Discussion - Have arrows destroyed the beautiful 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 The Gaffovski:

The result would be that you'd have Cristiano Ronaldo driving from the wing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDIT (again) - Lol. I really should check my posts more carefully. I changed my mind about what player examples to use a few times, anyway it doesn't really matter but it's meant to be Messi not Ronaldo. Sorry.

[Neimless]

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

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

First of all, for me sliders are useless and illogical. Its so annoying when i should choose between 2 and 3, 5 and 6, 10 and 11, and ect its senseless and lack of logic.

Remove sliders and make a available free positioning for players on tactic screen (cm alike but improved )

[Mitja]

one thing that's been on my mind are forward runs. they are quite unlogical and counterdicting to mentality. what's the point of having defensive mentality and FR to often. or attacking mentality and FR to rarely. and the other thing is; what if I wanted my player makin back runs or side runs.

I defenetly think arrows and forward runs should become past.

-how quickly and how far would player move forward- mentality

where do you want him to move- specific movement instructions and PPM's.

[neckus]

I agree... Arrows should be taken out in FM2009 (or even 8.0.3) but they should also add:

Focus passing per player. Example .. I want my DR to only (or at least 90% of time) pass to the MR.

[Cleon]

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

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

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

First of all, for me sliders are useless and illogical. Its so annoying when i should choose between 2 and 3, 5 and 6, 10 and 11, and ect its senseless and lack of logic.

Remove sliders and make a available free positioning for players on tactic screen (cm alike but improved ) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And replace sliders with what? Its okay saying remove them, but how would we get the instructions across?

As for the sliders and numbers, there is only 3 ways really. Look at mentality for example; Defensive, Normal and Attacking. All the numbers in between are just a gradual progression to the next stage. Its not difficult or hard to grasp. Its not like going from 10-11 is a noticable difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I agree... Arrows should be taken out in FM2009 (or even 8.0.3) but they should also add:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There will be no 8.03

[Mitja]

wow, I agree with Cleon here. sliders can't be replaced. but I would consider some slider notches. I think 3 would be enough for time wasting:

1. RARELY

this is normal aproach for any team that expects a win in forthcoming match. home or awey.

2. MIXED

aproach for teams which don't want to loose in a match. time wasting when apropriate

3. OFTEN

aproach when team's odds are strongly against them, when they'd be more then happy to draw the game or not to get hammered.

[Cleon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">wow, I agree with Cleon here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A first for everything eh?!!

I wouldn't say sliders are perfect, but I don't know of any system currently that would be better suited. Plus there is always going to be some sort of tool that allows us to set certain settings. I think people should just accept the sliders, as we need something.

[Rashidi]

LOL i didn't want this thread to transcend into a "slider removal campaign" cos i don't think that is entirely possible. It would limit tactics to such a point it'd become a waste.

A blend of sliders and better instructions would be ideal. If you were to remove sliders then individual instructions would have to be very detailed and that would take way too long.

Mentality, closing down, creative freedom can remain, but you should be able to give individual instructions such as :

1. Cut inside

2. Play to PPM

3. Stay wide without the ball

there are probably more instructions out there..

[Rashidi]

I've always said people make far too much out of the sliders to begin with cos there are usually only 3 descriptions. For mentality there are 5, but they have specific effects which are covered in the FAQ...i think.

[Ferno]

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">wow, I agree with Cleon here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A first for everything eh?!!

I wouldn't say sliders are perfect, but I don't know of any system currently that would be better suited. Plus there is always going to be some sort of tool that allows us to set certain settings. I think people should just accept the sliders, as we need something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem aren't the sliders. The problem are the too many levels sliders have. 20 levels is just too much, 9 would be more than enough.

Another problem is those sliders and boxes that contradict themselves.

And of course, the idea Mitja is insisting, the PES-like positioning, would be a great mechanism to implement in FM.

Personally, I'd like to see:

- the main tactics screen with the PES-positiong;

- a second with instructions (sliders, boxex, etc.);

- a third one similar to the first but where you could give your players 2 kinds of withball arrows . One arrow indicating the player's off the ball movement and another indicating the player's with the ball movement, if any. This way the forward runs and the run with ball slider could disappear. And of course, those arrows should only have 2 sizes (mixed or often) and shouldn't ever point backwards!

- a fourth screen also similar to the first one but where we could give our players 2 without ball arrows (same size), telling them at where they should most likely defend, or not. Of course this arrows shouldn't contradict global positioning!

What do you think??

[chriseldiablo]

Arrows have NOT ruined my game. I hate arrows. Its WAAAAAAAAY to easy to beat the AI with arrows, so I play the toughest & hardest of all formations/tactics; a flat 442. I want to beat the AI with SKILLS, not with some stupid cheat arrows.

I just won L1 with Macclesfield, flat 442, no cheat, no arrows & no transfer budget

Arrows are for n00bs.

[Cleon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Arrows are for n00bs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why did you feel the need to post this? Its hard to take people serious when they post stuff like this. There is no place on the forums for this, so I'm asking you to rethink the way you post. Before a warning is given.

[Guest sav112]

I don’t mind the sliders, don’t know the effects of specific settings its more fluke than anything getting from what I want to what the setting is. I know for example how I want my team to play but setting up the tactic is a bit blind.

The main thing for me is any exploit that the arrows and settings can cause.

Right now one of the lads in the clan game can set up so his CB can get twenty goals. If you set all these players on Arrows you get X effect that’s not realistic but batters the Ai match engine.

I understand it must be hard covering exploits….also hate the way the game handicaps Human players

Twentysix shots on goal eighteen on target, there goalkeeper is now world class for this match even when hes the worst in the division till now. My Twenty-seven million rated forward misses open goals and just to add insult they score on there first attempt.

This is just not one match it’s the same old re-run season after season. It not personal tactics as four of us currently playing are feeling the same way.

CM3 was rewarding and felt right, it crashed the odd time was not really set up for clan games but was addictive and hugely enjoyable it did not have arrows or sliders but worked……..not saying you have not to move on with new ideas but executing them seems to be something else.

[Guest sav112]

Just to add that’s why I would not play FM-Live! When I cant play the game in the right spirit and play honest then someone can just more or less exploit all the way…..

[Mitja]

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

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">wow, I agree with Cleon here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A first for everything eh?!!

I wouldn't say sliders are perfect, but I don't know of any system currently that would be better suited. Plus there is always going to be some sort of tool that allows us to set certain settings. I think people should just accept the sliders, as we need something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem aren't the sliders. The problem are the too many levels sliders have. 20 levels is just too much, 9 would be more than enough.

Another problem is those sliders and boxes that contradict themselves.

And of course, the idea Mitja is insisting, the PES-like positioning, would be a great mechanism to implement in FM.

Personally, I'd like to see:

- the main tactics screen with the PES-positiong;

- a second with instructions (sliders, boxex, etc.);

- a third one similar to the first but where you could give your players 2 kinds of withball arrows . One arrow indicating the player's off the ball movement and another indicating the player's with the ball movement, if any. This way the forward runs and the run with ball slider could disappear. And of course, those arrows should only have 2 sizes (mixed or often) and shouldn't ever point backwards!

- a fourth screen also similar to the first one but where we could give our players 2 without ball arrows (same size), telling them at where they should most likely defend, or not. Of course this arrows shouldn't contradict global positioning!

What do you think?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not insisting in PES like positioning. I'm supporting idea of not having arrows and forward runs anymore and introducing new "Player Movement Instructions", this is the link of that thread :http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/521102691/m/7392005293

I like your suggestions. but I don't think they could be introduced anytime soon. tactical system and match engine are closely conected and I dwell SI are willing to revolutionize it so much. I would be suprised if they decide to change arrows at the first place.

[Neimless]

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

The problem aren't the sliders. The problem are the too many levels sliders have. 20 levels is just too much, 9 would be more than enough.

Another problem is those sliders and boxes that contradict themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well thats my problem about sliders too many levels, its irritation how to explain different between 2 side by side notches.

At the topick maybe its time to drop off from the game because there is too many attributions thats make similar result.

[Cleon]

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

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

The problem aren't the sliders. The problem are the too many levels sliders have. 20 levels is just too much, 9 would be more than enough.

Another problem is those sliders and boxes that contradict themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well thats my problem about sliders too many levels, its irritation how to explain different between 2 side by side notches.

At the topick maybe its time to drop off from the game because there is too many attributions thats make similar result. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There isnt any real difference, whats hard to understand? its a slow progression to the next stage. Not rocket science

Stop thinking of the slider as number, and just 3 descriptions instead.

[George Graham]

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

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

methinks that is very possible, though hard now but I the arrows were instead configured to show where the players will stand with their mentality settings, wouldn't that be better.

So when you have the ball assuming ML is on mentality 10 and MR is on mentality 13. it would indicate....

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

|

|

ML MR

</pre>

That way you know where your players will be with the ball when they are in possession of it. If you set him to forward runs often then he takes off whenever a player next or near to him has the ball. When he has mixed FWR he does it in the opposing half and when he is set to none, then he holds his position. A negative mentality would see him drop deeper. So a mentality of 10 would be default position and a mentality of 1 would see him drop right to near the defensive line.

What this needs is a more reactive mentality slider, and, the arrows would then not be a positional tool but a gauge to where your players will be when the are given certain settings, so you could see the gaps in a formation for example, which honestly very few of us can see even now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That really is quite good Rash, however I want to be able to tell my players what do do when the ball is in different places on the pitch or when it is at the feet of different people. Maybe this is asking too much but I want to be able to tell my attacking players to come deep when my hard working CM has got the ball because he can't pass, however I want them to be making runs past opposing lines when my creative midfielder has got the ball. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats why without/without ball shouldnt have been ever been removed- the one tactical tool we ever had that got close to a real managers tools (eg a whiteboard or tactical board) and it was removed rather than fix the game to deal with supertactics.

An amazingly poor decision imo (after all its the equivilent of fixing this issue by removing the arrows)- and such a shame as it denied us the delight of seeing our players try to follow our ideas, rather than the quite frankly awful interface we are stuck with.

[Rashidi]

Guys lets not derail the topic; the objective of this thread is to discuss the relevance of arrows in the game. Whether its time to toss them away and replace them with better ways of getting instructions done or not.

[Landsverk]

Removing arrows would be a step down tbh - how in the world would you replace its function? Bogus discussion imo.

[el sid]

As someone already mentioned, arrows can be replaced with a combination of free positioning, player instructions and IMO a concept called "circle around the player"

Free positioning - the ability to place a player anywhere on the screen instead of just the 30 (5 each for sweepers, defenders, defensive midfield players and wing backs,central midfield players, attacking midfield players and strikers) positions we can place the players in. For example, i would like to keep my MC/AMC in between the MC and AMC positions. If the question arises of how the computer can decide whether the players is position is CM or AMC, i have a simple solution - > remove the positions. If a manager makes a new formation, he ll know which player to place where, instead of the computer telling him whether the position is CM or AMC.

In essence with free positioning, millions of different combinations of tactics can be made because the players can be placed anywhere.

Player instructions - > As has been said before, check boxes with options like "Make forward runs with/without ball", "Hug line", "Move into central positions", "Track back", "Go into wide positions", "Cut inside", "Take ball to opposition corner to waste some time" etc. will also help in replacing the arrows.

Circle around the Player - > This is a concept i came up with. After setting the base formation with free positioning, using the mouse by clicking and dragging it around a player, we can create a virtual "circle" around a player of varying radius, telling us in which region a player would most likely be when our team has/does not have the ball.

Keeping this circle big is similar to creative freedom set to "much", meaning the player can anywhere in the circle at a given time. This possible reduces the incidence of the passes reaching him exactly. But This also makes "Tight Marking" more difficult, because he keeps wandering about.

Keeping this circle small leads to better passing ratio but marking the player is easier since AI can figure out where he is and can concentrate on tightly marking him all the time.

Just my suggestions. Comments are welcome. And i know that now many will like this "circle around player" concept, but i believe it will make the game better.

[LSS]

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

Thats why without/without ball shouldnt have been ever been removed- the one tactical tool we ever had that got close to a real managers tools (eg a whiteboard or tactical board) and it was removed rather than fix the game to deal with supertactics.

An amazingly poor decision imo (after all its the equivilent of fixing this issue by removing the arrows)- and such a shame as it denied us the delight of seeing our players try to follow our ideas, rather than the quite frankly awful interface we are stuck with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree in a sense. I like visual representation for my instructions.

How about if instead of their current function (= change position) arrows triggered player instructions instead:

Farrow = forward runs

Barrow = track back

Sarrow = cut inside / go wide

[Mitja]

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

Thats why without/without ball shouldnt have been ever been removed- the one tactical tool we ever had that got close to a real managers tools (eg a whiteboard or tactical board) and it was removed rather than fix the game to deal with supertactics.

An amazingly poor decision imo (after all its the equivilent of fixing this issue by removing the arrows)- and such a shame as it denied us the delight of seeing our players try to follow our ideas, rather than the quite frankly awful interface we are stuck with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be good to have that whiteboard so we could see how our players will postionise in formation with given mentality. and that we could change their defoult positions.

- how could AI use it?

- player movement would still remain static and predictable.

[Mitja]

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

I agree in a sense. I like visual representation for my instructions.

How about if instead of their current function (= change position) arrows triggered player instructions instead:

Farrow = forward runs

Barrow = track back

Sarrow = cut inside / go wide </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

movement would still be static (1 way). player would either go forward, back or inside. I like my idea of having PMI's more, becouse you can give any (more than just 1) movement instruction.

[aston_martin]

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

Removing arrows would be a step down tbh - how in the world would you replace its function? Bogus discussion imo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there's been plenty of ideas on how to replace them in this discussion.

[aston_martin]

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

Removing arrows would be a step down tbh - how in the world would you replace its function? Bogus discussion imo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there's been plenty of ideas on how to replace them in this discussion.

[Uncle_Sam]

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

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

I would like to see an opposition instruction added for "run with ball at" or "dribble at". I have guys do it all the time on my real life team. If I see a fullback who I think I have a favorable 1v1 matchup against (which is frequently at our level) I'll tell my forwards and/or midfielders to take him on as much as possible. I imagine that in FM it could also be useful to try and get a second yellow against a defender.

[blayhod]

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

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

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

I would like to see an opposition instruction added for "run with ball at" or "dribble at". I have guys do it all the time on my real life team. If I see a fullback who I think I have a favorable 1v1 matchup against (which is frequently at our level) I'll tell my forwards and/or midfielders to take him on as much as possible. I imagine that in FM it could also be useful to try and get a second yellow against a defender. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

completely agree! i used to play as a winger and my coach always dragged me to other side if he thought the other guy is slower, or gets forward often so i could exploit it. same in the midfield.

maybe SI should make a round table of some sort with coaches (even on low level) who could give some extras in tactical sense. seems ray houghton didn't do hs job when they called him

[Uncle_Sam]

I think SI has done about as good a job as any other football game, simulation or otherwise, on the tactical side. There's just a lot to cover, and the engine is endlessly evolving. Trying to recreate real life physics is certainly an almost impossible task, especially in a 2D match engine. They make improvements every year and I anticipate that FM 2009 will be the best yet in terms of match engine improvements.

[paulcaulfield]

Very intersting thread! Haven't found the exploit tactic myself and don't want too either but out of interest if a formation was created that had 3 AMC with Farrows, would each AMC have the same results.

Recently played Man U and they had 3 AMC (i dont think they had farrows) and got hammered 5-1. Prior to this game, my tottenham side had been unbeaten in 14 game and were second to chelsea in the PL.

[lyw_85]

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

The AI in FM2008, is decent, easy to beat and highly predictable. Personally I think arrows should be taken out of the game in favour of forward runs and perhaps improvements in the mentality slider to account for deeper players. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get so riled up whenever i see these type of posts, cos I have been playing and investing lots of free time to FM08 and FM07 and I have never achieved much tactical success

I know how I want my football to be but I just can't implement it. I'm a noob.

[DBecks7ManU]

It'd be pretty stupid of SI to take out the arrows.

1. It would take away from the realism. Real life managers use arrows all the time. Arrows are used in practically every sport which requires undetermined movement of players. (Not like in baseball for example where players run predetermined paths).

2. Trying to replicate arrows with instructions would be tedious and redundant. There would be too many instructions to include just to replace an arrow. What if I want a DMC to drift out to a let's say a winger position? and want one of my centre backs to cover my DMC? And then i want my MC to drift wide right to cover my MR who will make a forward run? The sheer amount of instructions that would be needed to replicate a simple right click of the mouse would be enormous.

3. Instead of discussing the removal of arrows, maybe we should be discussing how SI should go about to help the AI counter the arrows?

Also, nobody should have the right to call this an exploit. Some people prefer their AMC making forward runs into the box and it is not their fault SI failed to cope with it. SI have had plenty of time to "fix" this "exploit" and since they have not "fixed" it, it is not an exploit but simply a part of the game. The only reason it's called an "exploit" is because SI "acknowledged" it. There are numerous of other "exploits" that the AI implements and countless people have provided countless examples of those "exploits", yet because SI have never acknowledged those "exploits", they're brushed off as the user's misunderstanding of the game and misimplementation of the right tactic.

So, let me get this straight. Any advantage the user gets over the AI is an exploit, yet when the AI runs rampant at the user's expense it is not an exploit but simply the user's misunderstanding of the game... I see, that makes sense, right? And the corner routine is not an exploit, because if it is, I fail to see what is so bad about using it if the AI uses it too. Half the goals that are scored against my team usually come from corners scored by the opposing teams centreback so if the AI uses it and it isn't an exploit then it isn't an exploit from the user's part.

[wwfan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, nobody should have the right to call this an exploit. Some people prefer their AMC making forward runs into the box and it is not their fault SI failed to cope with it. SI have had plenty of time to "fix" this "exploit" and since they have not "fixed" it, it is not an exploit but simply a part of the game. The only reason it's called an "exploit" is because SI "acknowledged" it. There are numerous of other "exploits" that the AI implements and countless people have provided countless examples of those "exploits", yet because SI have never acknowledged those "exploits", they're brushed off as the user's misunderstanding of the game and misimplementation of the right tactic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arrows are not forward runs. Forward runs are forward runs. That is where the root of the question is. Are arrows and forward runs actually realistic in combination, or should forward runs be the arrows? I believe the latter should be the case.

Also, in answering no 3: removing the arrows would help the AI in countering them, would it not?

[DBecks7ManU]

Forward runs dont equal to arrows. I can move the arrows diagonally, sideways, backwards, etc. Forward runs are self-explanatory, they are, forward. Why limit the user to 1 option instead of 8?

Also, I believe forward runs are a generalization, and the arrow just specifies where the player will mostly make those forward runs. Plus, forward runs are mostly situational where as you can set them to 1 of 3 options, Rarely, Mixed, or Often. Arrows are there for as long as you allow them to be there, so the player will make runs according to the arrow and then go on to make forward runs from the place where the arrow ends. I.e. If a MC has an arrow to AMC, he'll come up to the AMC position each time his team has the ball, and when he reaches the AMC position he will then look for an opening to make a foward run. But, I don't know if I'm correct on this, that's just my opinion.

Removing arrows will help the AI, but it will drastically limit the user's options. What SI should do is give the AI options to counter the arrows while still keeping the arrows as part of the game, helping the user. After all, SI creates the "game" for the users, not the AI, correct? And keeping the users satisfied should be their top priority, not vice versa.

[wwfan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, I believe forward runs are a generalization, and the arrow just specifies where the player will mostly make those forward runs. Plus, forward runs are mostly situational where as you can set them to 1 of 3 options, Rarely, Mixed, or Often. Arrows are there for as long as you allow them to be there, so the player will make runs according to the arrow and then go on to make forward runs from the place where the arrow ends. I.e. If a MC has an arrow to AMC, he'll come up to the AMC position each time his team has the ball, and when he reaches the AMC position he will then look for an opening to make a foward run. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not how it works. I understand how you can come to that conclusion, but it wasn't designed that way. Arrows are a static positional tool. They basically place a player in one position when attacking, one when defending. They have nothing to do with the direction of the run he will make.

I don't think for a second that Rash would expect the removal of FWRs to make things harder or help the AI, nor that lateral movement wouldn't, in some manner, remain part of the engine.

[DBecks7ManU]

I apologize, I should've worded myself better. You basically summed up my point when you said arrows basically place a player in one position when attacking and one when defending. To further prove my point, if arrows are used just as a placing tool then they really don't give an advantage to the user and they certainly can't provide for any "exploits" of the match engine. It's merely the AI's inability to cope with the user's tactics. We as users see these arrows and analyze the situation, and make adjustments accordingly. Be it placing a DM, or having the wingers man-mark or any other possible solution out there. All I'm saying is that the AI's inability to make certain adjustments does not warrant the removal of one of the key elements of a tactic.

[Mitja]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DBecks7ManU:

Forward runs dont equal to arrows. I can move the arrows diagonally, sideways, backwards, etc. Forward runs are self-explanatory, they are, forward. Why limit the user to 1 option instead of 8?

Also, I believe forward runs are a generalization, and the arrow just specifies where the player will mostly make those forward runs. Plus, forward runs are mostly situational where as you can set them to 1 of 3 options, Rarely, Mixed, or Often. Arrows are there for as long as you allow them to be there, so the player will make runs according to the arrow and then go on to make forward runs from the place where the arrow ends. I.e. If a MC has an arrow to AMC, he'll come up to the AMC position each time his team has the ball, and when he reaches the AMC position he will then look for an opening to make a foward run. But, I don't know if I'm correct on this, that's just my opinion.

Removing arrows will help the AI, but it will drastically limit the user's options. What SI should do is give the AI options to counter the arrows while still keeping the arrows as part of the game, helping the user. After all, SI creates the "game" for the users, not the AI, correct? And keeping the users satisfied should be their top priority, not vice versa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a feeling that you didn't read much of this thread, if you did I apologise. we named plenty of reasons why they should be quited. we even found ways for replacing them via specific player instructions, telling exactly what we want from our players (hug line, stay back, move into channel...). there are many reasons why arrows shouldn't be part of tactical system. to name a few: they exploit weaknesses of ME, for the same reason they don't add nothing to realsim of the game, they are static tool which meens they are responsible for lack of quality player movement, also (eventhough it's more a ME issue), they limit player movement...

[Ferno]

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

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

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">wow, I agree with Cleon here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A first for everything eh?!!

I wouldn't say sliders are perfect, but I don't know of any system currently that would be better suited. Plus there is always going to be some sort of tool that allows us to set certain settings. I think people should just accept the sliders, as we need something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem aren't the sliders. The problem are the too many levels sliders have. 20 levels is just too much, 9 would be more than enough.

Another problem is those sliders and boxes that contradict themselves.

And of course, the idea Mitja is insisting, the PES-like positioning, would be a great mechanism to implement in FM.

Personally, I'd like to see:

- the main tactics screen with the PES-positiong;

- a second with instructions (sliders, boxex, etc.);

- a third one similar to the first but where you could give your players 2 kinds of withball arrows . One arrow indicating the player's off the ball movement and another indicating the player's with the ball movement, if any. This way the forward runs and the run with ball slider could disappear. And of course, those arrows should only have 2 sizes (mixed or often) and shouldn't ever point backwards!

- a fourth screen also similar to the first one but where we could give our players 2 without ball arrows (same size), telling them at where they should most likely defend, or not. Of course this arrows shouldn't contradict global positioning!

What do you think?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not insisting in PES like positioning. I'm supporting idea of not having arrows and forward runs anymore and introducing new "Player Movement Instructions", this is the link of that thread :http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/521102691/m/7392005293

I like your suggestions. but I don't think they could be introduced anytime soon. tactical system and match engine are closely conected and I dwell SI are willing to revolutionize it so much. I would be suprised if they decide to change arrows at the first place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Humm... I think you are right. It would be very hard to combine the "PES-positioning" freedom with the 2d match engine.

First Suggestion

However, I'm not asking for total freedom in terms of positioning like PES. I'm just asking, because I think it is crucial for the game, for more positions to be created and the consequent removal of arrows.

For example, vertically positions between the DC and DMC, DMC and MC, MC and AMC, AMC and FC, should all be available. Horizontally, at least two more are needed, as an example somewhere between the MCL and the ML is imperative (one of the most used formations nowadays, the 41212, definitely uses a MCRR and a MCLL, impossible to recreate in current FMs).

Second Suggestion

Of course, this new given freedom of positioning should be enough to get us rid of the arrows and also or a least to take a bit of ambiguity of the Mentality Slider.

I can't agree with some people here that demand more sliders or boxes. I think the current ones are more than enough. However, as I said before, new mechanisms should be created to simplify and at the same time to enlarge our tactical option.

That's why I think, in a CM3 fashion, again copying a bit an idea from PES, two new tactical boards should be created. The first for defense, where, instead of CM3 without ball positiong, we could use (or not) two small arrows to indicate the area a player should be when defending. A second for attack, where we could use an arrow to tell the player where we want him to make the forward runs (if any), and another arrow to tell the player where he should run with ball (if any).

In both cases, only a length of arrows will be available to prevent the mess of arrows that the FM2008 tactics have become.

Third Suggestion

The sliders can't be removed. It's a good idea that has become too complex and with too many variables... It's of no use the 20 levels sliders have. 7 or 9 would be more than enough.

My opinion about some of them:

Mentality - it should be just a team slider. Enough said!

Creative Freedom - it's a good idea, but should also incorporate the "free role" box. I think the two instructions are so linked that they could be just one.

Closing Down - it might as well just say "a bit" or "a lot" instead of "own area" or "whole pitch", as it seems the highest the slider is the bigger the radius of closing down.

Tackling - the only slider that needs more levels

Counter Attack - needs reviewing because it just seems to tell your team to be prudent. Counter Attack is more than that! So the options are: make it work properly or, my favorite, just make it disappear as it is possible (or logically it seems to be) to recreate it with the sliders (defensive mentality, direct passing, high tempo, high time wasting...).

Long Shots, Through Balls, Cross Ball - no sliders needed. A box would be enough. Or you do it or you don't (well, won't say don't, but rarely).

Forward Runs, Run with ball, Free Role - for the reasons I stated above, should be removed as they are at the moment.

Those are my ideas for the next FM2008. Please read it and feel free to criticize.

Cheers.

[mattyspurs76]

INTERESTING THREAD, GOOD ONE GUYS...

JUST THOUGHT THOUGH REGARDING THE PLAYERS WHO CUT INSIDE / PLAY WIDE.... WOULDNT THE PLAYERS POSITIONS CONTRIBUTE TO THIS IE:

AARON LENNON WHOS A AMR (WINGER) HE WOULDNT CUT INSIDE YET MALBRANQUE WHOS AMRCL WOULD CUT INSIDE AS HE'S TRAINED AS AN AMC SO HE CAN PLAY IN THAT KIND OF POSITION????

[The Gaffovski]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mattyspurs76:

INTERESTING THREAD, GOOD ONE GUYS...

JUST THOUGHT THOUGH REGARDING THE PLAYERS WHO CUT INSIDE / PLAY WIDE.... WOULDNT THE PLAYERS POSITIONS CONTRIBUTE TO THIS IE:

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it should to be honest? BUT they should play better there because of their positional ability.

Imagine a LM who has some DR capability, would he cut all the way inside to DR?

[Rashidi]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mattyspurs76:

INTERESTING THREAD, GOOD ONE GUYS...

JUST THOUGHT THOUGH REGARDING THE PLAYERS WHO CUT INSIDE / PLAY WIDE.... WOULDNT THE PLAYERS POSITIONS CONTRIBUTE TO THIS IE:

AARON LENNON WHOS A AMR (WINGER) HE WOULDNT CUT INSIDE YET MALBRANQUE WHOS AMRCL WOULD CUT INSIDE AS HE'S TRAINED AS AN AMC SO HE CAN PLAY IN THAT KIND OF POSITION???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No posting in caps please

[mattyspurs76]

SORRY RASH, SHIFT KEYS JAMMED, CANT HELP IT.

GAFF.. YEP THAT KINDA MAKES SENSE, UMMM NOW IM TOTALLY CONFUSED WITH THIS

[Cleon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mattyspurs76:

SORRY RASH, SHIFT KEYS JAMMED, CANT HELP IT.

GAFF.. YEP THAT KINDA MAKES SENSE, UMMM NOW IM TOTALLY CONFUSED WITH THIS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've told you once, do not post again until its sorted. Next time you do, ill suspend your account.

[DBecks7ManU]

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DBecks7ManU:

Forward runs dont equal to arrows. I can move the arrows diagonally, sideways, backwards, etc. Forward runs are self-explanatory, they are, forward. Why limit the user to 1 option instead of 8?

Also, I believe forward runs are a generalization, and the arrow just specifies where the player will mostly make those forward runs. Plus, forward runs are mostly situational where as you can set them to 1 of 3 options, Rarely, Mixed, or Often. Arrows are there for as long as you allow them to be there, so the player will make runs according to the arrow and then go on to make forward runs from the place where the arrow ends. I.e. If a MC has an arrow to AMC, he'll come up to the AMC position each time his team has the ball, and when he reaches the AMC position he will then look for an opening to make a foward run. But, I don't know if I'm correct on this, that's just my opinion.

Removing arrows will help the AI, but it will drastically limit the user's options. What SI should do is give the AI options to counter the arrows while still keeping the arrows as part of the game, helping the user. After all, SI creates the "game" for the users, not the AI, correct? And keeping the users satisfied should be their top priority, not vice versa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a feeling that you didn't read much of this thread, if you did I apologise. we named plenty of reasons why they should be quited. we even found ways for replacing them via specific player instructions, telling exactly what we want from our players (hug line, stay back, move into channel...). there are many reasons why arrows shouldn't be part of tactical system. to name a few: they exploit weaknesses of ME, for the same reason they don't add nothing to realsim of the game, they are static tool which meens they are responsible for lack of quality player movement, also (eventhough it's more a ME issue), they limit player movement... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, i have read this thread for the most part, but all I see is ways to replace arrows, not why arrows should be replaced, except that already stale argument that it "exploits" the AI. And saying arrows are static does not mean they should be removed.

Most of the suggestions about ways to replace the arrows could be put in the game to work WITH the arrows, not instead of the arrows. Arrows are an essential part of the game and they add much to the realism.

If SAF can use arrows, why can't I? Oh, it exploits the AI so that's why. But...I thought this was a real life simulation?? Yes, but they're static... This is what this argument is basically like.

If you want to remove arrows, why not just remove player positions altogether since they're static too? And we'll just make formations based on mentalit. That way nobody's formations will ever be static!

[aston_martin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If SAF can use arrows, why can't I? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because when he uses arrows - he can show his players when he wants them to run into the space he has instructed with the arrow - we can't and that is one of the problems. We are told by the ME when our tactical desicions (in this respect) when it should be the other way around.

[aston_martin]

*We are told by the ME when our tactical desicions (in this respect) come into play, when it should be the other way around.

[DBecks7ManU]

Then it isn't a discussion of removing the arrows but adding ONTO them.

[Mitja]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DBecks7ManU:

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DBecks7ManU:

Forward runs dont equal to arrows. I can move the arrows diagonally, sideways, backwards, etc. Forward runs are self-explanatory, they are, forward. Why limit the user to 1 option instead of 8?

Also, I believe forward runs are a generalization, and the arrow just specifies where the player will mostly make those forward runs. Plus, forward runs are mostly situational where as you can set them to 1 of 3 options, Rarely, Mixed, or Often. Arrows are there for as long as you allow them to be there, so the player will make runs according to the arrow and then go on to make forward runs from the place where the arrow ends. I.e. If a MC has an arrow to AMC, he'll come up to the AMC position each time his team has the ball, and when he reaches the AMC position he will then look for an opening to make a foward run. But, I don't know if I'm correct on this, that's just my opinion.

Removing arrows will help the AI, but it will drastically limit the user's options. What SI should do is give the AI options to counter the arrows while still keeping the arrows as part of the game, helping the user. After all, SI creates the "game" for the users, not the AI, correct? And keeping the users satisfied should be their top priority, not vice versa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a feeling that you didn't read much of this thread, if you did I apologise. we named plenty of reasons why they should be quited. we even found ways for replacing them via specific player instructions, telling exactly what we want from our players (hug line, stay back, move into channel...). there are many reasons why arrows shouldn't be part of tactical system. to name a few: they exploit weaknesses of ME, for the same reason they don't add nothing to realsim of the game, they are static tool which meens they are responsible for lack of quality player movement, also (eventhough it's more a ME issue), they limit player movement... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, i have read this thread for the most part, but all I see is ways to replace arrows, not why arrows should be replaced, except that already stale argument that it "exploits" the AI. And saying arrows are static does not mean they should be removed.

Most of the suggestions about ways to replace the arrows could be put in the game to work WITH the arrows, not instead of the arrows. Arrows are an essential part of the game and they add much to the realism.

If SAF can use arrows, why can't I? Oh, it exploits the AI so that's why. But...I thought this was a real life simulation?? Yes, but they're static... This is what this argument is basically like.

If you want to remove arrows, why not just remove player positions altogether since they're static too? And we'll just make formations based on mentalit. That way nobody's formations will ever be static! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

to tell you the truth I only use defoult formations (those which are used by AI also). I don't play any odd-looking formation. so they don't bother me becouse I exploit.

the only reason I think they should be removed is becouse they limit movement unpredictability. as you said SAF uses them. but he doesn't limit his players by giving them one-way instructions. I'm yet to see some decent movement on this match engine and I agree with you it's not only becouse of arrows. I wonder when is free role going to be fixed...

[heathxxx]

Three things I've never used in any tactics I've used...

Target Man.

Playmaker.

Free Role.

Target Man - I never use "big" strikers and prefer fast and technically skilled players.

Playmaker - I never limit my team to one "playmaker", because I look for more attacking options. A playmaker can be marked tightly out of the game and for me this bites a big hole in any tactic.

Free Role - Just doesn't seem to add anything as yet. Hopefully it will be improved upon in FM09. Rather than use free role, I use a combination of creative freedom and other sliders in relation to his PPM's if I want a player be "liberated".

I like the arrows as an instruction aid, there's always scope for improvement and I think we're half-way there with the implementation of player preferred moves.

[LSS]

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

Free Role - Just doesn't seem to add anything as yet. Hopefully it will be improved upon in FM09. Rather than use free role, I use a combination of creative freedom and other sliders in relation to his PPM's if I want a player be "liberated".

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only benefit from free role, that I have noticed, is that by using free role on a striker I can get him to track back to defend and come deep to get the ball. This is my experience with Aguero, who apparently has a high free role attribute.

One thing I have been wondering is that does player's ability to play in multiple positions have an effect on free role? For example, Aguero dropping back to defend and coming deep to get the ball because he can play in the AMC position ? Would an AMC/R/L with good free role attribute roam around in those positions?