Looking at some of FM's new features...

Loversleaper · January 20, 2011

I made this thread for several reasons, in a way I would like to draw out exactly how fellow FM gamers perceive the tactical and morale side of this version of FM. You see, it is not because I need to necessarily know how to make my game better but to understand what it is that is going on in the game itself and maybe clarify a few things.

The Wizard:

I have no problems making decent tactics that work, especially for better squads - but I am aware that the same applies to many other gamers - so nothing special there. In the classic version things seem easier but when I switch to the Wizard everything becomes very, very poor. Why is it that I am experiencing that when I use a certain types of settings for a certain opponents in the classic version (which works quite well) - but then translate either into the default TC version (default settings that come with the feature) of the same type of strategy, or even gone as far as duplicating the exact same successfull classic version settings directly into the wizard, that there is such a big contrast between them (in general match stats). I am not talking about a couple of 'tests' but actually am talking about several months of analysis. In the long run it seems that one is better off being in the attacking region of tactics...

Here is the thing, a Defensive tactic created in the classic version produced the follow match stats:

Possession = 41%-46%

Passess complete = 58%-71%

Crosses = 4%-20%

Tackling = 56%-68%

The TC versions:

Possession = 29%-38%

Passess complete = 46%-54%

Crosses = 0%

Tackling = 41%-50%

The tactic,as mentioned, is a Defensive strategy tactic or in the classic version a Mentality (6) framework. The different versions were pretty consistant within the procentages shown above over a fair ammount of games, as you can see then the classic version scored better and it did so consistantly. Maybe a few months af gaming isn't enough, but how long does it really need to take, expecially when there is a form of consistancy (statistically) when you do play a certain type of tactic for at least 10+ games against the same opponent?

One can conclude that the Wizard settings might not be very good, but why then does it not respond in the same procentage ranges when you translate the exact same ammount of slider clicks (that you would use in the classic version successfully) into the Wizard version? The lowest statistical game was with the Wizard where it scored: P = 31% PC = 46% C = 0% T = 41% (where tackling% was down around 11-20% for most of the match!). You might be wondering why I am playing Defensive strategy to begin with, but the reason is that I am managing a Relegation Battler and playing away from home as an underdog - this type of strategy works quite well for the scenario in the classic version but fails miserably when using the Wizard. This is a major cause for concern for me, because why on earth would SI include something in the game that just works so poorly? I have compared these stats to other games, both in FM (other similar games) and in real life and haven't encountered such poor stats (on a consistant basis) anywhere. Not in the EPL, at least....

You don't have to take my word for it, but would really like to know how some of the other Gamers experience these type of things. Maybe my computer doesn't work that well and this phenomenon is only restricted to my software, but if anyone can contradict/verify my observations I would be truely relieved. I could just be missing the point all together, but when something works (for a couple of FM versions now) you can assume that you are on the right path. I have experienced that different strategies work best for certain matches a couple of years now (where most changes only included the Closind Down/Defensive Line settings), so when the Wizard was introduced I naturally thought that it verified this aspect of the game (with the different strategies to chose from). I could take some of your advice and use this tactic or that tactic, but it is actually not the point of this thread.

I am trying to establish if the game is really working as the FM Game Makers actually intended. When you introduce things like the Wizard and the Match Preparation features I was naturally intrigued and wanted to try it out, you know what I am talking about: play the game the way it was meant to be/intended. Anyway, this takes me to the next point on the agenda, namely the Match Preparation aspect:

Match Preparation:

Forgive me for sounding negative, but that pretty much sums up how I actually feel about the experience of the Match Preparation. It brings a lot of doubt and several questions of what it is actually doing/effecting. How does the Match Preparation react to Touchline Shouts, for instance? Shouts alter settings (so in theory you are moving away from the Match Preparation), so will what you are changing actually have the desired effect even though it was a thoroughly correct tactical change that you made? If the SI made a game where gamers have to learn how to use strategies to be thoroughly successfull, isn't it a little short-changing gamers with something that limits your successfull options?

I am not very good at the Match Preparation, I admit it, I have tried to gather information on this feature but am concerned that the only exsisting one is wwfans thread (sticky). It doesn't appear that anyone truley has been able to come with any coherent analysis, myself included. If it does limit your team's capability down to basically three different strategies then I am definatly voting against it, especially in it's current state. I think that it would be more profitable to emphasize on getting other issues, like the Match Engine for example, more coherent with what was in mind.

Morale:

In regards to morale and exactly what every detail means or effects it, is a little over the top. When you play the game you have two 'routes' to take, either you let your Assisstant take care of everything - thus endangering yourself to Morale Mayhem - or to do it yourself (also the Morale Mayhem part ). Now, maybe I am out of touch with reality - but I am the type of Gamer that looks forward to the matches. I don't mind the Press/Interaction/Morale aspect of the game, but really don't enjoy using so much time on it (to get the most out of it) or letting the Assistant cause my squad problems. Maybe it could help that we as managers can tell our Assistant to be more 'cagey' or aggressive or whatever, but all in all - this aspect definatly needs an overhaul at one point in time. I honestly can't really tell the difference between a lot of the options, they appear too similar and I have no real ideal idea how much I am effecting with my Psycological Warfare ....

Maybe if there were some graphs or some other feature that aids us in seeing how the effects are, either short or long term, it might help us understand what we are doing is going more right or wrong. But I am not convinced that this aspect is really a feature that should have that much influence all the time, I can understand if you are in the top leagues where there might be some 'media-frenzy' as there is more focus on events - but don't think it would hurt that much to make the feature more realistic and basically remove them in the lower leagues where you usually escape this 'attention' and are out of the 'lime-light'. Of course the game shouldn't only be only about tactics (sliders/settings/intructions), but maybe it would be good in the long run to be able to decide what type of manager you might want to be so we can use different tools to gain the success (or failure) we might achieve.

The general pattern that I am getting in regards to moral is that: when you have International Footballer status and your managing a higher reputation club then it's very easy to 'descipline' your squad (so they stay in check and get the job done) where-as on the otherhand it's very difficult to do the same with a lower manager and club reputation - which seems to appear very 'mechanical'. It's like you need to surpass a certain 'level' before it becomes truly effective. Try telling that to Mourinho vrs Mancini, I do understand that some players have to be 'rubbed' one way or the other - but I think that Managers 'stamping their authority' on the squad isn't reflected in the game correctly in relation to real life. Mourinho tends to have desciplined squads but then takes on the pressure to 'relieve' his players from the media-mayhem. I think that this is way too complicated for the SI to go down this path effectively as, first it is not possible to make a similar 'scenario' with the current options, second bringing real life conversations into a game will always seem too 'mechanical'.

Conclusion so far:

I haven't been around 'for ever', but have been around long enough to be able to see that there is a real lack of quality posts on the above matters recently. I am wondering if it is because of some of the issues that I have been so bold to bring forth is maybe some issues that others are fighting with themselves. I have experienced a lot that does work, so that's not really the issue, but am concerned with this whole 'work-around' reality we have to deal with currently. I feel like that we have to stick to this or that and just get on with it, as the exploration aspect into all the new features seems too hard and unconsistant for anyone to actually come out with real quality posts where they include analysis plus conclusions based on some form of visual consistancy that they have experienced (plus show these aspects through screenshots/explanations). Wolfsong did it with team talks, isuckatfm always had something good to add to any post, SFraser, Cleon just to name a few. I find it disturbing that these type of gamers are incredibly silent these days, because I think that games that spark interresting debates which include some form of statistical/shared views will always hold some form of aspect that gamers can relate to and gain knowledge from. In a way, as long as we feel progress we will seek to gain more as we can see the effects of what we learn actually have an effect.

I am not against new features, but having a hard time coping with the lack of information that one can achieve in gaining any true knowledge on these aspects (appart from some really short guides that do not do any of these features any real justice). I am not knocking any of the current contributors on this forum with this thread, so I was hoping that it could spark some debate as I think this forum really needs some input. There is nothing new other than us racing to create that one 'diablo' tactic that will solve all our problems, this might be the right way for some - but for me it simply doesn't 'cut it' and I am positive I am not alone....

I hope that the people who do read this thread take into consideration that I am not trying to build any walls that separates one type of gamer from the next, so please don't take this as a thread that gives a licence to rant. If you do wish to participate in the thread, then please keep things a civil as possible - if we do I am convinced that this way we will actually be able to make more progress than a mass confusion that will ultimately have no point...

Thanks...

LL

crouchaldinho · January 21, 2011

I agree with your comments about Match Preparation. It's almost like that feature has been inserted into the game without any thought about how the rest of the game is supposed to function around it. I find it very frustrating personally.

jozza800 · January 21, 2011

I cant actually see any differences in using any of the Match Prep stuff other than the 'Team Blend'. You dont see anything on the pitch to suggest that the 'Match Prep' is working. I still concede loads to set pieces and score very few, no matter which 'Match Prep' i use.

Team Blend is the only visably noticable one that works. It definately has an affect on the Morale of you squad. I usually have the work rate quite high. I found that when I get beat, especially a tanking the Morale of the squad stays quite high, very rarely does any one player drop to below Okay, and this is the same after 2 or shakey results on the bounce.

Lower the team blend or completely take it off and the same set of players Morale drops like a stone, and you have many 'Very Poor' players after a run of poor results.

Regarding the TC. I like them and the roles and descriptions, but for me they are too restrictive. Perfect for those who dont like to mess to much with the tactical side of things. There have been a few posts in some of the created tactics threads where an exact TC version of a Classic tactic has been alot poorer. So there is deffo something in your findings. Personally i've never got a TC tactic to work and haven't had any success when using it.

The mechanical feel of the game is something that is unfortunately unavoidable I think, due to the fact that the whole game is based on Algorithms and Calculation. For me this is something that makes the game alittle bit easier, for most things there is a right or wrong way of doing things, especially with tactics and player interaction. You can quite clearly see what works and what doesnt in any tactic. And you eventually learn what responses in the media/press confrences /team talks etc work for general player/manager types.

And to be honest im glad that this sort of mechanical system is in their as their is a clear 'input/output' feel to it. Its the stuuf that you cant really see the effects of that fustrate me (like some of the match prep).

sjm · January 21, 2011

Don't hold your breath - in the past, SI have expressed amazement that people don't know what things do if they don't explain them. Things have improved slightly (the manual actually includes some information, not the random gibberish it did 6 years ago), but only slightly.

A prime example of this mentality: they removed arrows because "nobody understood how they worked". Well of course they didn't, you never told anyone... how did you think they would know? An obvious solution to this problem : tell people how they work; another alternative - remove the arrows; we know which option they chose

If you want SI to take notice of these things (and they have in the past), you'll be better off posting in the General forum. There have been some very long debates in the past on issues like these in the tactics forum, but it's a rare thread that gets SI's attention. Unfortunately, many threads from the past making similar points have since been lost. There was a very long thread several years ago that SI was definitely following (described as an "eye-opener"), and did result in a slight improvement to the tactical settings descriptions in the manual.

As for the wizard: never use it, it seems to have some very weird ideas of what settings to assign players.

macca72 · January 21, 2011

Why is it that I am experiencing that when I use a certain types of settings for a certain opponents in the classic version (which works quite well) - but then translate either into the default TC version (default settings that come with the feature) of the same type of strategy, or even gone as far as duplicating the exact same successfull classic version settings directly into the wizard, that there is such a big contrast between them (in general match stats).

This is an interesting point, and one that is mentioned on other tactic sharing threads. I asked wwfan about this for a definative answer, and he's quite clear that the classic / TC perform no different when the same settings are applied.

The thing I didn't ask is whether you see statistical anomolies from the game when your slider settings are outside the parameters of the settings generated by the TC. It's probably complete coincidence, but there are one or two threads where people seem to see the same results that you mention above.

Loversleaper · January 21, 2011

And you eventually learn what responses in the media/press confrences /team talks etc work for general player/manager types.

For sure, you have a good point :thup: . For me, it is quite difficult to obtain this level of understanding in regards to the effects on moral but I think I have some reasons why. I have come to the conclusion that the reason I struggle maybe to see the actual effects of these interaction options, is that when I manage a top team with a high reputation then it is (in a way) very hard to go totally wrong with the moral reality. On the otherhand, if I manage a lower reputation club (with a lower manager reputation) by the time I have notice small changes due to team talks/media/press, then something else will have effected it. There are several things that effect this aspect, so I feel that it is very hard to determine what (exactly) caused the player to goto low moral, for example.

I could really pay attention to all details to what is effecting moral when and where, but it takes a lot of game time. It could be that he wants a better contract, or was it your last team talk (prematch, halftime or full-time) or was your/assistants' press conference that was bad. You have to switch between many screens and track players thoroughly, but if you are a poorer squad you have to change a lot of players (sell them and get better players more frequently) - so the mission becomes quite a task. Also as a poorer squad, when your team moral drops due to more or less bad form, then it seems that to get them back to good moral you have to be a lot more 'kind' - this could cause your squad to become more undisciplined. Once a player plays bad and you don't at least gives him a warning for poor performance, then I have noticed the next couple of games there are more underperformers - on the otherhand then I have noticed that if you do warn or fine a player (or slam the team) then it does have a positive effect on player match ratings.

I can't say that this is fact, but it does sort of coincide with why the options are available. Even if you do figure out how to more or less control the moral part of the squad - the ideology you have used for a certain team won't necessarily work for the next squad you work with. So, all in all, I feel that there is just too much information you need to be in control of in this aspect...

Don't hold your breath

... The main reason for not going into the General Discussion is that I wanted to present this to the part of the forum where the tacticians genereally hang out from time to time. Usually in this area you have quite a lot of competent Users, and mostly I have respect for a lot of the oppinions that come throught this part of the forum. The post replies that I have received so far proves that, I was afraid that in GD a lot of times things turn into a mudthrowing contest and wasn't quite 'cut out' for that scenario. Good debate always create points that people can relate to, so in here I think that I will achieve more knowledge as the things I have 'dropped from the heart' might not be shared by all.

I'm not going to hold my breath (thanks for the advice), but I am hoping that I do get some healthy debate. Naturally, I am unsure whether or not what I am suggesting holds water or not, so instead of holding my breath I have decided to huff and puff a little. I mean no harm as I would like to play the game as we hope we can, I just don't feel that we are there yet or even if some of these features mentioned are bringing us in the right direction...

This is an interesting point, and one that is mentioned on other tactic sharing threads.

I wasn't aware that this has been discussed in the gamming community, but I have mixed feelings about it (naturally). On one hand, I am glad that I am not alone as I could just as easily be talking 'jibberish' - and on the other, if this is the case then we are all in trouble some how. There is something not correct within the mechanism, the MP and the whole 'Current' issue does have it's responsablility in the matter. It could be that somehow instructions might not actually be passed on into the ME...?

fdawsoniv · January 21, 2011

So what are you supposed to do if the "classic" tactics make as much sense to you as reconstructing a car engine? The wizard is the only way I can make anything resembling a sensible tactic, but apparently there's a rather low ceiling to how effective this can be?

heathxxx · January 21, 2011

The Wizard:

Since its introduction in FM10, I've pretty much exclusively used the Tactics Creator. I simply prefer its descriptive nature and ease of use, designing and managing tactics. Although there are some clear and annoying glitches in the interface this year, such as the "current" issue and how your saved set-piece routines can sometimes reset to default settings, for no apparent reason.

Having not used the "classic" slider settings at all to set up or compare with anything I've done in the TC, it's hard for me to directly compare the two. I do feel that I'm in control of things though, as I can still change everything I want to. Especially so and quickly during matches with the touchline shouts. Bear in mind also, that although I've obviously read through T&TT often over the years and based tactics around a few of the settings, pretty much anything I did was based around my own thoughts on what settings or slider clicks I wanted to use. Some were more extreme than others and likely won't be used in the TC.

Overall though, I would say that since converting to the TC fully, my feeling of control, the results I get managing different teams, is about the same level of success/failure. I would agree that the TC offers more rounded or moulded tactics and settings, whereas you can utilise complete opposites, potentially contradicting settings, extremes of one direction or another, more specific particular instructions with "classic"... and still be successful, if you have players suitable enough to work with any settings you use.

The biggest benefit overall with the Tactics Creator in my opinion, has been more people understanding what they're doing tactically, with more ease. Certainly when it comes to discussing or describing tactical settings, it's vastly easier for me to describe something I'm doing now, that it ever was trying to explain this or that many clicks on a slider and what those slider changes would translate as in the match engine.

Match Preparation:

Have to admit, I'm very much on the fence with this implementation. On the one hand, I can see the potential benefits of such a feature, but on the other hand I don't like the way it's been implemented particularly. I know wwfan mentioned in his How to Play FM: A (Very) Short Guide to Match Preparation, Strategies and Motivation thread:

I don't like how this works. Personally, I believe strategies should be contained within the formation, with all variants being trained as part of the system. I think the current method limits match dynamism, which is a misstep in development. I'd accept that changing playing styles should change the familiarity, but not match strategies, which should be fluid. I just use standard and shift up and down in matches.

This is something I tend to agree with and that thread has some interesting discussion regarding match preparation. Personally, I'm not one to change formations much, if at all. Although in my current save, I have two formations that aren't dissimilar set up in match preparation. They both use a "standard" starting strategy though. If I was to create a "new" tactic, using all the same settings, but a different starting strategy, like "defensive" for example, then one of the bars will drop in fluidity. Although I'm not entirely happy that just for changing strategy, my tactic should lose some fluidity if everything else is the same. I have noticed that because I tend to change strategies and use shouts a lot during matches, without changing anything else particularly, your team will still learn what you use during matches anyway, without the need to focus on it with match preparation.

Mindful of that, the module itself seems very superficial and of no real overall benefit. I've not noticed any particular benefits to using anything other than "team blend" when it comes to special focus areas. All I've been doing with the module, is setting the workload slider to average or high until a tactic is fully fluid. Then I drop it to low or very low and let my team focus more on team and individual training schedules to develop players.

I think the most negative thing I could say about the module, is that it's a cause for consternation, misunderstanding and confusion for many FM'ers. This is a great shame, when I feel the Tactics Creator has opened the door for a lot of people, so to speak, making many tactical aspects of the game easier to understand, use and control. It's probably too late to take out of the game completely, therefore every effort needs to be made to ensure that it's more simple to understand, provides tangible benefits that more people can see working, along with perhaps changing a few knock on effects that shouldn't really be part of that module, which I think wwfan was referring to.

Moral:

Moral itself is something I've usually been comfortable managing, simply because of the types of players and perhaps more importantly, types of character/personality I build squads from. I always end up with very determined and professional squads and anyone outside that bracket, is an exception. Knowing I have only one or two more temperamental players means I usually know what they need, whilst everyone else usually has the same treatment. Might seem a bit of a robotic approach, having a squad of all the same or similar character traits, but it certainly makes motivational management much, much easier.

The main criticisms you're pointing at though, are the interactions with players, media, even coaches perhaps. I would agree that there are many question answers, certainly in player interaction, that seem so similar to one another, it's often hard to tell what the "right" or "wrong" answer might be, or indeed, what you might realistically say yourself in a given circumstance. I sometimes feel a little bland in how I communicate with players in the game. Team talks, I do use extremes of praise or criticism when I feel they're needed, but they're usually in more extreme circumstances, making them easier and more logical choices.

Media interaction I don't mind, though it can get a little repetitive. My only beef is when I'm asked what I see as the strongest part of my squad. I usually always answer that I'm happy with all areas, simply because I don't wish to favour one part, but rather the whole of my team. I look for team performances, after all. Admittedly it doesn't happen as often as in FM10, but it's still a little annoying when asked to clarify my answer, especially when that's my desired and clear intended answer and for good reason.

Morale when it comes to targeting (or being targeted) as weak links or a danger man, I've only lower league experiences to go from. I do like the ability to comment on opposing players, but will admit that it seems very easy to crush the morale of opposing players in the lower leagues, because their low bravery, determination, composure, means they're likely to have low hidden character trait attributes, thus will usually always respond poorly to pressure. In the highest leagues with quality players, then it should be harder, certainly to pick a weak link. Obviously there'll be young and not fully developed players with low mental attributes that can be easily exploited and pressured, but then if it's simply a case of looking out for a few poor player attributes, it tends to feel a little to mechanical.

Overall, the morale and motivational aspect of the game is one I do like though. I think it is important to have to learn the characters and personalities of your players and you shouldn't automatically "know" how they'll react to a given situation. This is probably though, the most challenging aspect of the game to develop, though I do believe there might be more clarity in the responses you're able to choose, rather than many being too similar to make a clearer decision in responses you can give.

Conclusion so far:

Overall, although there are still some great contributors, there's probably a lot less quality contributors than in the past. Of those you mentioned though that are also moderators, both Cleon and wwfan have been busy in their working lives. Obviously this has a knock on effect as to how much time and detail they can go into providing some of the in-depth analysis and help they have over the years. It may be the same for many other great contributors we've enjoyed reading over the years. Add to that, this game has been around a long time now and although it's involved and improved consistently (in my opinion), people sometimes move on. I played Ultima Online from early 1999 through to early 2010 before I decided I'd had enough and didn't like what the game had become. Frighteningly, I've been playing CM/FM for a lot longer than that!

For my own part, the last time I'd done a lower league management thread, was for FM09. Although I had planned to do one when FM10 came out, I was simply too busy with work. The choice was play and enjoy the game in what spare time I had, or spend hours writing about it on the forums. Although I'm still busy with work thankfully, given over 30% unemployment in my region of Spain, I'm managing my time better and giving myself more free "me" time. Therefore I've been able to participate in the forums more again lately and enjoy playing FM.

So it might not be totally accurate to think that it's all because of changes to the game that some don't seem to post as much, or in as much detail, but it is also still possible that the people you mention and others, are still working out any of the newer features themselves still. No way of knowing really, unless they comment themselves.

I do tend to get a little dismayed when I see a lot of people craving some one size fits all or "super" tactic to play the game with, as I think they're missing out on a great deal of what the game has to offer. FM can be very time consuming if played in it's fullest detail, so I can completely understand that the more "casual" gamer has neither the time or desire to micro manage everything. The more "hardcore" gamer is always going to be in their element with a game like this, because there's so much depth to it, however they're also the first to notice when and if something isn't particularly right with the game, where as "casual" gamers are more likely to be confused with some aspects of the game, unless a fuller explanation is provided.

My overall opinion of the game this release, FM11, is that it's still the best release to date - but then I've always had the same feeling about each new release. That's not to say though, that I'm just as keen as anyone to see the number of issues that are apparent, ironed out with the final patch. I also share some of the thoughts people have regarding the newer features, although I'm happy with most of them, there's still always room for improvement and perhaps also, better explanations from SI regarding what the intentions are with some of the newer modules.

That's all. My eyes hurt now and I'm going to make a coffee

macca72 · January 21, 2011

I wasn't aware that this has been discussed in the gamming community, but I have mixed feelings about it (naturally). On one hand, I am glad that I am not alone as I could just as easily be talking 'jibberish' - and on the other, if this is the case then we are all in trouble some how. There is something not correct within the mechanism, the MP and the whole 'Current' issue does have it's responsablility in the matter. It could be that somehow instructions might not actually be passed on into the ME...?

I think we should ask the question, if you look around the tactic sharing thread, what I have found is a number of tactics that seem to produce odd statistics / anomolies in the game. You see many people saying that strikers don't convert CCC's, very low possession stats etc. I do wonder whether it is just coincidence that most of these tactics are created "classically" rather than via the TC.

To make things clear, i'm not feeding any sort of conspiracy theory here, but given the TC works within a pre-set set of parameters, it's logical to assume you will see oddities when you operate outside these.

heathxxx · January 21, 2011

I think we should ask the question, if you look around the tactic sharing thread, what I have found is a number of tactics that seem to produce odd statistics / anomolies in the game. You see many people saying that strikers don't convert CCC's, very low possession stats etc. I do wonder whether it is just coincidence that most of these tactics are created "classically" rather than via the TC.
To make things clear, i'm not feeding any sort of conspiracy theory here, but given the TC works within a pre-set set of parameters, it's logical to assume you will see oddities when you operate outside these.

Hasn't that always been the way though, even prior to the TC?

What I mean is that when people have used extreme settings, or maybe a combination of certain illogical seeming setting, they've found strange or interesting things happening, or things the match engine is/was unable to handle properly. Erstwhile known sometimes... as exploits.

One thing that the TC settings are based on, is pretty sound logic. It's a different debate as to whether more settings should be allowed or featured for different roles perhaps. On the basis of what it does contain though, I certainly think they're pretty logical.

I don't think there's any conspiracy. If you were to make conflicting or extreme changes to certain sliders in the "classic" settings, then it's fair to assume that you would indeed see odd things happening. On the one hand, you can indeed have more fine tuning control of your tactical settings in infinite detail with the slider options, but you can also do completely illogical things too.

macca72 · January 21, 2011

Hasn't that always been the way though, even prior to the TC?
What I mean is that when people have used extreme settings, or maybe a combination of certain illogical seeming setting, they've found strange or interesting things happening, or things the match engine is/was unable to handle properly. Erstwhile known sometimes... as exploits.

One thing that the TC settings are based on, is pretty sound logic. It's a different debate as to whether more settings should be allowed or featured for different roles perhaps. On the basis of what it does contain though, I certainly think they're pretty logical.

I don't think there's any conspiracy. If you were to make conflicting or extreme changes to certain sliders in the "classic" settings, then it's fair to assume that you would indeed see odd things happening. On the one hand, you can indeed have more fine tuning control of your tactical settings in infinite detail with the slider options, but you can also do completely illogical things too.

Yep, I can where that's coming from, maybe it's a bit more noticable this year. Maybe also previous "exploits" have been more successful, thus not as visible.

Loversleaper · January 21, 2011

The biggest benefit overall with the Tactics Creator in my opinion, has been more people understanding what they're doing tactically, with more ease.

For sure. Before the introduction of the Wizard I had already tactics that 'resembled' the different strategies to some extent (sliders were generally placed in the same areas). That is why when the TC appeared it did confirm that different 'levels' of strategies could be used to gain success, maybe even be essential. How do your match stats look when you do try to attempt DEFENSIVE Strategies (generally)?

Morale when it comes to targeting (or being targeted) as weak links or a danger man, I've only lower league experiences to go from.

When this happens there is no 'counter-weapon', which makes one pretty much powerless. We can take off the 'pressure' in team talks but haven't found it to be effective. I generally find that it is too easy for players to 'have a poor oppinion' of you due to silly little requests or media interaction. I may be way off, but I find that it isn't realistic to have almost a spread sheet on which players react to different types of media/team talk attempts. In the real world I don't think it is quite like so, so I don't see the reason why we would have to go through this process not to 'demoralise' the squad. It won't be altogether bad to tone it down a bit...

P.S. The one that 'gets me' is the one where you are having a press conference about a new signing and you express some joy/praise the player a bit - only for him to be unhappy with you...

Hasn't that always been the way though, even prior to the TC?
I don't think there's any conspiracy.

No, I would have to agree that it can't be the case. What does happen though is that you are exposed to the pressure/complacency aspect, which proves quite difficult. Of course, you have the aspect of the AI either gradually going more defensive or offensive against you due to good/bad form, but many haven't realised this aspect and/or know what to do about it. It is not enough to rely solely on tactics as it won't necessarily do the trick, you most likely will have to have the team morale that will enable you to be more successfull at them. It's quite a 'mouthfull' (so to say), and this time around it's either a lot more difficult or something is too unbalanced within the structure of the relationship between settings and the ME and the things (like morale) that effect it.

heathxxx · January 22, 2011

How do your match stats look when you do try to attempt DEFENSIVE Strategies (generally)?

Generally ok, with everything I use in the TC. Admittedly I usually start with a "standard" or more attacking strategy, due to the way I like to manage tactically. Perhaps more so than in any other version of FM, I have been exploring more defensive strategies to use when I need to during matches. My take on what I see defensively from the tactics I'm using, is that defensive strategies are ok, when used in conjunction with what seem to be appropriate touchline shouts. Perhaps because deep down I'm still thinking of attacking options, even when instructing my team to be more defensive, I'm using shouts that encourage players to get the ball to my forwards quickly and efficiently still.

Statistics wise, I really can't say that I've noticed anything particularly untoward. That's probably because I never start with a defensive strategy, or use one for the entirety of a match.

I generally find that it is too easy for players to 'have a poor oppinion' of you due to silly little requests or media interaction. I may be way off, but I find that it isn't realistic to have almost a spread sheet on which players react to different types of media/team talk attempts. In the real world I don't think it is quite like so, so I don't see the reason why we would have to go through this process not to 'demoralise' the squad. It won't be altogether bad to tone it down a bit...
P.S. The one that 'gets me' is the one where you are having a press conference about a new signing and you express some joy/praise the player a bit - only for him to be unhappy with you...

I must admit that sometimes when interacting with players, I have on occasion had a player respond poorly to something that would seem logical and entirely reasonable. Their visible player attributes and character traits would suggest what I'm suggesting should be ok with them too. Mostly this happens to me when I'm trying to have a younger player tutored or suggesting a player preferred move. One thing I am with the game, is very patient and observant. I pay a lot of attention to detail, as you'll probably tell by reading through my lower league management thread. Therefore I have as much consternation with a player who flatly refuses to learn what would seem to be a suitable PPM, when they would appear to be ideally suited, but even more so when they respond in such a deeply negative way.

Most times, if I feel I'm genuinely right, I'll use the manager knows best type answer or "at least give it a try". When a player then responds very poorly, I do agree that the length of time they might have a poor opinion of you, is over the top for something so trivial.

The press conference options when you've signed a new player, I'm just as careful with and always look at every detail available to me to try judging how a player might respond. Most times I suffer no ill consequences, but have again had the odd rare poor response. Most times the effects don't appear to last too long.

Overall, much of the general "ease" I find with player responses, apart from the odd anomalies I've mentioned, is down to the types of characters and personalities I build my squads with. I must admit though, that if I didn't pay as much attention to signing players with certain stronger and more determined character traits, I would probably find managing lots of different types of personalities very frustrating.

Since the motivational and media parts of the game have been introduced and gained importance, although I like that they're there and give the whole management simulation experience more depth, there's always room for improvement. I do think that it's possibly a very fine line implementing things like this into the game. I think they've done exceptionally well to implement what they have, as well as they have, but that doesn't mean that they're elements of the game that should be reviewed and improved regularly. I've no doubt that the developers will read threads like this with interest and will take things that are mentioned on board.

Bebetu · January 22, 2011

Match preparation and shouts are in contradiction because when a tactic is shouted it becomes a different tactic with not so fluid in those aspects of game that were modified and really I dont understand the logic behind this contradictions.ALso i dont understand why AI is able to change tactics at will and performing so well,for me the only logical explanation is that ai is not affected by match preparation(and in this case we can tell that ai is cheating) or this match preparation doesnt have any effect at all except team blend like some one said earlier(and in this case we can tell that match preparation is mostly bugged).

info0 · January 23, 2011

I agree with everything OP said. Impressive. Exactly my thoughts. Just to add to it.

SI should first and foremost fix the ME and THEN implement new features as I believe Match Preparation, Agents weren't truly tested. Implemented by force.

The game is enjoyable, but some glitches in ME make it frustrating more then entertaining . Morale can drop v. fast after a series of 3 straight defeats (not that hard in LLM) and bouncing back is sometimes near impossible mission, which results in getting fired (!!).

I would say get rid of things not working well, improve match engine. I love Agents addition (made game more real life like), but... They offer you players you don't need 10x in the row. It can become frustrating, believe me .

lurkingwithintent · January 23, 2011

I know I'm hardily as respected around these parts as your Cleons or wwfans or SFrasers or whoever, but I do try and post in tactical discussions and thought I would post my opinions, having followed threads by yourself and others who have contributed in this thread :thup:

The Wizard:

I think the wizard has been a "6 of one, half a dozen of the other" addition to the game. Many people seem to argue that it has "dumbed down" FM tactics - and whilst I do agree to some extent I think the TC is a great addition for those who can't get hours of play on the game tweaking tactics. I start in the TC before diving into sliders for team & individuals - and as you alude to Loversleaper, some of the default settings it picks are often some what baffling. Even the roles it automatically gives your players can be way off, at least way off in my mind. As for your analysis of the defensive tactic "Classic vs Tactic Creator", I can't say I've tried a defensive tactic really on a game to game basis over a regular period of FM time. However I can say that when I've tried to play a counter tactic, say for the bigger games, it has not worked at all - I'm no Mourinho but I'm not a complete tactical idiot either and whenever I've tried it I usually end up getting slaughtered. I switched to playing a more attacking, imposing game with a high line, lots of pressing and it's working much better. That could just be down to my players, I've done no analysis to attempt to prove otherwise but it does seem a bit suspect.

Match Preparation:

Match Preparation is really odd. At first it sounded like a fantastic idea and something well implemented, but the more I look into it and the more I read findings from others, it seems to be fundamentally broken. From what I understand, choosing a Special Focus Area (SFA) other than Team Blend will give your team a small boost in that area in your next match. This makes sense to me - if you focused loads on set pieces in training, you would expect to be better at them come the weekend fixture. However, it seems that this boost is not maintained over a period of time, but rather you lose it and have to work at it again? That is nonsensical. I think it's a good idea, thus far poorly implemented. No one seems to fully understand this - some of the questions you pose about relating to shouts are very interesting, something I had not even considered.

Morale:

Morale is fine - I've actually done some work in this area and now have got my player interaction such that I can just about keep morale up at all times - but I do find it drops far too quickly. You can lose to a side you are more than expected to (I managed to get Newcastle to the UEFA Cup final where I ended up losing 0-3 to Barcelona for example), this is an expected defeat but the player's really get down about it. During a run of 2-3 league defeats on the bounce suddenly your morale is completely down - even if you've won the last 20 games and that's not quite right. I just think it's a bit extreme at the moment, nothing more.

Conclusion so far:

As for quality posters - I do think the tactics forum is a bit full of the "wrong" sort of posts - it's hard to explain what I mean, and I'm certainly not bashing any people here at all, new posters or old, as I do think if you look hard enough there are some seriously good discussions and guides on this forum. I need to pull myself out of "reading" mode and into "read and reply mode" but often I admit I feel a little out of depth in some threads amongst some posters, which has held me back before, but I will try and post more now! Some of the features are difficult to understand to a level at which you can feel confident to write a guide on, and some just take so much time to fully analyse that again, there are not enough hours in the day! I have been working on a guide to motivation, perhaps I should get off my arse and write that up properly

I hope I haven't rambled on and some of that made a small amount of sense.

Jack / LwI

crouchaldinho · January 23, 2011

Match preparation and shouts are in contradiction because when a tactic is shouted it becomes a different tactic with not so fluid in those aspects of game that were modified and really I dont understand the logic behind this contradictions

Absolutely right. This is what frustrates and annoys me about the match preparation module. It sits in absolute contradiction with the TC, the touchline shouts and everything else about the game!

It just seems like nobody thought it through. Do SI have different teams working on these modules, who don't communicate, and then they just shove everything together and hope for the best? :rolleyes:

Loversleaper · January 23, 2011

Generally ok, with everything I use in the TC. Admittedly I usually start with a "standard" or more attacking strategy, due to the way I like to manage tactically. Perhaps more so than in any other version of FM, I have been exploring more defensive strategies to use when I need to during matches. My take on what I see defensively from the tactics I'm using, is that defensive strategies are ok, when used in conjunction with what seem to be appropriate touchline shouts. Perhaps because deep down I'm still thinking of attacking options, even when instructing my team to be more defensive, I'm using shouts that encourage players to get the ball to my forwards quickly and efficiently still.
Statistics wise, I really can't say that I've noticed anything particularly untoward. That's probably because I never start with a defensive strategy, or use one for the entirety of a match.

I may be not correct in my following statement, but offer an objective viewpoint on the tactical side of FM. I am under the impression that the Strategies all actually have a purpose, and isn't just to coincide with Gamers' personal playing styles/preferences. Looking at the more defensive side of the game then I would present it like so:

Top/very good teams:

Away as large favorite: CONTROL

Away as small favorite: STANDARD

Away as small underdog: COUNTER

Away as large underdog: DEFENSIVE

The other teams (basically):

Away as large favorite: STANDARD

Away as slight favortie: COUNTER

Away as any underedog: DEFENSIVE

I won't go as far as claiming that this is totally accurate, but am around 90% sure that this is the 'overall' ideology behind the Strategy aspect & basically what SI had in mind when they made the new ME. I say that I can be pretty sure that it is the case becuase I am talking about an analysis that actually stretches over a number of years now. I have witnessed that they can work like this and here are some screenshots that (hopefully) show that it can be done with this assumption. I base my claims on general match stats, I can say that they appear better (or more sound) when you are in the general area of the correct strategy that is 'unlocked' for the next match in hand.

West Brom Albion 1st season, media prediction 19th. In every save I rememeber playing, WBA are always relegated in 20th or 19th spot (usually 10+ points under the Relegation line).

League table: http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/9730/englishpremierdivisionib.png

Number of saves: http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6442/gamewbastatus.png (I put in this aspect just to eliminate the possibility that I re-loaded, 1 save in half a year should be sufficient)

Some away stats (classic version) using a DEFENSIVE type of Strategy:

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/2616/blackpoolvwestbromstats.png

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/3521/newcastlevwestbromstats.png

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/6002/mancityvwestbromstatsma.png

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/2074/blackburnvwestbromstats.png

I haven't done altogether bad, considering I am using the current WBA squad with a few 'backup' players brought in to broaden the squad (which is needed). The concentration levels that my defense have are pretty low for the EPL, so naturally I struggle defensively - on top my tactics are a little 'aggressive' in Closing Down/Defensive Line within the different strategies.

Squad: http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/4978/westbromwichalbionwestb.png

Some of my good games (just for fun):

Liverpool game where I had the game: http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/8624/westbromvliverpoolstats.png

Chelsea game: http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1766/westbromvchelseainforma.png I don't think I will surprise anyone when I say that I was played off the pitch

Squad used: http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/1766/westbromvchelseainforma.png I started with a STANDARD Strategy but due to the red card I went down to a DEFENISVE Strategy...

I have tried to play the same WBA game (same signings + set-up) as this shown save using solely the TC and I couldn't get it to work at all. I used, of course, the same type of tactics/strategies (as the initial save) and even went as far as doing a whole new save where I duplicated the exact same settings that I use in the classic version but both of these attempts failed miserably (and many times as well) - they were actually so bad that I deleted them emediatly as I was frankly quite embarressed. I don't know if I have the patience to retry the test just to prove it because it is very time consumming and tiring - I'll leave the option open for others to try. I used the same type of talk talks and eveything else as similar as possible to the initial save and did so over a longer periode of time, but I got nowhere near the shown save above. I was banging my head to try and make them work because I did mention in my Tactic Thread that I would try to bring the tactics into the TC version.

You see, if Gamers around the globe 'go up through the ranks' they will experience at one point being a relegation battler (like WBA 1st season) and if the Defensive TC tactics do not work I cannot see how they are going to avoid struggling with this aspect if they use it. This aspect will effect a lot of gamers, I am sure. I truly believe if a Relegation Battler plays/uses STANDARD Strategies away from home that they will most likely get destroyed more than not, and I am basing this on that I have tried to play these type of strategies many times before to be sure that I know what I am talking about (generally) - although I admit that I have only got so far as to try them in the Classic version and stake my reputation on that it simply is too hard to make work properly (the TC couldn't possible change this aspect). Of course, if someone shows me a Screen Shot or uploads a game where they show it is possible and prove it (with the minimum ammount of saves possible to verify that there is no reloading envolved) then I will reconsider my assumption, but looking around the forums I see no evidence that it is feasible. If the Defensive tactics do not work properly then it is very problematic, there is no way that we can fully exclude that side of the game as it is actually an essential part of the game...

I know I'm hardily as respected around these parts as your Cleons or wwfans or SFrasers or whoever, but I do try and post in tactical discussions and thought I would post my opinions, having followed threads by yourself and others who have contributed in this thread

In the OP I mentioned these type of gamers were rare these days. I am not saying that they don't exsist anymore, but am concerned that there generally is a lack of posts/threads from these type of gamers. These type of gamers could be anyone who takes time to present things/issues as they read the game and can draw visual conclusions on what they experience. You see, if there is a lack of quality posts then I would naturally assume that it could be conceivable that it is because apparently it is incredibly hard to have a consistant analysis, thus making it hard to make a thread that 'holds water'. These type of posters/thread makers will only create them if they can visual prove that they are on the right track because no one in their right mind would want to come out with conclusions/analysis that don't make sense or are unconclusive.

If you, for example, create a thread that can be translated into other gamers' saves, then I think I can speak on behalf of Cleon, wwfan, isuckatfm (and anyone else I forgot to mention) and even most of the gamming community - that it will be welcomed with open arms. Most gamers will always appreciate either stable/ground-breaking analysis or even a healthy debate - and I don't think it is feasible for the gamming community that only a few gamers have this responsability as other users/gamers can just as easily help in the forums and bring some new aspects to the game, and my feeling is that we need this more than ever at this point in time...

@Crouchy: Exactly how I feel about it aswell...

heathxxx · January 23, 2011

Loversleaper - Again, I've not started a save with an unfavoured club in the highest league tiers, but I would imagine that I'll reach that point sometime in my current AFC Telford save.

The analysis you've provided with WBA is indeed very interesting and does seem to show evidence of differences trying to employ defensive tactics, between the TC and "classic". The biggest difference I would surmise casually, is that with such a club and squad of players, the "classic" option if you're comfortable with it, is probably the best way to go. You can fine-tune every minor detail of your tactics, to more fully tailor it to every strength or weakness in your team. The tactics creator certainly doesn't have that level of fine-tuning or control and defensively perhaps more than any other aspect of play, that's perhaps where the biggest differences will be more clearly apparent.

That's not to say that if you've been trying to emulate the TC with your "classic" settings and vice-versa, you shouldn't expect to see similar outcomes and overall performance levels, given the squad you're working with. It's difficult to gauge though, when comparing what you might change during matches, in the way you would with touchline shouts, in a like-for-like manner.

As you may know, the only save I've been playing since the launch of FM11, has been my AFC Telford one, which I've talked about in my lower league management thread. This is unusual for me, as I've usually had two or three saves on the go by now, but reduced leisure time and other commitments mean I've just kept playing this save as and when I can. With the exception of the first season in the BSP, where they were one of the favourites for promotion, each of the following seasons in the BSP and League Two, my club has been media favourites for relegation. Never in my opinion though, because I know full well I've improved my squad each time sufficiently, that I can pretty much ignore what the media and match odds suggest, simply because when comparing my squad to that of my opponents, I know mine is better. Only at around the half-way stage in each season (BSP and League Two) did my side begin to become recognised by the media and match odds, as a favourite to win matches, or even the league.

The problem, when it comes to match odds and media predictions, is that they're based purely on club reputation and to some extent in recent releases of FM, form and league position over a good period of time. Indeed, so much is reputation based upon that of the club, every time I'm asked in a press conference who will win the league, rather than realistically choose my own club, who just happens to be 22 points clear at the top... I'll say "no comment", because I know the squad will react poorly or the media will scoff at my answer.

That's why even in the face of very sensible seeming suggestions in threads and guides over the years, reputation is something that I have scant regard for in FM. I've suggested many times that the quality of the squad should be taken into account more, if not in an overall reputation sense, then at least more when it comes to match odds. Look at Manchester City... if it wasn't for the gazillionaire oil tycoon owner and the ability to spend heaps of cash on the players they've bought, we'd probably fall over laughing at any suggestion of them being a potential title challenger... ever! Fact remains though, they've got the money now and a squad that's capable of challenging for trophies. Any historical reputation is forgotten for the "here and now" of their club status. Sure, City are a big club compared to many others, but look at their history and "reputation". The reputation system in FM isn't as fluid as it is in real life.

If I were to manage a save with WBA in the Premier League, I know for certain that I could probably quickly assemble a squad in the first season, capable of pushing for the top half of the table, if not a European place. I also know for certain that throughout that season, because of the crappy club reputation, the media and match odds would still be predicting doom and gloom. Simply put, I would ignore them, because I would know and be confident that the side I've assembled is more than capable of the aims I would have.

How does all this affect tactics though? Simple. Because it appears that how AI teams approach their games versus your team (and how we're "expected" to think tactically ourselves perhaps...), is based upon reputation and a little consideration for your recent form. That the game more recently takes form into account, has improved things, but it still perhaps isn't flexible enough. Now if you know your team is utter pants and you fully expect to be fighting relegation, then for sure, it's natural to be looking at more defensive tactics from the off and nicking points on the counter if you can. In a "gamey" way though, what I'm usually doing is the opposite of what the match odds and reputations suggest and taking on bigger opponents more offensively. I'll have improved my squad enough to do much better than "reputation" expectations and therefore tactically, I will be more adventurous.

Is this realistic? Is this "gamey"? I would say both, but simulation or not, this is still a "game" and therefore whatever I do, realistic seeming or not, it's still always unrealistic when compared to what might happen in real life. If I've significantly improved my squad, I do think it's realistic for me to be more adventurous tactically, if I know I have a better team than higher "reputation" teams.

One thing I will suggest, after all that and a dismissal of reputation as a consideration how I play the game, is that I do think attacking football is better represented in the game and ME, than defensive football. Aside from clear-cut chances, you'll see far more people complaining in these forums about unrealistic and poor defending, than you ever will about attacking, overall. I think it's a double-edged sword this game, when it comes to its development. Trying to create something that looks realistic. You improve something to look more realistic in attack, only for it to expose something that looks awful and unrealistic in defence. You then try to improve that defensive aspect, in turn it then makes something else in attack look unrealistic. Rinse and repeat, every version of the game... every patch.

On the whole, I do consider myself pretty astute when it comes to tactics in the real game, having played and coached in the past. I do think it's possible to reproduce certain elements of the real game in FM tactically, but I do think it's an impossible and thankless task to emulate everything exactly. Therefore in game terms, I tend to accept things for what they are, then base my tactical thoughts on what I see in the game, more so than trying to make direct like-for-like comparisons with football tactics or "reputations" in the real world.

So purely tactically speaking and counter to what many say or believe, I suggest going with gut instinct and knowledge of your team versus your opponents when it comes to starting strategies. If you know you're the better team, with better players and player attributes more suited to what you're doing tactically, then there's no reason to be defensive, just because the reputation orientated media and match odds suggest suggest otherwise. If you can play to your strengths and mask most of your weakness', then you have absolutely nothing to fear.

That said, I do use defensive tactics, but usually they're only to shut out opponents completely, in games my team is comfortably ahead and in the dying stages of matches when legs are tired. Otherwise, I'm Standard, Control, Attacking, occasionally Counter, Overload in the midst of matches if circumstances suit. To me, defending as a starting strategy, says one of two things... we're here to nick a point if we're lucky, or... please demolish us, we're not worthy.

Even if I have a crap team.

More wall of text. More need now for another mug of coffee...

Loversleaper · January 23, 2011

the "classic" option if you're comfortable with it, is probably the best way to go.

@Heath: I just wanted to remind you that I am not on a mission to find what is best for me or what works best generally. My main point is that we are all introduced with some new features, naturally I am intrigued and wanted to try them out. Maybe I would like to move away from how I normally play and follow along in the evelution. Many gamers do not share the style of management that I practise, so they use the tools that are included in the game. If these things don't function properly then I would say that I don't like the option of 'working around' these things. If you implement something in the game then I think that it should work to some extent and on top gamers should know basically how to use it/them, so here is where we fall short.

As you, I have also explored the LL, with Worcester. Also here I experienced being expected to finish last in the league and was large underdog in most games. I have uploaded the save for all to see in my tactics thread. 13 saves (4 per season plus the 1 save on day one of save) in three full seasons where I managed three consecutive promotions (naturally I used the Strategy aspect talked about so far in this thread). I can assure you that there is a big difference from the LL to the EPL, the contrast in quality higher up is a lot greater between the teams. In the LL it is easy to find players that can really increase your teams overall 'value' - where on the otherhand it is a lot more difficult for WBA to aquire players that can match the Elite teams, especially in the first season and with the reputation aspect (which is realistic enough).

I agree with you on the pre match odds, it rarely makes sense in the long run. I also follow more my own instincts on whether I am favorite or underdog. I use the pre match odds as guidelines, but look a little deeper into things before I make my final decision on what type of strategy could work best. I wasn't necessarily trying to emulate the WBA save and was merely trying to get the TC to work. You see, after so many years playing the game patterns appear and I know how my results generally pan out in the long run. It might swing slightly due to the elements in the game and I do get strategies wrong from time to time, but definatly I can say that there is a form of consistancy that I can relate to.

I mentioned in the OP that the more attacking tactics are easier to create successfully, but the aspect that only the top end of the Mentality ladder works good is actually a great cause for concern. Maybe most people want to play beautiful attacking football, it just isn't a feasible outlook for evey team in the real world, and this aspect has been implemented in the game - the TC with it's different strategies opens that aspect. I honestly don't think that COUNTER and DEFENSIVE Strategies were designed to shut games - CONTAIN Strategy, on the otherhand, would be the real choice to 'close out games'. That people generally don't use the lower end of the tactics, in a way, suggests that they don't work very well. I cannot imagine that the whole side (lower end) of the Mentality slider is purely to 'close out games' making a lot of the settings basically obsolete...

DaSilva9 · January 23, 2011

I've always wondered about how TC settings translate over to classic mode? Like whether one can simulate the automatic setting for MC,s and FB's just using sliders? It seems that there must be something extra beyond the classic mode instructions to implement this role.

Loversleaper · January 23, 2011

I've always wondered about how TC settings translate over to classic mode? Like whether one can simulate the automatic setting for MC,s and FB's just using sliders? It seems that there must be something extra beyond the classic mode instructions to implement this role.

The whole TC is exactly the same as the classic version. Anything implemented in one of the versions can easily be implemented in the other. The TC appears very complex, players having different settings from one and other, so I can imagine many people think that it is necessary to do this to make successful tactics...

shirajzl · January 24, 2011

What I've noticed so far on this forum is that people who supposedly "use only TC" more often than not still manually tweak the defensive line, width, tempo, and time wasting. They keep the roles and duties as they are, as well as closing down, tackling, marking etc., but minor manual tweaks in some areas mean you can't call it a TC made tactic. I'm not being bitter nor I'm accusing anyone, but it seems rather misleading for a newbie when people claim to use only TC when they still tweak sliders here and there.

The difference between TC and classic tactics is noticeable even in attacking strategies. When you're a favourite and clearly have a stronger team, the TC will be sufficient to provide you a win, but it won't be as nearly as dominating as it would be with the same settings translated to the classic mode.

crouchaldinho · January 24, 2011

I'm still playing FM10 mainly and I've only dabbled a little bit with FM11. It hasn't really captured my imagination yet (for various reasons) so I'm still playing on my FM10 save most of the time.

Anyway, just to say I'm using the TC and the shouts without any edits or tweaks. I have been doing this since their introduction in FM10. As my understanding is that the AI controlled teams have the same access to the tactics creator, I have essentially limited myself to playing in the same spirit and exclusively using the TC and shouts to play the game. I simply don't touch the sliders at all and I purely use the TC and the touchline shouts to manipulate the sliders. I do use my knowledge of creating 'classic' tactics in order to decide what shouts to employ (essentially, I have translated every shout into 'slider speak', so I am very aware of what I am changing under the hood each time I utilise the shouts).

I've got to confess that I'm not following this discussion as closely as I should be, as time has been a bit short lately, and some of it requires a close-reading that I don't quite have time for. The essence of the discussion seems to be that there is some difference between employing the TC and shouts, and then doing exactly the same thing (in terms of under the hood changes) but in classic mode. I find that really difficult to believe personally.

In terms of successfully employing the tactics creator, I've had great success in a whole range of 'environments' and scenarios on FM10. This includes playing with huge underdogs, middle teams, and big favourites. Naturally, I'm talking about FM10 here, so maybe things have changed for FM11 and I haven't played enough to notice. Ultimately, I've had tons of success with relegation battlers, mid-table sides, title favourites, you name it, and I've only used the TC and shouts throughout all of my careers on FM10. Ultimately, I was playing the game in the same way before the TC and the shouts (using WWFan's TT&F style ideas, although I tended to simplify some of the more detailed stuff) and so the TC and shouts haven't really changed the way that I play at all. They've just made it easier for me to tweak, to change things and to work in a more dynamic (and, quite frankly, exciting) way with tactical strategies in FM.

Regarding defensive strategies, I've always personally found that the game seems biased towards more attacking strategies anyway. I don't think that I ever start a match with the defensive strategy, it's more a strategy that I will employ in certain instances in a game. At the start of a match, I tend to stick to the more balanced strategies, and the lowest I will tend to go is the Counter strategy. I have used the same approach for many versions now. The last time I found defensive strategies were really strong was FM07 when such strategies could see you hugely overachieve with a relegation battler (to an unrealistic level). As far as I am concerned, or at least as far as I have found, this changed for FM08, and I found starting with overly defensive strategies was far less effective.

As for the Match Preparation feature, I've given my thoughts about that, and I am extremely frustrated and annoyed with it. It's one of the things putting me off starting a new long-term save on FM11, if I am totally honest (and there are quite a few disappointments for me personally with the new FM). Finally, morale is something that I can't really comment on as I understand things seem to have changed for FM11.

Loversleaper · January 24, 2011

The difference between TC and classic tactics is noticeable even in attacking strategies. When you're a favourite and clearly have a stronger team, the TC will be sufficient to provide you a win, but it won't be as nearly as dominating as it would be with the same settings translated to the classic mode.

Personally, I haven't found that it is too difficult to make attacking type of tactics in any of the versions. I haven't tried to go from the TC into the classic version regarding attacking tactics so I can't make any comment on it, I will check it out at one point.

This is how I feel about the whole TC aspect that SI have brought forth:

I am a person who likes toys - grown up toys. I have a motor-cycle, a quad bike and a jet-ski - I like to snowboard as well as trekking/mountain climbing. But recently I have been looking into the possibility of buying a Hover-Craft, and the ones available to the public are these 'build it yourself' ones. Now to compare this with the TC, the SI have decided that the gamming community apparently is not capable of making tactics themselves so they decide to make them for you. So, going back to the Hover-Craft, the way that SI built the TC would translate that the Hover-Craft makers went out and said 'you know what, we are not confident in you making the Hover-Craft so we will do it for you, but we won't make it exactly correct - you are going to have to unscrew things here and there and remake things (that we won't tell you) to make it function properly'. What do I know about Hover-Crafts? I think it would be more feasible to make it from the bottom so that I know what it is I am doing all the way from the foundation. You still have to give me instructions so I know how to screw the thing together properly...

I think that the SI have really got things back to front this time around :confused:. FM10 and FM11 are totally different in these matters, and FM11 looks like all the new features contradict one and other or have influences from different angles so the ME just doesn't seem to be able to cope with it. There are way to many ways to influence all the settings adn it doesn't look feasible, SI should really consider simplifying this whole area of the game to make it more transparent. The TC, shouts, classic, match preparation and the OI - throw in morale and complacency so now the whole thing looks quite messy and uncalculable...

I've got to confess that I'm not following this discussion as closely as I should be, as time has been a bit short lately, and some of it requires a close-reading that I don't quite have time for. The essence of the discussion seems to be that there is some difference between employing the TC and shouts, and then doing exactly the same thing (in terms of under the hood changes) but in classic mode. I find that really difficult to believe personally.

I am having real problems believing it as well, I mean - the TC and Classic settings should be two sides of the same thing. I am not joking around in this matter, I have really tried it out and they do not appear close. It is not some random issue that you can't understand in the long run, they really do appear to behave totally different with the exact same settings. In the OP the stats were from a test between Liverpool (AI) - WBA (me). It was as if in the TC the Match Stats kept in the same general area, even when I duplicated the exact same Classic settings into the TC - the stats stayed in the same region as the default TC test. There was no indication that it would ever come up to the Classic area in regards to the Match Stats, random or not...

I have no explanation and am at a total loss of words. Maybe there are just too many things that influence the ME and since it is not transparent who knows what is going on?...

Disastorpasztor · January 24, 2011

I think most agree that the Match Prep feature is nigh worthless. Perhaps it'll evolve into something decent in the next couple iterations... Although, I am still waiting for the media interactions/press conferences to evolve into something decent, rather than just mindless/boring repetition... Same goes for player interactions.

Agents are ok, certainly more "real-life"-ish...although I'm not sure they are really needed. Negotiations could be had just the same without explicitly involving "agents"...not to mention the ever annoying news items of players firing their agents.

My problem with the Tactics Creator has always been that it made me feel limited. And perhaps that's not part of its intention, but there are some settings that are simply not possible with just the TC & Shouts. For example, say you want ultra-short passing on everyone (which is one sure fire way to improve possession)...you could go Control w/ shorter passing, and pass-to-feet, and retain possession, and it still won't lower the slider all the way to the left!

Using just the TC inherently limits the game. What's the point of having 20(?) notches on a slider, if the TC (the "default" method for manipulating said slider) can only "access" 15 of it?

The other problem I have with the TC is that I don't always want to shout at the WHOLE team. Sometimes I just want to tell 1 or 2 players to start doing something differently. Or tell just the defense play narrower. Or tell the midfield/attack to spread out a bit and give themselves more room to work with. Or just tell my 1-2 creative/flair/dribblers to hog the ball and try to make something happen. To accomplish this today, I have to dive in to individual slider/classic manipulation. So I might as well start with that from the very beginning and not bother with the TC/shouts at all...

Loversleaper · January 24, 2011

Match preparation and shouts are in contradiction because when a tactic is shouted it becomes a different tactic with not so fluid in those aspects of game that were modified and really I dont understand the logic behind this contradictions.ALso i dont understand why AI is able to change tactics at will and performing so well,for me the only logical explanation is that ai is not affected by match preparation(and in this case we can tell that ai is cheating) or this match preparation doesnt have any effect at all except team blend like some one said earlier(and in this case we can tell that match preparation is mostly bugged).

I honestly think that the AI does have the exact same options as we do. The reason for this is because, during the last couple of years, I have personally been able to at least match the AI on various levels. One of the areas I worked mostly in was tactical settings where I have really studied aspects and been able to determine, to some extent, what is going on and how the ME reacts to settings. I think the difference between the AI and us gamers is that the AI is naturally using different settings than we use (generally). The AI is actually using a very simple ideology to deal with the issues (like Match Prep or tactical settings) whereas we tend to really overcomplicate things (because we are under the impression that it is necessary) or simply don't know how to use it/them. If we do simplify these aspects and know what to do plus realise the effects are of our actions then we can actually be more effective than the AI...

Loversleaper · January 24, 2011

To add to the above post, Match Preparation looks like it is a 'tool' so that our team becomes more familiar with the tactics we are going to use. Our team gets familiar with tactics regardless of the Match Preparations, but the issue I have is that I don't know how to work it - workloads and how it corresponds with training. There is something wrong with it though, and I think this causes that 'Current' issue we have with tactics. It is unclear if the AI has these issues, so advantage-wise it might tip the balance a little...

heathxxx · January 24, 2011

My main issue, more than anything else that I can live with, is the "current" thing and a situation I find sometimes, where set piece instructions are reset to default, for no apparent reason during a game. They're clearly flaws in the user interface, which I'm hopeful will be finally resolved come the last patch.

The set pieces one is particularly frustrating though, because I'll have reloaded my saved starting tactic at the start of every game, which includes all my set piece instructions. Then I'll happen to notice that the positioning of my players on corners (more obviously) is not right or not what I've set and saved. I'll then have to go to the tactics screen and re-load my saved tactic, re-do all my opposition instructions, then when back on the match screen, re-do whatever shouts I had instructed at the time.

Being rather obsessive and particular about how I set up my tactics and utilise shouts and instructions, it's very annoying when a glitch in the UI seems to change things without my knowing.

Loversleaper · January 24, 2011

My main issue, more than anything else that I can live with, is the "current" thing and a situation I find sometimes, where set piece instructions are reset to default, for no apparent reason during a game. They're clearly flaws in the user interface, which I'm hopeful will be finally resolved come the last patch.
The set pieces one is particularly frustrating though, because I'll have reloaded my saved starting tactic at the start of every game, which includes all my set piece instructions. Then I'll happen to notice that the positioning of my players on corners (more obviously) is not right or not what I've set and saved. I'll then have to go to the tactics screen and re-load my saved tactic, re-do all my opposition instructions, then when back on the match screen, re-do whatever shouts I had instructed at the time.

Being rather obsessive and particular about how I set up my tactics and utilise shouts and instructions, it's very annoying when a glitch in the UI seems to change things without my knowing.

The only way I have managed to 'work around' it is to have the tactic(s) stored in the 'archieves' and use the drop down menu to 'recall' my tactic when needed, but you probably already know this. Also you shouldn't have the 'blue bar' on any of your players that you have on the pitch/starting lineup (the blue bar indicates that you have just been in and viewed one of your player's settings). Perferably you should 'click' one of the players on the bench before you go back to the 'formation' screen and then start/restart the match. I can't say that it works for all, and still am wondering since these things happen (like you described in this post), how much does it effect and how much of our settings maybe are not being 'passed on' into the ME. It could explain a few things regarding the TC and why I experienced some of the things I have mentioned...

heathxxx · January 24, 2011

It's a pretty big difference it can make in fairness.

As I've said, I prepare thoroughly for matches. My last match against Aldershot, I conceded inside five minutes and my team was not playing at all as I expected. I went to the tactics screen, lo and behold, my tactics were set to "current", even though I'd ensured to load my stored tactic before I pressed "play" and hadn't altered anything between loading the tactic and pressing "play". This meant that most of my settings from my saved tactics weren't applied and most frustratingly, when conceding the goal from a corner, my set piece instructions. Namely that I have players assigned to mark the posts, whereas the "current" tactic had none whatsoever marking the posts and the poorest positional settings for defending a corner you could imagine.

Now I did go on to win the match 3-1, but if someone wasn't particularly aware of this issue, not perhaps as observant or fluent with seeing tactics "in action" as I feel I am, or have the ME stats widgets open, then it would be a big problem. They might mess around with shouts, wondering why the team isn't playing properly, when in fact it's no fault of what they're doing, but the fault of the glitch in the user interface. No need to guess that the conceded goal came from a player free inside the box who received the ball from the corner and fired in to an empty space where a post marker should have been.

Above anything else, this I feel is the biggest issue with this release of FM. Other gameplay and ME quirks I can live with and usually have little impact overall. It also detracts from the experience of using the Tactics Creator, which is intended to make interaction with tactics, a much easier thing to understand and do. Now I hate to see ranting threads, like we often see in GD, but with an issue like this, I can feel some sympathy towards the frustrations people must have.

Bruce Drundrige · January 25, 2011

I flipping HATE the set pieces re-setting - I've been meaning to check if it's been reported as a bug but surely it must have?

sjm · January 25, 2011

I thought I might add some of my thoughts and experiences on the match preparation.

First off, I do think it's less limited than it at first appeared, but is still limited and probably not implemented sensibly. I'm the sort of player who tweaks tactics in matches a lot. It's a rare game when I haven't changed at least a few instructions within 5 minutes of kick off (normally much less). So I was particularly wary of the fact that the changes I'm making are not the settings I've been training, and my players would be uncomfortable with the changes. And, to a certain extent they were. I then read that your changes in matches (or shouts for those using the wizard) are remembered, and you players become more adept. As far as I can tell, this isn't necessarily the case (but I've not looked into it much).

Anyway, I was playing a wonky 4-1-2-1-2 with DMR, MCL, MR and AM and my team were quite adept at it. But I then signed a new AM and decided to move the old AM to the MR position. However, I wasn't getting the most out of him (in particular his ability to score from distance). So in the middle of one match, I moved him to MCR to get him more central; I also moved my DMR to DM (i.e. a "normal" 4-1-2-1-2). This worked much better over a couple of matches. So I went and edited my base tactic and selected the new version in the match preparation screen. Lo and behold, the bars are still at the same level. In fact, when I moved my MCL to ML, the bars were still all full. (I was only saving my tactical changes and loading up the new tactic in the match preparation screen)

This got me thinking, so I tried a few things out... and here's my conclusion:

There are a few bugs relating to the overall team settings and the fact that they aren't loaded correctly (I believe this is a known issue)
The tactic familiarity bars ONLY reflect/are affected by the team sliders (which may or may not be related to the team settings bug). In other words, any changes you make to a player's individual settings result in no penalty on the match preparation screen (whether they are penalised somewhere else is unclear). This may be an exploit, it may be a bug, the display may not reflect the fact that players are less familiar with their roles; I don't know. But it does mean, for example, that you can set team passing to any setting you like, leave it there until the passing style bar is full, and then theoretically assign all players new individual settings at no penalty; just don't touch the team setting. This would theoretically allow you to go from short to direct passing at no penalty if you use the player settings; but you'd be penalised using the team settings or shouts. The same applies to creative freedom, mentality, marking and closing down. Of course, some of the team settings aren't available for players as well, such as tempo and width. *More on what this might mean for the OP later...
The further you move the team sliders, the more the bars drop. I don't see any indication that my players are used to playing at different widths, for example, even though I do regularly change my width in matches. But I haven't tested this properly.
You can move players freely within any lateral position with no penalty to the formation bar. What I mean is that as long as your tactic is nominally a 4-1-2-1-2 (or whatever you've prepared), you can place those 10 players anywhere at no penalty. So you can play: DL, DC, DCR, DR, WBL, MCR, MR, AML, SL, SCR (a type of 4-1-2-1-2) and the formation bar is still full! This probably explains why my team has fallen apart in the past when I've switched from 4-4-2 to 4-1-3-2; because I've not prepared 4-1-3-2, and this is in effect a wholesale formation change. But switching 4-1-2-1-2 variations and I don't notice my team playing awfully in matches.

* So what does this mean for the OP? Well it may mean that using the wizard possibly has one simple disadvantage: You're relying on the team sliders, rather than the individual player's sliders, and may be being penalised for this and changes made to the team settings (e.g. shouts). Whereas you can seemingly make wholesale changes using the advanced player settings without any penalty. Either that, or the players are being penalised, and this is not being displayed. But this may explain why seemingly identical tactics are giving such different results. Maybe you're simply suffering from penalties to team settings using the wizard, and avoiding them using the advanced tactics?

mdbussen · January 25, 2011

I am a person who likes toys - grown up toys. I have a motor-cycle, a quad bike and a jet-ski - I like to snowboard as well as trekking/mountain climbing. But recently I have been looking into the possibility of buying a Hover-Craft, and the ones available to the public are these 'build it yourself' ones. Now to compare this with the TC, the SI have decided that the gamming community apparently is not capable of making tactics themselves so they decide to make them for you. So, going back to the Hover-Craft, the way that SI built the TC would translate that the Hover-Craft makers went out and said 'you know what, we are not confident in you making the Hover-Craft so we will do it for you, but we won't make it exactly correct - you are going to have to unscrew things here and there and remake things (that we won't tell you) to make it function properly'. What do I know about Hover-Crafts? I think it would be more feasible to make it from the bottom so that I know what it is I am doing all the way from the foundation. You still have to give me instructions so I know how to screw the thing together properly...

The problem with the sliders is that SI never properly explained what they exactly DO - it is extremely easy to misinterpret what exactly the effect of the "Defensive Line" slider is on the positioning of your team in the ME and what knock-on effects this has on the closing-down of your team and your defensive shape. This meant that the only way to be extremely good at the game was (1) use a pre-packaged "killer tactic" from the forums (2) tweak your settings until results start going your way or (3) spend 5 years playing FM and figuring out what everything does (and even then...). In your analogy, if SI were the Hovercraft manufacturer, they would be sending you a nice 200pc kit to assemble your own hovercraft with no instructions. "figure it out lads!"

I would agree that the TC is not perfect and definitely has some holes (and I was very disappointed to see nothing of significance added to it this year) but I still think it was a step in the right direction - towards making you think "like a RL football manager" rather than having to go in and manually adjust mentalities/closing down settings/etc. for every individual player if you wanted to make a simple change. I think that having the ability to fully customize the effects of shouts as well as customize player roles would really be a leap forward and would open up the TC to a whole new audience.

fdawsoniv · January 26, 2011

How can you save only 13 times in three seasons? I've probably saved 30 times and I'm 8 games into season one . . .

One thing I've seen to further suggest that the game favors offensive tactics is that the AI almost refuses to use them against me. No matter if I'm at home and are huge favorites, even once I've started building a lead, I keep getting messages about how the AI is "looking for more options in attack." Almost never do I see a message that they're making moves to shore up defense. Could this be because the game is designed to favor attacking?

And wouldn't this be at odds with the real world development of tactics?

Loversleaper · January 26, 2011

I thought I might add some of my thoughts and experiences on the match preparation.
First off, I do think it's less limited than it at first appeared, but is still limited and probably not implemented sensibly. I'm the sort of player who tweaks tactics in matches a lot. It's a rare game when I haven't changed at least a few instructions within 5 minutes of kick off (normally much less). So I was particularly wary of the fact that the changes I'm making are not the settings I've been training, and my players would be uncomfortable with the changes. And, to a certain extent they were. I then read that your changes in matches (or shouts for those using the wizard) are remembered, and you players become more adept. As far as I can tell, this isn't necessarily the case (but I've not looked into it much).

Anyway, I was playing a wonky 4-1-2-1-2 with DMR, MCL, MR and AM and my team were quite adept at it. But I then signed a new AM and decided to move the old AM to the MR position. However, I wasn't getting the most out of him (in particular his ability to score from distance). So in the middle of one match, I moved him to MCR to get him more central; I also moved my DMR to DM (i.e. a "normal" 4-1-2-1-2). This worked much better over a couple of matches. So I went and edited my base tactic and selected the new version in the match preparation screen. Lo and behold, the bars are still at the same level. In fact, when I moved my MCL to ML, the bars were still all full. (I was only saving my tactical changes and loading up the new tactic in the match preparation screen)

This got me thinking, so I tried a few things out... and here's my conclusion:

There are a few bugs relating to the overall team settings and the fact that they aren't loaded correctly (I believe this is a known issue)

The tactic familiarity bars ONLY reflect/are affected by the team sliders (which may or may not be related to the team settings bug). In other words, any changes you make to a player's individual settings result in no penalty on the match preparation screen (whether they are penalised somewhere else is unclear). This may be an exploit, it may be a bug, the display may not reflect the fact that players are less familiar with their roles; I don't know. But it does mean, for example, that you can set team passing to any setting you like, leave it there until the passing style bar is full, and then theoretically assign all players new individual settings at no penalty; just don't touch the team setting. This would theoretically allow you to go from short to direct passing at no penalty if you use the player settings; but you'd be penalised using the team settings or shouts. The same applies to creative freedom, mentality, marking and closing down. Of course, some of the team settings aren't available for players as well, such as tempo and width. *More on what this might mean for the OP later...

The further you move the team sliders, the more the bars drop. I don't see any indication that my players are used to playing at different widths, for example, even though I do regularly change my width in matches. But I haven't tested this properly.

You can move players freely within any lateral position with no penalty to the formation bar. What I mean is that as long as your tactic is nominally a 4-1-2-1-2 (or whatever you've prepared), you can place those 10 players anywhere at no penalty. So you can play: DL, DC, DCR, DR, WBL, MCR, MR, AML, SL, SCR (a type of 4-1-2-1-2) and the formation bar is still full! This probably explains why my team has fallen apart in the past when I've switched from 4-4-2 to 4-1-3-2; because I've not prepared 4-1-3-2, and this is in effect a wholesale formation change. But switching 4-1-2-1-2 variations and I don't notice my team playing awfully in matches.

* So what does this mean for the OP? Well it may mean that using the wizard possibly has one simple disadvantage: You're relying on the team sliders, rather than the individual player's sliders, and may be being penalised for this and changes made to the team settings (e.g. shouts). Whereas you can seemingly make wholesale changes using the advanced player settings without any penalty. Either that, or the players are being penalised, and this is not being displayed. But this may explain why seemingly identical tactics are giving such different results. Maybe you're simply suffering from penalties to team settings using the wizard, and avoiding them using the advanced tactics?

This is a quality post and analysis, and the whole reason I made this thread so this gives me hope that we can maybe come with something constructive (rather than just ranting and raving, although I do understand some of it). You certainly have brought some things into perspective because I didn't think about this angle and it does make perfect sense. You realise that you have put a big question mark on the 'legality' of the Match Preparation - regarding the relationship between Team/Player settings and the MP.

Quality analysis and I hope that someone out there is listening... :thup:

crouchaldinho · January 26, 2011

Quite depressing if it really works like that though. :rolleyes:

Loversleaper · January 26, 2011

I would agree that the TC is not perfect and definitely has some holes (and I was very disappointed to see nothing of significance added to it this year) but I still think it was a step in the right direction - towards making you think "like a RL football manager" rather than having to go in and manually adjust mentalities/closing down settings/etc. for every individual player if you wanted to make a simple change. I think that having the ability to fully customize the effects of shouts as well as customize player roles would really be a leap forward and would open up the TC to a whole new audience.

I personally would like to see the TC work, but there is a reality around it that doesn't seem appealing. The big problem is that, with the TC, you will have the aspect of SI making the tactical settings either good or not so good. You see, if SI make the tactical settings too good (or should I say : correct) then we will all win too easily, if they don't then we are kind of stuck exactly where I think we are at this point in time. Remaking things when you don't know how they are built up could cause some major problems...

How can you save only 13 times in three seasons? I've probably saved 30 times and I'm 8 games into season one . . .
One thing I've seen to further suggest that the game favors offensive tactics is that the AI almost refuses to use them against me. No matter if I'm at home and are huge favorites, even once I've started building a lead, I keep getting messages about how the AI is "looking for more options in attack." Almost never do I see a message that they're making moves to shore up defense. Could this be because the game is designed to favor attacking?

And wouldn't this be at odds with the real world development of tactics?

I started the aspect of showing ammount of saves just because I think alot of people do question the 'legality' of the tactical ideologies around the forums. I wanted to show that the different Strategies could be one way of being relatively successful. I would have done it in 12 saves if I didn't save on the first day of the save, I think also that I would have done the save better had I used HeathXXX Lower League Management Approach from the start. I used only what my scouts found and what was on the various Lists so I was somewhat limited. 4 saves per season tranlates to roughly 4-6 hours of game play for each save, I always use the Extended Highlight options and do dabble here and there sometimes to get the most out of my options...

To the next point in your post: I think it is actually a kind of funny angle you brought forth, because we have been talking alittle about the DEFENSIVE side of Strategies in the thread. We could interpret that even the AI isn't confortable with those end of the strategies, so in some sense it could suggest that they do not work very good at all and the AI already knows this... :rolleyes:

heathxxx · January 26, 2011

To the next point in your post: I think it is actually a kind of funny angle you brought forth, because we have been talking alittle about the DEFENSIVE side of Strategies in the thread. We could interpret that even the AI isn't confortable with those end of the strategies, so in some sense it could suggest that they do not work very good at all and the AI already knows this...

Nope

I've enough draws and very narrow wins against teams blatantly parking the bus that's evidence to the contrary. The AI is often more than comfortable playing defensively against my teams. If these forums are anything to go by, it's the same for lots of other people who've been on great runs, then suddenly can't get a win and think the AI has "cracked" their tactics. Obviously the AI isn't intelligent enough to know how to crack someone's tactics, but it is intelligent enough that if they're a crap team, playing your mighty team on a great run with high morale, they'll probably defend deep and look to counter attack.

The question is, are we able to defend as effectively as the AI teams sometimes seem able to do? I would say that we can, given the right combination of settings, that it's up to use to learn and utilise.

Loversleaper · January 26, 2011

Nope
I've enough draws and very narrow wins against teams blatantly parking the bus that's evidence to the contrary. The AI is often more than comfortable playing defensively against my teams. If these forums are anything to go by, it's the same for lots of other people who've been on great runs, then suddenly can't get a win and think the AI has "cracked" their tactics. Obviously the AI isn't intelligent enough to know how to crack someone's tactics, but it is intelligent enough that if they're a crap team, playing your mighty team on a great run with high morale, they'll probably defend deep and look to counter attack.

The question is, are we able to defend as effectively as the AI teams sometimes seem able to do? I would say that we can, given the right combination of settings, that it's up to use to learn and utilise.

I think you missed the point a little, I know that Defensive side does work and the WBA game where I showed some SSs does prove that they do work to some extent (I played defensively alot). But the AI can't possibly use the TC to achieve successful defensive tactics because have you really looked into the Match Stats that the TC creates? It is no where near the actual ones that you see during the course of the game, so there is something going on. I am not shouting 'conspiracy' because it could be a case of the AI doing massive tweaking to achieve those match stats that I witness throughout the game...

crouchaldinho · January 26, 2011

I would agree that the TC is not perfect and definitely has some holes (and I was very disappointed to see nothing of significance added to it this year)

Like you, I was hugely disappointed to see that no more progress was made with the TC. It is another thing that has put me off getting into FM11, to be quite honest.

I couldn't understand why you would add this major feature to the game one year, completely ignore all of the feedback, and then just leave it as it is for the next version. Bizarre. :thdn:

....but I still think it was a step in the right direction - towards making you think "like a RL football manager" rather than having to go in and manually adjust mentalities/closing down settings/etc. for every individual player if you wanted to make a simple change. I think that having the ability to fully customize the effects of shouts as well as customize player roles would really be a leap forward and would open up the TC to a whole new audience.

I totally agree with this. :thup:

I personally would like to see the TC work, but there is a reality around it that doesn't seem appealing. The big problem is that, with the TC, you will have the aspect of SI making the tactical settings either good or not so good. You see, if SI make the tactical settings too good (or should I say : correct) then we will all win too easily....

I'm not sure the game really works like this. Surely the TC can be 'good or not so good' depending upon the choices you make and how they suit your team?

Do you really think that there are 'correct' settings?

Going back to this point about the classic and the TC methods producing different results for you, surely one way we could test this is to get a number of users on this forum to carry out the same test and then post the results. If you want to do this, then I'm up for it. Also, I have a question: did you experience the same issues with FM10 or is it just FM11 that is causing problems for you with the Tactics Creator?

crouchaldinho · January 26, 2011

I think you missed the point a little, I know that Defensive side does work and the WBA game where I showed some SSs does prove that they do work to some extent (I played defensively alot). But the AI can't possibly use the TC to achieve successful defensive tactics because have you really looked into the Match Stats that the TC creates? It is no where near the actual ones that you see during the course of the game, so there is something going on. I am not shouting 'conspiracy' because it could be a case of the AI doing massive tweaking to achieve those match stats that I witness throughout the game...

I thought that the AI just uses TC defaults. Pretty sure that someone from SI has said that the AI does use the TC before anyway.

If you look at the way they set-up and the way their players behave, they do seem to follow in the same kind of tactical options we have. That's my observation from it anyway.

Can you pinpoint any differences between your Classic tactics and picking the same kind of set-up with the TC? Thinking about things like ticking 'counter-attack', which I don't believe the defensive strategy of the TC uses in the default settings. Just thinking some small thing like that could potentially make a big difference.

heathxxx · January 26, 2011

Can you pinpoint any differences between your Classic tactics and picking the same kind of set-up with the TC? Thinking about things like ticking 'counter-attack', which I don't believe the defensive strategy of the TC uses in the default settings. Just thinking some small thing like that could potentially make a big difference.

That's actually quite a good point you've raised there.

Prior to FM10 and the TC, whenever I used defensive strategies, I always had counter-attacking options available. Although I don't go and tick it in the TC, I do use shouts that instruct the sort of things a counter attack would look to do, if using "contain" and "defend" strategies.

To me, simply defending without looking for any attacking outlets, always feels like an invitation to disaster. It could be that this is possibly the chink in the TC's armour, being that by using "contain" and "defend" alone, without ticking counter-attacking in the advanced options (which relying on the TC, I want to avoid personally), or using suitable shouts to get play back upfield, it's inviting constant pressure on your team. The only other alternative perhaps, is using the "counter" strategy, but with more defensive minded shouts.

Either way, I don't think you can rely purely on the strategy alone, but must use different shouts to really make a difference.

Loversleaper · January 26, 2011

I'm not sure the game really works like this. Surely the TC can be 'good or not so good' depending upon the choices you make and how they suit your team?
Do you really think that there are 'correct' settings?

Going back to this point about the classic and the TC methods producing different results for you, surely one way we could test this is to get a number of users on this forum to carry out the same test and then post the results. If you want to do this, then I'm up for it. Also, I have a question: did you experience the same issues with FM10 or is it just FM11 that is causing problems for you with the Tactics Creator?

Ok, let me try to explain how I see the game in the tactical/settings/strategies reality that is apparent in FM today. There are 7 different strategies and they all must have a purpose (or why include them, right?), so this could mean that there is a time where we have to know what strategy works best for your team. Team's are ranked differently and have various levels of quality so I think that somehow all of the different strategies offer options that covers all the areas. To make the whole thing meaningful, there must be an element of being correct tactically (general strategy).

The ME must be calculating failure and success, and this is apparent of course when you look at matches. Now, due to this aspect, it could be influenced by strategies so if a Gamer is (more or less) correct with settings/instructions (strategies) then the calculations will be more in your favor than being uncorrect. Just because you are uncorrect with the strategy it won't mean you will necessarily loose for sure, but will have a more 'random' effect on the degree of success compared to being correct.

That is why if the SI decide to make the TC too good with it's settings then we will win too easily. I don't think that the SI would want to do this so in this case they don't have many options, even the 'middle path' could cause a few people problems as they don't see the 'strategy aspect' or know exactly what to change to make them better. It can't be down to the 'player roles' that make the difference, so by choosing the right roles won't make a real impact on match stats. The tactical settings like how much your team is 'allowed' to close down opponents so they don't evade the pressure and punish your team is one of the more important things to get right (and if you notice the different levels of closing down in the different strategies it could make sense). Closing down works in conjuction with defensive line.

Another thing that influences the match stats is passing in conjunction with your team's level compared to opponent's level - compared to weather - and maybe even pitch sizes. Width play's a role and works in conjuction with passing, pitch size and opponents strength vrs yours. These settings are the ones that have most influence in match stats, maybe it's my oppinion, but when I did move the different settings using this ideology it did have some influence and they were visable. Some settings in conjuction with other settings really did make a difference in match stats and is not as 'random' as many think. Patterns did emerge in the match stats, but to see them more clear I would have to categorise my level vrs. opponent's level.

Home and away there is a difference, at home there must be an increase in your team's value compared to opponents and I think SI did this to match the RL aspect (where home teams are genreally stronger). I think that it is a 'feasible' analysis of the how these things work, but when you look around the forums then it is pretty apparent that we can get away with playing more control/attacking football. I can't imagine that SI designed a game where we all can just play these two strategies and be successful, why things are so atm is actually a cause for concern because we are not playing a game that the Game-makers actually had in mind. Not only is it unrealistic compared to the real world (and what SI are working toward), it makes the game way too easy (especially at a certain point)...

Loversleaper · January 27, 2011

I thought that the AI just uses TC defaults. Pretty sure that someone from SI has said that the AI does use the TC before anyway.
If you look at the way they set-up and the way their players behave, they do seem to follow in the same kind of tactical options we have. That's my observation from it anyway.

In the attacking areas of the Mentality settings the TC does pretty well, but further down the strategy ladder seems to fall somewhat short in regards to general match stats when looking around at different matches played out in the game. Heath talked about that he experienced that the AI did play defensively against him and they do this quite effectively, I have (of course) noticed this as well - and noticed the match stats when they do.

The scenario for AI to play defensively is when you are in good form (and have a good team), so lets take a Liverpool home against WBA. If you are Liverpool then it is normal when you meet WBA that they will play defensive/tight, and if you take this ideology then it is conceivable that many of the games around the FM globe will have this scenario. Now, find games that resemble this scenario and take a look at match stats when you think that the AI could be playing defensive tactics. The try the scenario as being the underdog (like WBA) and use the default TC to play the game, compare those match stats with your other games (like the opposite scenario, for example) or other similar games.

I think you will come to the conclusion that they don't use the default TC, if someone from SI did come out and say this then I think he meant it in a superficial way. Because all settings that anyone could possibly think of can be tweaked both in the classic or TC as they are two sides of the same exact thing...

Can you pinpoint any differences between your Classic tactics and picking the same kind of set-up with the TC? Thinking about things like ticking 'counter-attack', which I don't believe the defensive strategy of the TC uses in the default settings. Just thinking some small thing like that could potentially make a big difference.

Pinpointing the differences between the two is apparent in match stats, and the patterns they create over a longer period. I (still) have no idea why the exact same settings in the classic version translated exactly into the wizard reacts so differently. Ticking the counter-attack only creates more of a 'random' effect due to the 'x ammount of players between the ball and the goal line' so this makes it harder to see a more consistant response in the match stats.

To your question regarding FM10 and FM11 differences, I wouldn't exactly narrow it down to those two versions. The strategy aspect has actually been around almost since FM06, it was very static (back then) as there was not many things influencing the 'accuracy' of tactics, this trend has been consistant up untill now. It just seems that it isn't quite working like that atm, maybe the SI will fix these things for the new patch, who knows? They might be changing the whole aspect that we have experienced until now, but to narrow it down to a couple of strategies doesn't make total sense...

Loversleaper · January 28, 2011

I really wanted to add to the above regarding the 'correctness' issue in strategies. As I mentioned then I do not think that the Strategies are purely cosmetic and actually have a purpose, and knowing when to use which strategy can help people 'get around' the myth that AI 'cracks your tactics'. Now, if we look around the forums we will see (and have seen for a number of years now) that some Gamers come and show Screen Shots of match stats where they outplay their opponent but fail to win the match. I am pretty sure that this is caused due to being (more or less) uncorrect with the (overall) Strategy, so here the Mentality Framework is the foremost important thing to get right.

For example, let's say that you are favorite to win the match at home against an inferior opponent, then playing a CONTROL Strategy will mostly fall short as it does not 'overpower' the AI's defensive capability thus causing these type of scenarios. Even if you increase the other sliders (than Mentality) then you could cause a lot of shots (due to for example high tempo) but the ME calculations are still not really in your team's favor. Sometimes even moving up to ATTACKING Strategy is not enough to 'overpower' the AI and you might have to even go to OVERLOAD Strategy at one point in the second half to see if you can't break the AI's defensive stance...

Coentrao · February 6, 2011

Far from being a tactical expert but pretty much everytime i used defensive to "park the bus" i just get completly battered.. i started using the counter strategy with the shouts "drop deeper" and "play narrower" and then a shout to get the ball away like "clear ball to flanks" if you are using fast wingers or "pump ball into box" with a big man upfront.

Äktsjon Männ · February 7, 2011

I personally would like to see the TC work, but there is a reality around it that doesn't seem appealing. The big problem is that, with the TC, you will have the aspect of SI making the tactical settings either good or not so good. You see, if SI make the tactical settings too good (or should I say : correct) then we will all win too easily, if they don't then we are kind of stuck exactly where I think we are at this point in time. Remaking things when you don't know how they are built up could cause some major problems...

Thing is, this sort of discussion would not even exist if we didn't know how the underlying mechanics of TC (i.e sliders) work. Either way you'll be relying on SI getting the settings right because ME and tactical interface development is supposed to go hand in hand. The main reason they're trying to move away from the fine tuning aspect in tactical interface is because the sliders simply don't translate into football language. Quite frankly, one shouldn't have as much control over tactics as the slider interface allows. You can't fine tune your strikers mentality on a 1 to 20 scale as a real life manager, just as an example. Now I fully agree that the TC needs improvement. It needs more roles, more specific instructions, more fluid way of implementing different strategies etc. But the whole slider interface needs to be gradually phased out along with said improvements and people, in my opinion, need to realise that it always was a very poor implementation of tactical management in the first place.

crouchaldinho · February 7, 2011

Pretty much spot on Ã„ktsjon MÃ¤nn, at least as far as I am concerned. :thup:

Loversleaper · February 8, 2011

Thing is' date=' this sort of discussion would not even exist if we didn't know how the underlying mechanics of TC (i.e sliders) work. Either way you'll be relying on SI getting the settings right because ME and tactical interface development is supposed to go hand in hand. The main reason they're trying to move away from the fine tuning aspect in tactical interface is because the sliders simply don't translate into football language. Quite frankly, one shouldn't have as much control over tactics as the slider interface allows. You can't fine tune your strikers mentality on a 1 to 20 scale as a real life manager, just as an example. Now I fully agree that the TC needs improvement. It needs more roles, more specific instructions, more fluid way of implementing different strategies etc. But the whole slider interface needs to be gradually phased out along with said improvements and people, in my opinion, need to realise that it always was a very poor implementation of tactical management in the first place.[/quote']
I can see your point, but there are a few things you are going to have to take into consideration. If we do not have total control over tactics then who will? I, personally wouldn't want this to be in the hands of the programmers as it could turn into a scenario of: do we win or lose all the time. We are going to have to control that aspect and it doesn't really matter if it is a slider system or not, we still have to have the aspect of giving instructions into the ME. The ME will then calculate the % of success/failure from the outcome of our instructions. The scale of 1 to 20 is simply a % system as every notch will represent approximately 5%, so in terms of mentality it just determines how much procentage you emphasize on attacking/defending. How much you actually emphasize on attacking/defending compared to your next opponent is basically the key to the ME, the other sliders do have an influence but it is not a magical slider combination that makes tactics work.

In some way I do think it is feasible that coaches have a form of Mentality/Strategy aspect during matches played out from game to game as I do see differences in teams in terms of their tactical outlook - also compared to which opponent they will be facing. Mostly teams will play differently if they are facing a really poor team or going to meet Barcelona in ther next match, so this is how SI cooked up the whole slider aspect. I am not saying what is right or wrong but simply stating how things appear at this moment in time.

If the SI do phase out the slider system then what exactly will it be that we will be relying on when the game is played out on the ME? We can paint the slider system anytype of colour but no matter what we will need to be able to pass instructions on into the ME, if we don't then it won't be a game anymore...

Sign In

Looking at some of FM's new features...

Recommended Posts

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post