New tactics creator ideas and suggestions

[SCIAG]

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

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

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

[Exius]

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

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

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

Absolutely agree. It must be a reason to improve AI but not to restrict our tactical abilities.

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

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

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

Yes, it is a very important issue - complexity of instructions. And I think the main reason are unrealistic instructions and poor official manual. As I said in previous post sliders have nothing similar with RL tactical instructions. And they are not even explained properly in manual. I've been playing since 2005 and I still can't tell exactly what passing style slider actually defines - whether it is a probability of certain passes or passing range or something else. So, these instructions should be closer to real life and should be explained better how they work in ME. This is ridiculous giving us so many options but not telling what they exactly do in game terms.

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

[wwfan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SCIAG]

Consequently, I don't think the micro-level instructions suggested by the OP are viable. The wibble-wobble style individual placement is a) unrealistic and b) will lead to exploit tactics. The very precise passing and movement instructions will result in the robotic player movement that arrows produced.

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

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

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

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

[wwfan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[x42bn6]

As for exploits, there are none in real life football, so there should be none in FM.

You arguably can't stop exploits, since there are too many possibilities.

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

[wwfan]

You arguably can't stop exploits, since there are too many possibilities.

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

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

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

[x42bn6]

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

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

I just think there's too much paranoia over exploit tactics and not enough worrying about the match engine and AI.

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

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

[wwfan]

I just think there's too much paranoia over exploit tactics and not enough worrying about the match engine and AI.

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

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

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

[Exius]

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

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

[BiggusD]

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

Maybe the English way of thinking football is finally outdated?

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

[wwfan]

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

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

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

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

Maybe the English way of thinking football is finally outdated?

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

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

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

[Exius]

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

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

Exact movement or movement tendencies - anyway it requires more micro-management. Besides we can tell the players where to move and to pass in current TC, but it's too limited. Mentality slider defines player passing direction - backwards, sideways or forward, and wide play - where the player will move. And I don't see any reasons why I can't tell my defenders to pass the ball only to DM, or to tell that my AMC should be supplied only to feet while SC - to head and AMR - run onto ball. These instructions should be obvious and clear like they are IRL, but not hidden in sliders or associated instructions.

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

[milnerpoint]

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

[Mitja]

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

[speedas]

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

Well said, I always think sliders tactic are absurd. When SI will revolutionize his tactic system, less micro control surely mean revolution of training system for me.

[Exius]

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

[Mitja]

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

Player Instructions

Attacking Mentality

|-----------------------------|---------------------------|

Defensive Mentality

|-----------------------------|---------------------------|

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

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

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

spot on. I agree mentality is responsible for too many tactical problems and impossibility to replicate some real life actions. it covers far too much stuff for one slider. I doubt any future changes could be succesfull without changing this instruction. and there's also one important thing you forgot to mention - it effects passing direction.

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

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

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

so there's only one important thing that's left and that's passing direction. either leave this to deal solely with passing, tempo and time wasting instructions or change (attacking) mentality slider to:

posession------------------------------------counter-attack

/-----------------------/-----------------------/

[Mitja]

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

you've written a good thread and some good ideas but as other's have already pointed some of your ideas of micro control would bring to even more robotic player behaviour. such static (like wibble wobble) and too detailed instructions are not particulary wanted becouse there needs to be feeling of players using their heads and some inpredictability which is typical for football. not to mention it's not how things work in real life.

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

[Exius]

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

It would be great, but I doubt that we'll see it even in FM 2022. Besides, I see no reasons why Xavi wouldn't play like Xavi without microinstructions. Ideally you can set his creative freedom to high and he should play like he does IRL. But AI will never be as smart as human.

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

[paganizer]

Very good post!

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

I have high hopes for the next version of FM.

[Äktsjon Männ]

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

[jimbobBRFC]

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

[Mitja]

It would be great, but I doubt that we'll see it even in FM 2022. Besides, I see no reasons why Xavi wouldn't play like Xavi without microinstructions. Ideally you can set his creative freedom to high and he should play like he does IRL. But AI will never be as smart as human.

I think current ME allows some decent real life football simulation. but in classic mode, it doesn't count for AI. I'm sure with improved ME and changed TC this could be brought to the next level in next couple of years. the game really needs some fresh air in its most important part.

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

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

another reason why I think the game would benefit with slight simplification of tactical system and I'm against micro control concerns the AI. imo tactical system needs to be simple for the AI to be succesfull. look at two new features TC and shouting instructions, AI can't use it effectivly enough. it's a kind of new exploit or at least it gives too much of advantage for humans. there's no point of having features which AI can't use well enough.

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

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

[Mitja]

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

yeah it would but how could AI use it? this would lead to exploits. and I'm sure real managers don't say anything like that...

[x42bn6]

yeah it would but how could AI use it? this would lead to exploits. and I'm sure real managers don't say anything like that...

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

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

[milnerpoint]

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

[Exius]

another reason why I think the game would benefit with slight simplification of tactical system and I'm against micro control concerns the AI. imo tactical system needs to be simple for the AI to be succesfull. look at two new features TC and shouting instructions, AI can't use it effectivly enough. it's a kind of new exploit or at least it gives too much of advantage for humans. there's no point of having features which AI can't use well enough.

IMO good AI - that's what is needed for the AI to be successful.) I can't imagine more simplified TC. Do you think, it's really interesting just to choose formation and player roles?

[Exius]

yeah it would but how could AI use it? this would lead to exploits. and I'm sure real managers don't say anything like that...

Any reason why RL managers can't say such things?

[x42bn6]

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

Of course, the AI should improve to keep up with these additional, realistic controls.

[Exius]

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

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

Such exploits could be really a big problem, so it's pretty obvious that such system can work successfully only if AI is slightly improved.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Any reason why RL managers can't say such things?

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

[milnerpoint]

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

Exactly, what would happen if say for example, you set your right hand midfielder to cover your right winger when he roams forward, but the player your worried about has moved 15 yards infield, does the player then ignore the player or does he ignore your instructions? Being able to be that specific would lead to these kinds of situations all over the field where the realistic option would interfere with the human instructions.

[x42bn6]

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

This is handled by "common sense"...

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

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

[Äktsjon Männ]

This is handled by "common sense"...

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

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

This is not quite the same thing as having six different formations depending on the position of the ball. I agree that this part of the game needs improvement. As I said, more flexibility is needed especially for central positions and instructions that achieve proper covering and postition swapping would be welcome. But not through complete control over player positioning. There are just too many factors a player has to consider when deciding where to stand on the pitch, there's just no way a manager could have that amount of control over it.

[Mitja]

IMO good AI - that's what is needed for the AI to be successful.) I can't imagine more simplified TC. Do you think, it's really interesting just to choose formation and player roles?

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

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

[Mitja]

Any reason why RL managers can't say such things?

what you're trying to do with wibble/wobble already exists in the game. each role and duty has wide play set - leteral movement. mentality and forward runs affect up and down movement and defensive positioning. problem is in mentality becouse it influences so many different parts of play. I already said the best thing would be that movement and positioning were put out of mentality equasion and replaced with clear attacking movement and defensive positioning instructions.

[Exius]

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

It doesn't make sense telling your AMR to take DL position when the ball is near the opposition penalty area or something else stupid. But it makes sense instructing your MR to take DR position while defending, or DM dropping to SW position while attacking near the opposition penalty area.

[Exius]

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

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

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

[Exius]

what you're trying to do with wibble/wobble already exists in the game. each role and duty has wide play set - leteral movement. mentality and forward runs affect up and down movement and defensive positioning. problem is in mentality becouse it influences so many different parts of play. I already said the best thing would be that movement and positioning were put out of mentality equasion and replaced with clear attacking movement and defensive positioning instructions.

It's all unclear and unrealistic with all these sliders. TC must be more friendly to user and more realistic. I already agreed with you about mentality but I'm against sliders at all. They should be replaced with something more realistic.

[Cougar2010]

It's all unclear and unrealistic with all these sliders. TC must be more friendly to user and more realistic. I already agreed with you about mentality but I'm against sliders at all. They should be replaced with something more realistic.

Its easily possible to use the TC without sliders.

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

[milnerpoint]

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

[Exius]

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

[speedas]

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

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

This afternoon, I read some books about how train your players for coaches who prepare their graduate degrees (a book about physical training, one about academy training and another about professional training during one year). Most sessions was to teach tactical situations at a key moment according to the strategy of the coach (move of the striker to ventilate the aera in order to the winger go in, move for 3 vs 2, 2 vs 3, 2 vs 1, specific tactic for encounter a long pass situation or a counter attack, etc...).

Each session need a specific time to be learnt. And it's true, real coaches need some months to learn different tactical concept to the players (real madrid is tactically better than last year, sacchi needed four months to learn his pressing to Van Basten & co with the risks involved, etc.)

It was very fascinating and of course more realistic than understanding a FM tactic and its absurd sliders in a SI thread.

[SCIAG]

I know we have this disagreement every six months or so. Arrows, as they were coded, were robotic. Players moved along the set arrow path no matter where the ball was on the pitch. It was proved very conclusively.

That simply isn't true, I don't know if you ever viewed the .pkms I uploaded showing a sweeper with an arrow to striker who only left his half once (on a counter attack, with the ball already in the final third)? There was widespread incredulity when it was first claimed that arrows were robotic because it simply didn't tally with people's experiences. But yes, I see that you hold this opinion and will probably continue to cling to it indefinitely. FWIW, last I remember you said that only forwards and backwards arrows were followed robotically.

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

[wwfan]

That simply isn't true, I don't know if you ever viewed the .pkms I uploaded showing a sweeper with an arrow to striker who only left his half once (on a counter attack, with the ball already in the final third)? There was widespread incredulity when it was first claimed that arrows were robotic because it simply didn't tally with people's experiences. But yes, I see that you hold this opinion and will probably continue to cling to it indefinitely. FWIW, last I remember you said that only forwards and backwards arrows were followed robotically.

It's not an opinion. It's how they were coded to work. Players would follow the designated arrow movements in and out of possession, with, as you point out, side arrows being slightly different. Once the player began his arrowed movement, he'd follow it no matter what was happening on the pitch, until possession was lost. There might be some other elements that affected when this decision was made (mentality, position: would need to ask Paul to check), but once it was made, he'd follow that line. However, your sweeper failing to get forward might relate to him stuttering his run because possession wasn't properly secured.

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

I agree that some form of drop back or move inside/outside instructions are missing.

[Exius]

It's how they were coded to work.

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

[milnerpoint]

I think, some users are against these ideas because they were already implemented in FM once but not in the best way.

I think you could be right with that, i have re-read your ideas about 6/7 times now (a lot to take in!! hahaha) and i do like a lot of it, but i do really worry about the game going back to a way that allowed exploits more easily, even if unintended.

[speedas]

I think you could be right with that, i have re-read your ideas about 6/7 times now (a lot to take in!! hahaha) and i do like a lot of it, but i do really worry about the game going back to a way that allowed exploits more easily, even if unintended.

Having more control doesn't mean a more easy game (if AI have the same tools), more control means a more complex (so more fascinating) gameplay requiring for exemple more spying of your next opponent, a true tactic analysis. I dream of the same ®evolution for FM that NBA 2K11 experienced, this game really forced you to understand the dimension of basketball. For too many years, FM no longer changes, it's time to make a true and exciting evolution.

[wwfan]

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

It's a matter of not making tendencies absolutes. The problem with some of your ideas is you are precisely telling players to do certain things in certain areas of the pitch. I don't see how these can be tendencies, which will mean they will be robotic. However, the players should be expected to do certain things on a regular basis. It's a fine balance between not enough control and too much.