didn't have time and they decided to go for a cheaper solution.

FML has allowed SI to have tens of thousands of matches per week played with the ME, which is orders of magnitude more testing than it has ever had before! So the ME we will get in FM09 will be in terrific shape principally because of FML, not despite it.

The arrows were certainly a source of exploiting - we saw a lot of people using one formation, but then having arrows set to enforce a completely different formation on the pitch. Working out what the 'real' formation was was a little tiring, shall we say.

However, the testing also showed that the instructions often included scope for duplication of instruction - what's the difference between forward arrowing an MR to the byline, and setting his mentality to attacking and his forward runs to often? The arrows allowed non-sensical settings - DMs that sat were pulled deep and to attack, for example.

So the arrows went - and though it is hard to quantify, the ME is infinitely better for it. I've said it before, but I will again - it plays much more like real football now. DMs play like DMs, wingers like wingers and so on. Simply put - the arrows had to go. SI made the right call.

Of course, it leaves some gaps - principally the ability to tell wide players to cut inside. Content updates of FML have paused for a while now, as that game nears release, and so we don't know what PaulC and the team have been beavering away on. Will it stay for FM09 as it is in FML? I've no idea - it certainly wouldn't be a disaster. Will we get sliders to set width for defence/midfield/attack? Will we get a 'cut inside' tick box for wide players? We'll find out soon I guess.

Is it for certain then that the arrows have gone?

How can you do the same in your tactics then?

When you use forward arrows, you see that player running forward when in possession of the ball.

How can you "tell" your players to do so without arrows?

And with the arrows you could tell your wingers (ML / MR) to run up to AM (short arrow) or even F (long arrow), can you still do the same without the arrows?

Can someone (prefferably a tester) tell me how you can do this without arrows?

Obviously I haven't played FM Live, so I don't know how to do it in that game either.

So the ME we will get in FM09 will be in terrific shape principally because of FML, not despite it.

After playing the FML beta for awhile, I would agree with SuperBladesman. My experience with the new ME has shown more control over how players play their positions and carry out their assignments, not less. Overall, it seems tighter. I especially agree with SuperBladesman in that arrows were sometimes problems when given with other conflicting or over-necessary instructions. Too much of a good instruction or conflicting instructions confused matters when trying to read your team's play - or affect it by tweaking your tactic. Of course, this is all my opinion based on a number of months of using the match engine. Everyone to their own opinion, but I think the original poster may be overstating the importance of arrows (or ruin from removing them) in creating a quality tactic.

Is it for certain then that the arrows have gone?

How can you do the same in your tactics then?

When you use forward arrows, you see that player running forward when in possession of the ball.

How can you "tell" your players to do so without arrows?

And with the arrows you could tell your wingers (ML / MR) to run up to AM (short arrow) or even F (long arrow), can you still do the same without the arrows?

Can someone (prefferably a tester) tell me how you can do this without arrows?

Obviously I haven't played FM Live, so I don't know how to do it in that game either.

Through the player instructions - eg Run with ball, Forward runs etc.

I've always used arrows but I can now see where these have conflicted with player instructions.

I started a new game yesterday without arrows and even the engine on 08 seems to be a lot smoother so I would say correct choice.

Through the player instructions - eg Run with ball, Forward runs etc.

No.

With player instructions you can choose the OVERALL mentality (so this cannot substitute the arrows) and how OFTEN player goes forward, but you CANNOT choose WHERE set the position in attacking phase.

I thought that we could still use farrows and barrows, but not sarrows/carrows?

No.

With player instructions you can choose the OVERALL mentality (so this cannot substitute the arrows) and how OFTEN player goes forward, but you CANNOT choose WHERE set the position in attacking phase.

individual mentality?

maybe it might be a smart thing to try a demo first, before we coment.

individual mentality?

Like I have written, individual mentality is an overall instrucion ( it's is both for defending and attacking phase)

I agree with the first two posts. Removing arrows is what I'd see as a 'lazy' solution to the problem, even when the engine seems to play out matches 'more realistically'. What they've done is crippling the human manager so the AI (and by AI I mean both AI managers and match engine AI) could cope. The 'right' solution would be to improve the engine so that unrealistic approaches by the player were ineffective. I appreciate it isn't all that easy to do but that is what we should be aiming for.

Simply put - the best way to make a realistic match engine is to motion cap a few football matches and remove all user input - the perfect simulation of a football match. No unrealistic approaches for the AI to cope with and no freak scenarios. While it is an extreme example, it still illustrates how removing arrows (or wibble wobble for that matter) is approaching the problem from a wrong angle - limiting user control is not something I would think of as a good way to improve the game.

I thought that we could still use farrows and barrows, but not sarrows/carrows?

The farrows in FML represent only the forward runs setting - rarely = barrow, often = farrow.

As another poster said - I've stopped using arrows in FM08 altogether now, and am doing very well indeed. Better than before tbh, my Blyth Spartans are unbeaten runaway leaders in the Blue Square North, and I've always struggled at this level previously.

I agree with the first two posts. Removing arrows is what I'd see as a 'lazy' solution to the problem' date=' even when the engine seems to play out matches 'more realistically'. What they've done is crippling the human manager so the AI (and by AI I mean both AI managers and match engine AI) could cope. The 'right' solution would be to improve the engine so that unrealistic approaches by the player were ineffective. I appreciate it isn't all that easy to do but that is what we should be aiming for.

Simply put - the best way to make a realistic match engine is to motion cap a few football matches and remove all user input - the perfect simulation of a football match. No unrealistic approaches for the AI to cope with and no freak scenarios. While it is an extreme example, it still illustrates how removing arrows (or wibble wobble for that matter) is approaching the problem from a wrong angle - limiting user control is not something I would think of as a good way to improve the game.[/quote']

why do you think it's a lazy solution?

- people used arrows to exploit ME. why would human managers have an advantage of using arrows in such manner, which AI wasn't able to? that's a cheat and now, it's not going to happen anymore. i think arrows needed to be dropped for FM more than for FML.

- hopefully we'll have better player movement if the ME is really that good as people say. arrows were a static positional tool, we want some players to roam around more.

- arrows were counterdicting instruction to mentality slider and forward runs to some digree and defenetly unrealistic. for example, having your winger on ultra defensive mentality with no forward runs and arrowed to SC posittion.

- hopefully almost everything that could have be done with arrows, we're still be able to do, using other instructions.

I use arrows alot but when you think about it, is it that realistic? In a 'realistic' sense a manager could draw an arrow a board and say everytime we attack, run here but then it doesn't mean the player will run there every time you have the ball, it would be dependant on how the attack is etc. Maybe it isn't that realistic. Giving your players individual instructions and styling their play like that seems possibly more realistic. I do remember someone in a different thread saying how good the player instructions are now and that it is all improved but time will tell. I do wonder though, is the OP somebody that would like to make the game harder yet cries a bit when it actually could be made harder tactically?

I've said it before, but I will again - it plays much more like real football now. DMs play like DMs, wingers like wingers and so on. Simply put - the arrows had to go. SI made the right call.

Haha, it will be the BEST ME in the world, if you exclude all player and team instructions. Players will do all that they want, manager will be not able to change something, but this will be the best ME))))))))))))) "DMs play like DMs, wingers like wingers and so on."

why do you think it's a lazy solution?

- people used arrows to exploit ME.

- why would human managers have an advantage of using arrows in such manner, which AI wasn't able to? i think arrows needed to be dropped for FM more than for FML.

- hopefully we'll have better player movement if the ME is really that good as people say. arrows were a static positional tool, we want some players to roam around more.

- arrows were counterdicting instruction to mentality and forward runs to some digree.

- hopefully almost everything that could have be done with arrows, we're still be able to do, using other instructions.

Again, approaching the problem from a wrong angle.

- Why was it possible to exploit ME with arrows? It's a completely realistic concept to instruct your players to behave differently when in possession as opposed to when they're not.

- AI wasn't able to? As much as we've been told the AI has as much control over tactics than the human managers do. It's more about the deficiencies in the way the AI works rather than something wrong with human users.

- It looks better because it now works in a more limited framework. I don't see how arrows have anything to do with players roaming around.

- Arrows contradicting mentality and fwd runs, again a deficiency within the ME rather than a problem with the concept itself.

- If all that could have been done with arrows is still possible to do with instructions then why remove them? Why make it harder just for the sake of it?

We can dress it up however we like to but in the end the removal of arrows still looks like a shortcut to get around more serious issues with the ME.

I would say completely the opposite.

The arrows are a relic from the past which have been superceded. Leaving them in over the last couple of releases has resulted in conflict between the arrows and the newer system of instructions.

The arrows are a relic from the past which have been superceded. Leaving them in over the last couple of releases has resulted in conflict between the arrows and the newer system of instructions.

That's lie. There is not new system of instructions, sorry guys! Rejection of arrows mean: "We don't now how it must work. And that's why now there aren't arrows"

It's simple. As of FM2008, the tactics allow you to give contradictory instructions. Do you:

a) allow the contradictory instructions to remain, and make a best guess at what the user wants

b) remove the possiblity of giving contradictory instructions and then know for sure what the user wants

I've read through most of these posts and it's quite interesting but I have 2 questions as follows: -

1.) Does this apply to FML or also to match engine's in previous FM's like 08 for example?

2.) If it is for FM08 and previous versions can someone please explain to me how you exploit the match engine just by using arrows?

Thanks very much.

It's simple. As of FM2008, the tactics allow you to give contradictory instructions.

You're going to have to elaborate on that as I can't really see why having different instructions for off the ball/on the ball situations has to contradict with anything.

Again, any 'contradictions' (I'd really like to hear what is the common opinion on these as I can't really think of any obvious ones) must be down to flaws with the ME, not the other way around. Limiting user input isn't an improvement in my view.

I agree with the post of the original. His wise is on the mountain but over. The SI must put his ear to the ground for passing of the general talk of the fm buy. They are what is in the shop the game what we have of goodness.

Hey anth, serious question...are you a Native American Indian?

The one problem I had and the best example I can give of why the arrows had to go is what would happen IF you set your a central midfielder with a barrow (backwards arrow) into a defensive midfielder position but set his forward runs to often. Now the AI has to try and get that player to run backwards when in position but forwards aswell, now that just leaves confusion.

Now if you set a midfielder to a forward run then that avoids all confusion. It just merges the two together but has to sacrifice certain other options. Now, SI have to deal with how you will instruct players to cut inside. Maybe it will be an option like the old Forward runs option. With the ability to choose "rarely, sometimes and always" but i believe SI are working extremely hard to keep all options that were in the FM08 into 09 but make it easier for the match engine to understand and make the AI more likely to respond

The one problem I had and the best example I can give of why the arrows had to go is what would happen IF you set your a central midfielder with a barrow (backwards arrow) into a defensive midfielder position but set his forward runs to often. Now the AI has to try and get that player to run backwards when in position but forwards aswell, now that just leaves confusion.

Now if you set a midfielder to a forward run then that avoids all confusion. It just merges the two together but has to sacrifice certain other options. Now, SI have to deal with how you will instruct players to cut inside. Maybe it will be an option like the old Forward runs option. With the ability to choose "rarely, sometimes and always" but i believe SI are working extremely hard to keep all options that were in the FM08 into 09 but make it easier for the match engine to understand and make the AI more likely to respond

Thing is, you've misunderstood how the arrows work(ed). The barrow never meant that the player would have to run backwards when in position. It just meant that when the team is off the ball he plays as a defensive mid. A defensive midfielder can still make forward runs, no? I yet again do not see a problem with the concept.

I'm a bit disappointed as arrows can be used to emulate certain styles.

Torsten Frings wouldn't be incorrectly represented as a DM with a big arrow to AM R/FR, for example - Darren Fletcher and Owen Hargreaves, too.

FML has allowed SI to have tens of thousands of matches played with the ME, which is orders of magnitude more testing than it has ever had before! So the ME we will get in FM09 will be in terrific shape principally because of FML, not despite it.

Just to take this further - FML is closer to 10,000 matches per week, and has been running for over a year and half...

Without the arrows we only have the basic frame with minimal options of regulating the player's movements.

What does it mean that the winger plays like a winger without the arrows?

Are you trying to tell me that the wingers at Mourinho's Chelsea play the same role as the ones at Ferguson's MU or that the DMC at Ancelotti's Milan play the same role as the dmcs at Mancini's Inter? Whenever a coach positions his players on a theoretical assignment on a model field in the IRL, he can demand of them anything but running forward.

You, a dmc, shift to the right to the position of the right mc since the right winger actively joins the attack and his position must be covered. Such a command was possible with the arrows. Now we just have a frame in which the players have become just pins who are able to move one spot at a time. No diagonal shifts are possible. I mean nothing supernatural, how can you play in Mourinho's style in which the wingers constantly shift to the center? Now we have a British style winger who runs along the flange, but now he can't shift to the center anymore. A list of such examples can go on to infinity.

What is a forward runs? How far will he go? Nether of these can be regulated and will be directly derived from the skill level of the player and not from tactical instructions. "Runs with ball" doesn't effect movements at all.

Thing is, you've misunderstood how the arrows work(ed). The barrow never meant that the player would have to run backwards when in position. It just meant that when the team is off the ball he plays as a defensive mid. A defensive midfielder can still make forward runs, no? I yet again do not see a problem with the concept.

After spending a while in the tactic and training forum I understood that the arrows were what would happen when the team gains possesion

After spending a while in the tactic and training forum I understood that the arrows were what would happen when the team gains possesion

Depends what sort of arrow it is.

Farrows (forward arrows) are activated when the team is in posession.

Barrows (backward arrows) are activated when they are not.

Sarrows (side arrows) are always active. A player will position himself somewhere along the arrow.

Sarrows (side arrows) are activated when the team is in posession

)))

Put simply I reckon the arrows should have stayed...

Thing is, you've misunderstood how the arrows work(ed). The barrow never meant that the player would have to run backwards when in position. It just meant that when the team is off the ball he plays as a defensive mid. A defensive midfielder can still make forward runs, no? I yet again do not see a problem with the concept.

Depends what sort of arrow it is.

Farrows (forward arrows) are activated when the team is in posession.

Barrows (backward arrows) are activated when they are not.

Sarrows (side arrows) are always active. A player will position himself somewhere along the arrow.

Thanks for clearing that up. But then what happens when a CM has a farrow to the FC position but then forward runs rarely. now these are conflicting!

Another good and specific real life example is when John O'Shea is played as a defensive midfielder for United - one of his main objectives is to cover the left back position when Patrice Evra bombs forward. How can you emulate that in FM? There is no good way to do specifically that and with the removal of arrows it's not going to be possible to get anything even resembling of that. What we'll no doubt have is a ME which which plays out quite like football itself, but under the hood it's just a more limited framework and controlling the finer details gets less and less possible over the years.

Another good and specific real life example is when John O'Shea is played as a defensive midfielder for United - one of his main objectives is to cover the left back position when Patrice Evra bombs forward. How can you emulate that in FM? There is no good way to do specifically that and with the removal of arrows it's not going to be possible to get anything even resembling of that. What we'll no doubt have is a ME which which plays out quite like football itself, but under the hood it's just a more limited framework and controlling the finer details gets less and less possible over the years.

You couldn't do anything like that even with the arrows. If you give O'Shea an arrow to left back, when you lose the ball, he'll go and stand next to Evra, when you win the ball back (and Evra bombs forward), he'll be in his defensive midfield position, not covering Evra. So you've lost nothing.

Now matter how good the tactics are, they will never be able to replicate all real life scenarios. Giving O'Shea a very defensive mentality will see him stay back when the team attacks, and if the match engine is working properly, he should fill in for any defenders that bomb on. It's not the exact situation you describe above, but it's a reasonable approximation.

I agree with the lad above ^^^ - sorry but I have no idea how to type you name :S

This lad... Äktsjon Männ *copy and paste*.

And peter-evo...if a manager is daft enough to have an arrow from MC to FC with 'rarely' forward runs then on his head be crap tactical results.

However wouldn't he just jog up to the position when they had the ball and stand there just not making much movement 'off the ball'? Cos that's how I understand Forward Runs...they tell players to move off the ball. Or am I wrong?

You couldn't do anything like that even with the arrows. If you give O'Shea an arrow to left back, when you lose the ball, he'll go and stand next to Evra, when you win the ball back (and Evra bombs forward), he'll be in his defensive midfield position, not covering Evra. So you've lost nothing.

I wonder...would doing the 'swap position' just for O'Shea with Evra (not also the other way round) work in keeping that he covers left-back?

I wonder...would doing the 'swap position' just for O'Shea with Evra (not also the other way round) work in keeping that he covers left-back?

I doubt it, you would just end up with Evra occasionly playing in midfield. There's no way of replicating that correctly with any of the tactics setups that CM or FM has ever had. But you can't really expect to be able to do very specific stuff like that.

Uhm, all arrows happen when the team is in possession, set your striker to run all the way back to your box and watch what he does in FM08 when your team has possession..

I agree with the lad above ^^^ - sorry but I have no idea how to type you name :S

Him Äktsjon Männ *copy and paste.

And peter-evo...if a manager is daft enough to have an arrow from MC to FC with 'rarely' forward runs the on his head be crap tactical results. However wouldn't he just jog up to the position when they had the ball and stand there just not making much movement 'off the ball. Cos that's how I understand Forward Runs...that they're to tell players to move off the ball. Or am I wrong?

I thought it was a good ide...

Joking aside I was giving an example of how it can be confused, There are many ways that the arrows can conflict with other settings and I hope that the removal of the arrows will only lead the engine forward and will open up new possibilities within other areas!

The main reason of removal is inability of ME take into account that when players move much more (with using arrow), he will tired quickly. Also when DMC run on FC position, DC can't understand what's happend and run to any place, but not into needed position. If Si can fix this - arrows will be safe and sound, but...

I agree with the lad above ^^^ - sorry but I have no idea how to type you name :S

This lad... Äktsjon Männ *copy and paste*.

And peter-evo...if a manager is daft enough to have an arrow from MC to FC with 'rarely' forward runs then on his head be crap tactical results.

However wouldn't he just jog up to the position when they had the ball and stand there just not making much movement 'off the ball'? Cos that's how I understand Forward Runs...they tell players to move off the ball. Or am I wrong?

Uhm, all arrows happen when the team is in possession, set your striker to run all the way back to your box and watch what he does in FM08 when your team has possession..

Just tried that have we, anyhow it is up to SI to have taken one step back with the removal of arrows but two steps forward with the match engine and perhaps new tactical possibilities

I thought it was a good ide...

Joking aside I was giving an example of how it can be confused, There are many ways that the arrows can conflict with other settings and I hope that the removal of the arrows will only lead the engine forward and will open up new possibilities within other areas!

answer me plz

I mean nothing supernatural, how can you play in Mourinho's style in which the wingers constantly shift to the center? Now we have a British style winger who runs along the flange, but now he can't shift to the center anymore. A list of such examples can go on to infinity.

answer me plz

1/ It's spelt please

2/ Set; - cross from deep

- cross rarely

- fwd runs = often

- run with ball = often

- passing = short

- mentality attacking

boo------ haa!!

Another good and specific real life example is when John O'Shea is played as a defensive midfielder for United - one of his main objectives is to cover the left back position when Patrice Evra bombs forward. How can you emulate that in FM? There is no good way to do specifically that and with the removal of arrows it's not going to be possible to get anything even resembling of that. What we'll no doubt have is a ME which which plays out quite like football itself, but under the hood it's just a more limited framework and controlling the finer details gets less and less possible over the years.

put him in left CM position, defensive mentality, no forward runs. with good ME it should work easily as he should understand his role to cover for others -> evra.