Discussion - Have arrows destroyed the beautiful game?

[Rashidi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by serek:

Wow, I don't even remember the last time I've been called "little"

I never said there is absolutely no such thing as an exploit like that. I just stated that it MIGHT exist or not, and without proper proof you can't really expect a lot of people to take part in a discussion like this, since they think differently. Am I wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think you're not subscribing to the same newsletter as me, Cleon and wwfan. We are all more involved in the game than the average Joe.

The fact remains there is an exploit, there are some who have found it, the discussion is not about the exploit but about the relevance of arrows in the game and whether we can replace it with something else. You should pay more attention.

[spastik_youth]

thats right....who is fooooookunnnnn rashidi anyway??

[Queen of the Stevenage]

I agree on the arrows needing looking at. What I would say is that perhaps individual width/attacking instructions might replace them?

[Rashidi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by spastik_youth:

thats right....who is fooooookunnnnn rashidi anyway?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I now understand why you choose that specific handle for yourself

[Cleon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Queen of the Stevenage:

I agree on the arrows needing looking at. What I would say is that perhaps individual width/attacking instructions might replace them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if they were took out, we would need more options I agree.

[cice2]

Ya I felt there are something wrong with the arrows. I have a formation that totally destroys weaker teams or equivalent by having right midfielder running to left striker position and vice versa for left midfield.

I have no complains about winning but making that kind of runs doesn't seem to tire the players much at all. The stamina penalty with or without arrows doesn't provide much of a deterrent for implementing wild runs. I suggest SI to look into that because the earlier versions does seem to tire the players more. I think the latest patch does mention something about fixing how players tire, maybe something is broken here.

Making sure that there is balance between stamina penalty and long runs should give managers more realistic options. Arrows should remains IMO.

[Wes_Coulam]

Rashidi - A bit out of flavour with your topic as i know its against the "AMC Exploit" But if i was a dirrty snake who likes exploiting the AI whats the best way to do in the AMC slot as i wouldnt mind utilising it in my tactic.

Cleon - "Like a greasy chip butty" You super black and whites, come and fill me again. Na Na NA Na Na Na NA! TOWN! ? I thought that was a Grimsby chant

[Cleon]

Nah Grimsby ripped us off

[heathxxx]

Just out of interest, have those of you playing FML seen any match engine changes that indicate any improvements for FM09?

Although I've not the time to play FML myself, I'm hopeful that it's continual improvement and updates will contribute to the boxed, as PaulC suggested in the forums once.

I would be interested to see what tactical interface changes SI can or will make. I've got quite used to the current sliders, but think they could be refined and simplified for the masses.

I agree that arrows can have too much influence and there needs to be some balance. "Cause & Effect". Long and unrealistic arrows throughout a game should result in severe depletion of player fitness, as others have mentioned. Players making runs "out of position" should also run a higher risk of being caught out of position.

[aston_martin]

Rash, currently I'm using a 4-1-3-2 like you outlined above, but I am struggling to get the wingers in on the play much, any Ideas?

[pele10]

everything is wrong with 08.

eg AI gk will save 90% of shots yours will be 25% at most

AI will score with first shot most of the time

AI's gk doesn't matter on stats he will have a good game

you lose because your keeper is told to pass to a defender but will only have comp 5 passes out of 30

[aston_martin]

*Sorry to go off topic btw.

[pele10]

why play FML when they can't get FM right

[LSS]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Anthony Cameron:

Can someone who understands the game engine better than I do give me a definition, in layman's terms, of what the following actually do:

Mentality

Forward Runs

Arrows.

I know that may sound really simplistic, but I know what I think they do but it appears that various people think they do different things and if we're to get a conclusion to this question I thought it might be best to start with the basics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll try.

Gurus can correct me if I'm wrong, but I see arrows, forward runs and mentality like this:

Arrows:

Arrows are a way to set a different formation for attack and defense. An arrow tells the player that he should always play in a different position when the team is in possession of the ball and when it is not. Doesn't leave any decision making regarding his position for the player. For example an AMC with a farrow plays as forward when the team is in possession of the ball and as an AMC when not.

Forward runs:/B]

Tells the player to make attacking runs. The effectivity on these runs are up to player's attributes. He is not just running forward all the time (even if set on 'Often'). So, an AMC set to FWR 'Often' can stay in his AMC position up until he spots an opening to run into while an AMC with an arrow would push forward even when there is no space.

Mentality:

Mentality has a lot to do with other things than just player positioning. A player set on high attacking mentality is more likely to look for a shot or a pass leading to goal than side or back passes. I think mentality only has a slight effect on positioning (and apparently no effect in case of DCs).

If the arrows were to be removed then we definitely would need options for 'Track back', 'Come deep' and 'Cut inside'.

[Mitja]

I allways thought that defensive formation is needed only. and more realistic. "positional instructions" (cut inside, come deep...) and mentality should determine player's movement with the ball.

[The Gaffovski]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mitja:

I allways thought that defensive formation is needed only. and more realistic. "positional instructions" (cut inside, come deep...) and mentality should determine player's movement with the ball. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree more.

What I dislike is the predictability of using arrows. They're (the players with arrows) always going to go to the same place. However, I find myself having to use them, because there are no "cut inside" etc options. My biggest wish for 09, is a cut inside option which I would put on "Mixed" so I could see a winger sometimes making runs hugging the line and other times cutting inside. And also for PPM's to be available within training, not tutoring, so you can pick what PPM's a player will have.

[Mitja]

stuff like cuting inside, coming deep, geting forward as soon as possibile, huging the line... are really basic tactical instuctions IRE given by managers. it could be PPM but it's more like instuction, IMO. I agree that PPM's should be able to learn through training.

also what I would like them to pay some attention about arrows is attacking positioning, which is not too realistic at the moment. for example, all wingers in any formation, they stick too much to the flank. in the final 3rd they simply come into box or cut inside, to be more dangerous to score. full-back become wingers and wingers become AMC's or forwards. but thta's not the case in FM.

all in all I wouldn't say that arrows destroyed the game, but it's defenetly time for tactical side of this game to improves with new features and sorts out existing ones (time wasting, free role, players movement...).

[heathxxx]

The only problem I can see with making PPM's trainable, rather than mentored, is it may make it easier to create "super" players. You can do this to some extent already.

I've seen threads before, here and in the Good Players & Teams forum, asking how to train a certain Henry Saivet, for example. In my game, with mentoring at Man Utd, he's managed to pick up all the good PPM's from Wayne Rooney, Carlos Tevez, Cristiano Ronaldo and Ryan Giggs. I don't need to elaborate much about what an awesome player he's becoming.

I believe that correct use of tactics to take advantage of PPM's is a very powerful tool indeed, just like dovetailing a players attributes with the role and position he plays.

i'm on the fence when it comes to the "power" of arrows. They're a useful and necessary tool whilst implementing a tactic to instruct movement of players. The problem is, if we have more sliders and more tick-boxes and more drop-menu options, it's just going to confuse things even more for the vast majority of FM'ers. Perhaps all that's needed is some refinement and balancing of the current settings, rather than a catalogue of new ones.

Although I'm comfortable and understand the tactical tools available in FM08, I'm all for keeping things as simple as possible. I would like to see more responsive representation of my tactical settings in the match engine, but I'm sure that will come as SI refine things further and further.

[wwfan]

Arguably, removing arrows improves simplicty. as positioning becomes only a combination of two elements (mentality and FWRs) rather than three. A further key argument is that FWRs is a dynamic instruction whereas arrows are static (here when attacking, here when defending). Football is a dynamic game and removing static-orientated instructions should make for a better match experience.

There are certainly arguments to be made for chaning FWRs to Runs, to allow for backwards and diagonal movements. However, there are other possible soultions as well, some of which invove PPMs, some of which don't.

I think the removal of arrows would let us see player personality play more part. PPMs are generally dynamic and they should become more obvious when static instructions are removed. I think that would hugely add to the realistic feel of FM.

[aston_martin]

Sorry to go off topic again, but seing as you two are up, could you have a look at a topic I have posted labelled 'Where Has The Common Sense And Logic Gone From The Game' It is a bit long-winded but I would love to hear your opinions on it.

[Mitja]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wwfan:

Arguably, removing arrows improves simplicty. as positioning becomes only a combination of two elements (mentality and FWRs) rather than three. A further key argument is that FWRs is a dynamic instruction whereas arrows are static (here when attacking, here when defending). Football is a dynamic game and removing static-orientated instructions should make for a better match experience.

There are certainly arguments to be made for chaning FWRs to Runs, to allow for backwards and diagonal movements. However, there are other possible soultions as well, some of which invove PPMs, some of which don't.

I think the removal of arrows would let us see player personality play more part. PPMs are generally dynamic and they should become more obvious when static instructions are removed. I think that would hugely add to the realistic feel of FM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it improves simplicity and adds realism, becouse arrows are attacking but static tool. IRE teams tend to be unpredictable with the ball and in-shape and positionaly organised without the ball. that's why I think defensive formation should be enough. how should players move when they take posession is simple; mentality, runs (I like your idea of runs instead of forward runs, it's very logical and defenetly more realistic) and PPM's. IMO "player positional instructions" should be added, so we can control our players movement.

also I believe one PPM (positional instructions) is needed. just like forwads like to "move into channel", many wingers like to "move to central positions".

[Rashidi]

There are some things people need to understand, the engine treats the farrow and the barrow as player A makes a run forward when in possession, and vice versa for a barrow.

The same can be achieved with forward runs, perhaps not in the current match engine for FM2008. If a player is given say a defensive mentality, then defacto, he's been given a positional as well as a behavioral instruction. If you add forward runs often, you are telling him to make a forward run when in possession of the ball and to drop back to his defensive position if he loses it. His closing down will define where on the pitch that will happen and the defensive line influences it further.

I know it sound complicated, but its a hell of a lot intuitive than using an arrow, because the arrow can make things ridiculous. like assigning an All out attacking mentality that would be unrealistic.

The only downside to removing the arrows is "sarrowing" a player, cos that does not exist. Removing arrows is the right thing to do as it would allow SI to think about better ways to incorporate ppms, such as channel running and running down flanks etc. Then you could have an individual instruction "tick" box that says "play to strengths" for instance. Or for more detailed instructions, other tick boxes such as.."hug line" or "cut inside".

These are all individual instructions I've been asking for the last couple of years, cos it will make teams play differently and the goals may even look very different from team to team.

Stronger sides would have more at their disposal of course, but then with better individual instructions ..arrows become archaic tools.

[jaycar]

That sounds a lot better than using arrows to me

Instead of having to get a host of instructions spot on, a 'cuts inside', etc option would be a far easier way of setting up exactly what you want from your players.

It would also be more beginner friendly.

[Mitja]

removing the arrows and adding smth like "positional instructions" would bring one important thing. every formation, 4-4-2 for example would be different, which isn't the case now. standard 4-4-2 bring many variations of it IRE. so the basic defensive shape is 4-4-2 but when in posession it might transform into 2-4-4, 4-2-4, 2-3-3-2, 2-2-2-2-2, or any other combination. that's also one of the reasons why 4-4-2 is so popular and effective.

it would also meen we should actually take a look at our opponents matches, before we play.

[Rashidi]

Actually the 442's can be different, even now. There are much harder to do it though I have to add, but wwfan and i have been having interesting little battles thus far online that is..and we have seen some really nice goals.

[Mitja]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rashidi1:

Actually the 442's can be different, even now. There are much harder to do it though I have to add, but wwfan and i have been having interesting little battles thus far online that is..and we have seen some really nice goals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it can, but it would be nice to see it improved. there is hard to find 2 indentical formations IRE, but in FM, that's not the case IMO.

[The Gaffovski]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heathxxx:

The only problem I can see with making PPM's trainable, rather than mentored, is it may make it easier to create "super" players. You can do this to some extent already.

I've seen threads before, here and in the Good Players & Teams forum, asking how to train a certain Henry Saivet, for example. In my game, with mentoring at Man Utd, he's managed to pick up all the good PPM's from Wayne Rooney, Carlos Tevez, Cristiano Ronaldo and Ryan Giggs. I don't need to elaborate much about what an awesome player he's becoming.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The solution is simple, to limit the amount of PPM's to 5 per player. That would even prevent you from creating a super player as you are able to do now.

[heathxxx]

Yeah, it's far too easy to create a player with multiple PPM's, which can make a good player outstanding.

PPM's are part of what makes a player unique IMO.

[Mitja]

here's what I think the makers of this game could do to improve tactical and match engine side of this game:

- remove arrows (plenty of reasons for doing that in this thread)

- improve player movement (wingers movement is perticulary bad, full back's also isn't great)

***IMO this issue would need a whole new thread

- improve player positioning (got better on 802)

- improve player marking (man marking)

- improve player using of PPM's

- introduce "player positional instructions", which could be a tick box for player movement (hug line, come deep, cut inside, get foeward whenever possibile, move into chanels...)

- introduce PPM "moves into central positions" for wingers

- introduce double marking for specific player in opposite instructions

- make free role to finnaly work

[Uncle_Sam]

Personally, I would like to see the formation setup gravitate toward what they are doing with PES and FIFA. In FM, an AMC is an AMC, no matter what the formation or tactical system. In real life, one manager may have his AMC sit higher up the pitch than another manager, but both are technically AMC's. Maybe I would like my AMC's to sit in between the MC position and the area where an AMC currently sits in FM.

[aston_martin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uncle_Sam:

Personally, I would like to see the formation setup gravitate toward what they are doing with PES and FIFA. In FM, an AMC is an AMC, no matter what the formation or tactical system. In real life, one manager may have his AMC sit higher up the pitch than another manager, but both are technically AMC's. Maybe I would like my AMC's to sit in between the MC position and the area where an AMC currently sits in FM. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like that.

[Mitja]

sorry for going slightly off topic here.

I agree with you uncle sam, at least that positions are a little too static compared to reaal life. what you're talking about could easily be done with player mentality. for example having slider on 10 is "normal MC position", moving slider to the deepest a player becomes DMC without the ball, moving it to 20 he becomes AMC with the ball. and also we get rid of arrows becouse of that. the problem is that mentality influences not only positional height of player, so it seems like your idea's better, defenetly.

[isuckatfm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">originally posted by Mitja:-

the problem is that mentality influences not only positional height of player, so it seems like your idea's better, defenetly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. I hate the fact that mentality affects positioning within a formation and how a player behaves. It makes setting up tactics more constrictive than it might be in real. I had a post written up on this but it got obliterated when my internet connection clanked out when I hit the post now button.

I would be really interested to know the thinking behind this duality.

[il_fenomeno]

Have a look at this,it's an idea of mine

Shape

So,it's true that a farrowed AMC exploits the match engine.But this will probably be improved.

F-arrows indicate the position of the player when your team is attacking...and viceversa

Now about the picture:All those lines on every player should represent the movement of a player,he goes from there to there withouth leaving much space behind.And whem other player needs to cover his teammate,and move in a random position (for ex between RB and DC) to close down the gap(And this not related to closing down).

The other idea,as you see the player's position.There's only random position(mc,dmc,ml,dr...).

I remember in TCM04 you could design your shape how you want it.

Of course default position will exist.You put your player somewhere on the pitch and it indicates that he is in the MC position,even his positioning is slightly higher up the pitch(close to AMC)

Some may say you have mentality to do this,but I still think it's not the same.

[Mitja]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by isuckatfm:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">originally posted by Mitja:-

the problem is that mentality influences not only positional height of player, so it seems like your idea's better, defenetly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. I hate the fact that mentality affects positioning within a formation and how a player behaves. It makes setting up tactics more constrictive than it might be in real. I had a post written up on this but it got obliterated when my internet connection clanked out when I hit the post now button.

I would be really interested to know the thinking behind this duality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this year they changed player mentality so it doesn't effect positional hight as much as it did before. I'm with Uncle Sam with this becouse I think PES system is better with it's defensive formation and player movement arrows. it's not pefect though, I think it's quite basic but at least it's not that static like one we have in FM.

I really expect some changes in 09. this tactical system haven't changed for far to long now, IMO.

[Mitja]

il fenomeno

what you wrote is exactly a PES system, only there you can set just 3 arrows, if I remember well.

[il_fenomeno]

Never played PES

[blayhod]

tactical layout definitely needs urgent improvement and i'll be dissapointed if it's not fixed in next version.

current systrem is way to complicated with all the notches, not to say it's gighly unrealistic.

i believe the best way, as someone already mentioned, would be to go with individual tactical instructions.

arrows aren't actually bad, but not the way the work now. managers do use these arrows and they are just to clarify where players should run to, but without individual instructions (which we can't give effectively right now), it's pretty hard to get spot on.

[gallas 10]

i limit myself to two arrows a game, more specifically sarrows on my wingers coming inside

[Guest sav112]

I have to say I hate the way players try not to beat teams but simply the Ai with arrows and tic’s. I’ve always tried to pair players to tactics and always really kept within the realms of reality.

For Example I’ve worked hard on my squad in the Clan game and I’m second to a ( and don’t get me wrong great guy) Depo team that started with Kimz Tactic with mad arrows that beats the Ai but is a poor real tactic with glaring problems with wide open spaces. Laughing aside the other lad has had twenty goals for his CB from corners….

What I’d like to see more basic tactics added and the whole thing locked down so you can have a wee bit of play but not a silly amount. I’d seriously drop some of the bar’s its taken me five seasons to work out what each bar slot does really. Cm05 was spot on for feel you players played for you and your team performed as expected most of the time.

[Ferno]

In my opinion, arrows should have been dead a long time ago.

It was a disappointment for me to find that almost nothing had changed in tactics from FM2006 to FM2008. At the same level of disappointment as the "downgrade" from CM3 to CM4 in tactical terms.

As so, SI should make an effort to create a mechanism to replace the arrows in tactics.

I think the best option would be giving "more positions" to the players in the Formation View.

For example, in the midfield line, at the moment there are 5 positions (MR,MRC,MC,MLC,ML). If, let's say, there were 15 positions in that line to place our players, it would make tactical creation a lot simple and SI could abolish 3 sliders (Mentality, Width and Defensive Line) because we could place our players exactly where we wanted.

Another tactical mechanism that has to be changed is the current slider system.

I can understand that some options require a slider but the levels of the slider are just to many thus making the game a lot more complex than real life football.

For example, why 20 levels of choice in the tempo slider?! Wouldn't be enough to have a max. of 9 (3 for slow, 3 for normal and 3 for quick)? And almost the same for other needed sliders...

I also think some options must be modified:

1) For Counter Attack it shouldn't be possible to play a short, slow tempo... It's a big contradiction. Counter Attack in football is by definition a cautious style that takes advantage of the other team's attack to quickly strike deadly blows in their defense.

2) Counter Attack appears to be badly programmed because it only tells your players not to risk a lot. I think an option like Tight Defense (or 10 men behind the line of the ball) will be a more correct word here and should also be created.

3) When the playmaker or targetman box is ticked, you should be requested to select a player to do the job as in for the captain option.

4) When selecting Play Offside, it shouldn't be possible to lower the Defensive Line less than an acceptable level.

That is all I can remember for now. But I do have a lot more complains Maybe some other time...

I just hope SI can make the game as fun as in those days playing CM3. At least then, when I lost I knew why, even without the 2d match engine...

Sorry for my English.

Cya.

[Guest sav112]

CM3 was great it had a real feel to it the best to date. I played in the Scots Clan game with it and you never felt the game let you down just your tactic or players...on this I just think its fight the Ai at all costs....

In Cm3 that dodgy team at the bottom were in fact dodgy when human played them, your players were consistent to there skill, that killer transfer made a huge difference.

The addictiveness has been lost with this feel that it’s cheating you and its you V the Ai. You pick up on silly things like did I lose that match due to tactics and players or more to the point that Media comment before the game…..That really scares me in this that the Media has lost you the game before kick off.

I game runs fine and bugs are not a problem in my View but the way it plays out does bug me!

[Yalcin]

Some very good points are made in this thread! The main thing is that the interface we get to put our ideas in the game is too complicated. There are too many factors that you have to take into account. I for one hope that the 'change pitch size' will be dropped. More template-style options is the way to go. Just tick a box to make your wingers cut inside, not move multiple sliders to perfection.

[Mitja]

I started a new thread about "Player Movement Instructions". it's pretty much the same issue as here. if anyone's interested and maybe willing to add smoething here's the link: http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/521102691/m/7392005293

[rittmeyer]

hey hey

wait...

i want to revive this important topic in order to second something here that was unvaluable:

who is fooooookunnnnn rashidi anyway??²

huahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuhua

never saw something so deserved!

but after all, i'm just an average joe who has not signed the same newsletter as the fanboys!

lol

[Cleon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rittmeyer:

hey hey

wait...

i want to revive this important topic in order to second something here that was unvaluable:

who is fooooookunnnnn rashidi anyway??²

huahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuahuhua

never saw something so deserved!

but after all, i'm just an average joe who has not signed the same newsletter as the fanboys!

lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm giving you a warning for constantly posting useless rubbish and trying to get around the swear filter. Stop trying to be clever and cause friction or next time you'll be banned

[Rashidi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yalcin:

Some very good points are made in this thread! The main thing is that the interface we get to put our ideas in the game is too complicated. There are too many factors that you have to take into account. I for one hope that the 'change pitch size' will be dropped. More template-style options is the way to go. Just tick a box to make your wingers cut inside, not move multiple sliders to perfection. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but doesn't the pitch size allow you to force other teams to play your style. I find that's the case, especially when I use a narrow pitch. Pitch sizes are more an asset than anything else.

In as far as a template of instructions go, I do agree. I don't like arrows, but i'm ambivalent about sliders. In the absence of detailed instructions that influence a players position on the pitch, i can't see sliders being replaced, unless I'm giving more detailed player instructions.

What kind of player instructions would you guys like to see and how would you see this unfolding in a game?

[The Gaffovski]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rashidi1:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yalcin:

Some very good points are made in this thread! The main thing is that the interface we get to put our ideas in the game is too complicated. There are too many factors that you have to take into account. I for one hope that the 'change pitch size' will be dropped. More template-style options is the way to go. Just tick a box to make your wingers cut inside, not move multiple sliders to perfection. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but doesn't the pitch size allow you to force other teams to play your style. I find that's the case, especially when I use a narrow pitch. Pitch sizes are more an asset than anything else.

In as far as a template of instructions go, I do agree. I don't like arrows, but i'm ambivalent about sliders. In the absence of detailed instructions that influence a players position on the pitch, i can't see sliders being replaced, unless I'm giving more detailed player instructions.

What kind of player instructions would you guys like to see and how would you see this unfolding in a game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. When attacking, Cut Inside With Ball (Rarely, Mixed, Often) / Without Ball (Rarely, Mixed, Often)

2. Get Into Opposition Area (Rarely, Mixed, Often)

3. Track-back (Rarely, Mixed, Often)

I realize that the first two are PPM's, I just feel they should not be PPM's but rather individual tactical instructions. For example, a player in my team might like cutting inside, but if for a certain match I do NOT want him to do that and stick to hugging the line, then he'd better pay attention to me because I'm the Gaffer! (Cut Inside = rarely)

So I think it would be good if some PPM's were removed and transformed into individual tactical instructions you know? Sure, a player might obviously LIKE (because you see him do it in practically every match) to cut inside or get into the opposition area, but it's ONLY because his manager ALLOWS him to lol. Else he'll get sold pretty quick.

The whole PPM's deal needs looking at, and I'll tell you why - if you sign a world class left winger (and say there are only 3 of them in the world) whose PPM's do not quite fit into your tactical system, it is impossible to retrain his PPM's towards your team's needs. And this is not realistic, because every player takes time to adapt to a new team, and a big factor in this settling-in time has to do with him learning how to move and what is expected of him by his new manager. So PPM's have to start being trained not tutored, to make managers (FM fans) feel more creative and proud in how they have moulded a player. Tutoring could still be used for mental attributes. A limit of say 5 PPM's for each player, any of which can be untrained and replaced with a different PPM, at any given time. Only one PPM can be trained at a time, and the time it takes to ingrain it into a player, could be based on mental attributes, a combination of adaptability and versatility for example.

Once this is done, SI can market FM 09 with this new ability, and SI and lots and lots of people will be velly happy.

[The Gaffovski]

Rashidi, you asked "how do you see this unfolding in a game?" so I'll give you an example of how what I suggested would affect a game.

Say you wish to play with a 4-3-3. The 3 up top are an AMR, AML and SC respectively.

You can designate the AMR (Messi) to rarely cut inside without the ball (Cut Inside Without Ball = Rarely). Meaning that he will stay on the right wing until he receives the ball (Cut Inside With Ball = Often).

MEANTIME, you could set your AML (Henry) to Cut Inside Without Ball = Often, and Get Into Opposition Area = Often.

The result would be that you'd have Cristiano Ronaldo driving from the wing towards the penalty area, with the AML (Robinho) and SC (Eto) waiting for him there, performing the role of a front two inside the box.

Why can this not be achieved now? Well, we basically just have arrows and UN-retrainable PPM's now, so the AMR and AML will just get into the penalty area (if that's where you use your diagonal arrows to point them to) even without the ball, get marked by defenders and stall the creativity of your attacking play.

Regards,

TG

[The Gaffovski]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The Gaffovski:

The result would be that you'd have Cristiano Ronaldo driving from the wing towards the penalty area, with the AML (Robinho) and SC (Eto) waiting for him there, performing the role of a front two inside the box.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDIT - That should be "AML (Henry)" not Robinho.