New tactics creator ideas and suggestions

[Exius]

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.

Yes, an evolution is needed and once they are working on a new ME, maybe the time has come? I like very much Mitja's idea that tactics should be integrated with training process. I think that's the way it works IRL. So, maybe it would be better to implement all these microinstructions into training games thus learning the players to play this way. The best what SI can do - to consult with managers and not only english, but italian, spanish, german, dutch. so tactics creating process will be as close to RL as possible.

[Exius]

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.

If it'll be done 100% in every situation - it will be robotic. 50, 40, 30% - it will be a tendency.

[wwfan]

If it'll be done 100% in every situation - it will be robotic. 50, 40, 30% - it will be a tendency.

But then we are getting back into slider territory and the unrealism of instructing players to play football via percentages.

[Exius]

But then we are getting back into slider territory and the unrealism of instructing players to play football via percentages.

No, I'm not talking about sliders. I mean - how is it coded. You can code that the player will stick to his instructions in every single situation, 100%. Or, you can code that he'll stick to instructions in 50% situations, and improvise in another 50% situations. It can also be adjusted a bit by manager with Creative freedom slider, but only a bit.

[wwfan]

No, I'm not talking about sliders. I mean - how is it coded. You can code that the player will stick to his instructions in every single situation, 100%. Or, you can code that he'll stick to instructions in 50% situations, and improvise in another 50% situations. It can also be adjusted a bit by manager with Creative freedom slider, but only a bit.

But then you have the issue of the irrelevancy of giving precise instructions in the first place. If players are only coded to follow them x amount of time, they become relatively pointless. Personally, I'd prefer more generic instructions inherent to roles and duties followed relatively precisely than precise instructions such as exact pass types and lengths followed relatively randomly. I think the former is realistic to the dynamism of sport.

However, that doesn't mean I don't think there are elements missing in how we can think about tactics that relate to your ideas. However, how you want them implemented is a) overly complex and b) going to result in robotic behaviour or irrelevancy of instruction.

[Exius]

But then you have the issue of the irrelevancy of giving precise instructions in the first place. If players are only coded to follow them x amount of time, they become relatively pointless. Personally, I'd prefer more generic instructions inherent to roles and duties followed relatively precisely than precise instructions such as exact pass types and lengths followed relatively randomly. I think the former is realistic to the dynamism of sport.

However, that doesn't mean I don't think there are elements missing in how we can think about tactics that relate to your ideas. However, how you want them implemented is a) overly complex and b) going to result in robotic behaviour or irrelevancy of instruction.

I'll try to explain what I mean with an example. A player has an instruction Short pass sideways set to often. He'll try to play the ball sideways and make short passes in 50% of situations. Medium passes sideways - 40 %, different passes elsewhere - 10 %. So, there is no robotic behavior and we have a clear tendency. As you see in such case the instruction is not pointless. It all depends, how variable it can be. x% - precise insrtuction, y% - close to it, z% - something different. The problem is to define these x, y and z properly to make the game realistic.

Or maybe it can work other way - when the player sees a lot of available options he'll try to make short pass sideways mainly. If there are no such options or there is a better option, he'll try to make medium pass sideways, or short pass forward or backwards. And if there are no such options, he'll try to do something else.

[wwfan]

I understood what you meant from the start. However, your example just highlights my worry. How can 'short passing sideways often' = 50%? The percentages don't match the expectations. Once they do, play is robotic.

Something has to be more generic. I'm suggesting it should be the language of the instruction 'retain possession, don't try through balls'. You want to have precise instructions 'play short sideways passes most of the time' with imprecise interpretations 'most of the time = 50% of the time'. I think that is problematic on two levels. Firstly, as discussed ad infinitum, the risk of robotic play if instructions are interpreted too precisely. Secondly, the total ambiguity / irrelevancy of user instructions if they aren't.

Please note, I'm not trying to be obstructive here, just trying to help you understand the problem in balancing instruction terminology, instruction exactness, match dynamism and virtual player interpretation of the instructions. If you goo too far one side, play is robotic with masses of potential for exploits. Too far the other, and the user feels he has no control.

[Exius]

And how it works now? If I set player's passing style to short and mentality to normal - it means the same "short passes sideways". But the player doesn't make them every time, I don't know exact percentage but it varies from 50 to 70-80%. And it's not robotic and not irrelevant. So, why can't "short passing sideways" be coded the same way?

[wwfan]

And how it works now? If I set player's passing style to short and mentality to normal - it means the same "short passes sideways". But the player doesn't make them every time, I don't know exact percentage but it varies from 50 to 70-80%. And it's not robotic and not irrelevant. So, why can't "short passing sideways" be coded the same way?

Because the former translates into the following:

We are trying to balance risk and reward in our match strategy. Within that context, your job is to focus on maintaining possession, so look for easy passing opportunities and don't try too many risky through balls.

It then relies on the virtual player's PPMs and attributes to interpret those instructions within the context of the match. It is likely to result in him playing a lot of short sideways passes, but it locates him within an overall match strategy and allows his decisions to work within that frame. It also forces the manager to understand the player's abilities and whether he is best suited to the role.

Telling him to play 'short passes sideways' and expecting him to follow those instructions on a precise percentage basis is far too specific and is not how sport works. It also overrides the players attributes and PPMs and dehumanises him. That's the problem with very precise instructions followed closely. If you aren't expecting precise percentages, then there is no point to the instruction.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Telling your player to play 'short passes sideways' is an utterly ridiculous instruction anyway. Why restrict your player's passing angles? Where's the sense in that? A tactical option that makes sense in real life context is to tell a player to give the ball to a more creative teammate and hold a position. If you want to control your players passing angles you also need exact movement control to ensure they have options. That's not how football works on any level.

[Exius]

Because the former translates into the following:

We are trying to balance risk and reward in our match strategy. Within that context, your job is to focus on maintaining possession, so look for easy passing opportunities and don't try too many risky through balls.

Could you explain it in ME terms? For example, Mentality set to 10 and passing style set to 1. How does the AI interpret these instructions in current TC, how is it coded? Sorry, but I still don't understand why it's not possible to make passing style and direction instructions more clear and obvious while they are already in current TC but hidden a bit.

Telling your player to play 'short passes sideways' is an utterly ridiculous instruction anyway. Why restrict your player's passing angles? Where's the sense in that? A tactical option that makes sense in real life context is to tell a player to give the ball to a more creative teammate and hold a position. If you want to control your players passing angles you also need exact movement control to ensure they have options. That's not how football works on any level.

It's just an example. And it's not as ridiculous as you say. If there is no better option forward - it's better to play the ball sideways to maintain possession, letting forward players to take a better position. Barca, for example, play this way in the middle of the pitch.

[milnerpoint]

It's just an example. And it's not as ridiculous as you say. If there is no better option forward - it's better to play the ball sideways to maintain possession, letting forward players to take a better position. Barca, for example, play this way in the middle of the pitch.

There is a difference tho, keeping possession is one thing, but instructing players to always play sideways passes is another, Barca players play plenty of forward balls constantly, but they are not afraid to play it back, sideways, any way, they certainly do not concentrate on sideways passing, they focus on the best pass to both keep possession and to forward their attack. Players in FM will do that if you have the right set up tactically.

[Äktsjon Männ]

It's just an example. And it's not as ridiculous as you say. If there is no better option forward - it's better to play the ball sideways to maintain possession, letting forward players to take a better position. Barca, for example, play this way in the middle of the pitch.

Passing the ball sideways maintains possession exactly the same as passing forward or backward - providing the receiver of the pass is in space. What you want to do is play short passes and the rest of your team to provide options. There is absolutely no need to have control over passing angles.

[wwfan]

Could you explain it in ME terms? For example, Mentality set to 10 and passing style set to 1. How does the AI interpret these instructions in current TC, how is it coded? Sorry, but I still don't understand why it's not possible to make passing style and direction instructions more clear and obvious while they are already in current TC but hidden a bit.

Passing one is just an extreme possession instruction. You are basically telling the team to play keep ball, but within the strategic context of working it forward when they perceive that potential reward outweighs risk (mentality 10).

[paganizer]

I'd be extremely happy just getting more control over "on-the-ball"/attacking and "without-the-ball"/defensive positioning. That alone would enable us to simulate all the tactics being used in RL. No need to sidetrack this fine thread with a discussion about sideways passing instructions. The way players pass in the current ME is decent. Controlled by player ability, ppm, directness of passing and alowed creativity.

[Mitja]

I'll try to explain what I mean with an example. A player has an instruction Short pass sideways set to often. He'll try to play the ball sideways and make short passes in 50% of situations. Medium passes sideways - 40 %, different passes elsewhere - 10 %. So, there is no robotic behavior and we have a clear tendency. As you see in such case the instruction is not pointless. It all depends, how variable it can be. x% - precise insrtuction, y% - close to it, z% - something different. The problem is to define these x, y and z properly to make the game realistic.

Or maybe it can work other way - when the player sees a lot of available options he'll try to make short pass sideways mainly. If there are no such options or there is a better option, he'll try to make medium pass sideways, or short pass forward or backwards. And if there are no such options, he'll try to do something else.

you don't seem to mention player mental and technical ability - attributes and squad gelling through training. these two things should be the most important factor wheather players and teams can adhere to tcactical ibstructions. imo what you want to say is exactly what's happening right now. the example you mentioned, short passing is the right illustration what's happening in ME. it seems like every team, no metter the level is able to play posessional, short passing football. and this kind of football is the hardest to masterthere seems to be no real difference between teams full of Xavis or Scot Parkers. defensive issues in ME just enhance this problem.

what I'm trying to say is there should be much more emphasis on player (intelligent AI) and squad ability and gelling to succeed with particular football style. ideally all this should be linked to club and country traditions. e.g. english teams and players having problems to adopt to slow, patient football with little closing down..

[Mitja]

I'd be extremely happy just getting more control over "on-the-ball"/attacking and "without-the-ball"/defensive positioning. That alone would enable us to simulate all the tactics being used in RL. No need to sidetrack this fine thread with a discussion about sideways passing instructions.

I also think this should be the discussion here. seperating defensive and attacking mentality is the least what could be done. I understand mentality as the sum of all other instructions. get rid of what mentality does currently if possible, as it interferes with almost all other instructions also tick-boxes or something like that would be much more user friendly than having to guess on which notch striker's droping deep

[Exius]

you don't seem to mention player mental and technical ability - attributes and squad gelling through training. these two things should be the most important factor wheather players and teams can adhere to tcactical ibstructions. imo what you want to say is exactly what's happening right now. the example you mentioned, short passing is the right illustration what's happening in ME. it seems like every team, no metter the level is able to play posessional, short passing football. and this kind of football is the hardest to masterthere seems to be no real difference between teams full of Xavis or Scot Parkers. defensive issues in ME just enhance this problem.

what I'm trying to say is there should be much more emphasis on player (intelligent AI) and squad ability and gelling to succeed with particular football style. ideally all this should be linked to club and country traditions. e.g. english teams and players having problems to adopt to slow, patient football with little closing down..

Fair enough. I like the idea about integrating tactics and training more and more, because it's really how it work IRL. I think that TC should continue to evolve and sliders mechanics are outtimed. IRL managers explain to players their tactical ideas and try to correct players' understanding of them through training. I think it's impossible to implement in videogame, but what is possible - to implement some kind of preferred moves but only for a whole team. Just imagine 30-40 team PPMs describing different playing styles - british, spanish, italian... You'll be able to learn some PPMs and use them in your tactic but it should take a lot of time. Maybe there must be different levels of mastering these PPMs. Some players will suit well for your playing style, some won't... And every team will have its individual playing style. I'll try to explain what I mean in details later, maybe even with some images and examples.

[Mitja]

agreed. problem with sliders as they're now is that each value should have a meaning, it should be exact instruction, understanable both to human and AI. the other problem is some of them are too complex. again mentality slider jumps first to my mind. I doubt ''even Paul understands the mechanism'', same could be said about creative freedom, time wasting (why 20 notches??) etc..

the tick-boxes or PPMs you're mentioning should be organised into system, like passing, movement, defending patterns and so on and this should be linked to training and general team style. inside of that style you have different strategies, at least that's how it works irl I believe. personally I don't like the idea of tactics being trained only through PPMs...

[Exius]

Not only through PPMs. Sure, all instructions should be kept and even multiplied. But since precise passing and movement is not good idea, playing pattern in midfield, in defense and in attack can be defined with team PPMs. http://www.youthsoccerskills.com/stylesandculture/stylesplayculture.html - here is the most complete list and description of all playing styles I've found. Every playing style can have several PPMs for attack, midfield and defense. Team and individual instructions can match PPMs or not, as now individual instruction sometimes match players PPMs or don't match. Every manager will have his favorite PPMs and every team. So, AI teams could choose managers matching their playing style. I think, if we want the teams in FM to have individual playing style, it can be done exactly with teams PPMs.

[Exius]

Well, I believe neither SI nor users are ready to such radical changes as I wrote in opening posts. But I think it's possible to make TC more realistic without such dramatical changes. Maybe returning to wibble wobble isn't really as good and realistic idea as I thought. I don't know how it works in ME but I feel that even allowing to choose separate attacking and defensive formations requires so significant ME recoding that we'll never see this in FM again. In this case tricks like DM dropping to SW position or DC advancing to ST should be made via team PPMs, as they can't be done with any instruction in current TC. I'm sure that TC should evolve the same way it did in 2009 - more realistic instructions and less unclear and unobvious sliders. I won't use any images this time because all my suggestions are pretty simple.

Team instructions.

I have only two additions here:

1. Among Philosophy and Strategy instructions I'd like to see something like Playing model - a combo box with such variants as British, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, Brazilian, Argentinian. And this choice should define not only different sliders values as it works with Philosophy and Strategy, but also different AI models. I don't know what variables in ME are responsible for that but there should be some specific AI tendencies different for every playing model which can't be set only with sliders and instructions. And of course it should affect player roles instructions. For example, wide midfielders in british football and in spanish are different players. British one prefers more run with the ball, direct passing, more crossing, less through balls, while spanish - less run with the ball, short passes, less crosses, more through balls. In current TC if you wish to recreate some specific playing styles, you need manually tweak some individual instructions thus making some shouts useless because they are overridden with individual instructions. With Playing model will have to make less manual tweaks, it'll be easier just to choose playing style you want your team to play and some player roles will be specific for that playing style.

2. Team PPMs. I suggest to separate attacking and defensive moves. There are already some team PPMs in current TC - counter-attacks, use a playmaker, use a TM , move through the centre, move down the flanks (attacking), Ofside trap, Tight marking (defensive). Since we can't use different attacking/defensive formations it'll be useful to make such attacking PPMs as DM dropping deep and Overlapping defender enabling us to choose, which DM will drop to SW, and which DC will advance to attack. Maybe there are some more such tricks but as far as I know only two these can't be fully replicated in current TC. And also there should be some PPMs more specificly describing some playing combinations which cannot be set via instructions. For example, fake runs, triangle passing, square passing, one-twos, one-touch passes, one-touch shots and others. Even if they repeat some instructions, overall effect should be strengthened. It will be good to link some playing models with specific PPMs. For example, spanish playing style includes such PPMs as using playmaker, move through the centre, one-twos, one-touch passes, fake runs. Adapting PPMs should take some time and it'll be good to make different adaptation levels. It would be brilliant to see oppositions team PPMs in scout reports about next opponent. I think playing model and favorite PPMs should also be displayed in a manager's profile. And every team should have traditional formations, playing styles and PPMs which will affect on future manager choosing.

Individual instructions

I'd like to see as few unclear sliders here as possible. Without making players robotic but making instructions more flexible I think following is possible:

1. Player positioning. We can adjust player position with mentality and width sliders but it's too complicated. I think it's better just dragging him on the pitch image and dropping where you want him to play.

2. I'd substitute mentality slider with riskiness slider or something like this, which will define only how risky the player plays.

3. As we have Run from deep slider it'll be good to add Run back slider, which will define how much and how often the player will try to help his team in defense.

4. Separate Wide play sliders for the situations when the player has the ball and when he runs without the ball. I still don't know in which case this instruction works now, so it's better to make it clear and more flexible.

5. If the AI is not improved dramatically I still think Under heavy pressure option is needed. I'm absolutely sure IRL managers give their players such instructions if needed so it's quite realistic. Possible options - clear the ball, short pass, long ball forward, dribble. Maybe it can be done in a postmatch private chat with a player.

6. If someday the AI understands that there is no sense crossing to a low player or play through ball to a slow player there will be no need in this instruction, but till then I think it's needed - Player supply. To feet, to head, run onto ball.

7. Swap instructions box and New instruction option for Swap position instruction. It's described in my opening post.

8. Tackling frequency and aggressiveness separate sliders. Also described in OP.

9. Covered by combo box. Described in OP.

10. More player PPMs. I think Plays one-touch passes and Tries one-touch shots are needed.

11 False nine and False ten player roles.

[speedas]

You make me dream Exius, I would love to play a FM like that.

Other thing, with the future new tactic/training tools, you must feel the players more affected by fatigue if the tactic is too ambitious or need too runs, I never really have this feeling in the previous FM (even if I know the real players become more and more bionic men but it's not an excuse) because IRL the challenge for a good coach is also to balance effectively the energy of his players with a great tactic.

[Mitja]

good post Exius. I'm surprised with lack of feedback here. speedas point is also a good one.

[BiggusD]

good post Exius. I'm surprised with lack of feedback here. speedas point is also a good one.

I like their ideas but they are, as Speedas said, a dream. Unlikely to happen the next 5 years of FM development. I concern myself with minor tweaks and adjustments rather than complete rethinking of the entire game.

[Exius]

You make me dream Exius, I would love to play a FM like that.

Other thing, with the future new tactic/training tools, you must feel the players more affected by fatigue if the tactic is too ambitious or need too runs, I never really have this feeling in the previous FM (even if I know the real players become more and more bionic men but it's not an excuse) because IRL the challenge for a good coach is also to balance effectively the energy of his players with a great tactic.

I'm dreaming about such changes myself.) Agree with you that fatigue effect could be increased as IRL it's quite noticeable.

I like their ideas but they are, as Speedas said, a dream. Unlikely to happen the next 5 years of FM development. I concern myself with minor tweaks and adjustments rather than complete rethinking of the entire game.

I think Mitja was talking about my post #121 but not the opening one. There are no global changes in this post, it's all just tweaks, adjustments and small additions, so maybe it's not a dream. Besides, since SI are working on a new ME may be they also think about new TC?

[Exius]

good post Exius. I'm surprised with lack of feedback here. speedas point is also a good one.

Thanks.) I wish to hear some SI feedback or at list their thoughts about future of TC.

[themadsheep2001]

Well, I believe neither SI nor users are ready to such radical changes as I wrote in opening posts. But I think it's possible to make TC more realistic without such dramatical changes. Maybe returning to wibble wobble isn't really as good and realistic idea as I thought. I don't know how it works in ME but I feel that even allowing to choose separate attacking and defensive formations requires so significant ME recoding that we'll never see this in FM again. In this case tricks like DM dropping to SW position or DC advancing to ST should be made via team PPMs, as they can't be done with any instruction in current TC. I'm sure that TC should evolve the same way it did in 2009 - more realistic instructions and less unclear and unobvious sliders. I won't use any images this time because all my suggestions are pretty simple.

Team instructions.

I have only two additions here:

1. Among Philosophy and Strategy instructions I'd like to see something like Playing model - a combo box with such variants as British, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, Brazilian, Argentinian. And this choice should define not only different sliders values as it works with Philosophy and Strategy, but also different AI models. I don't know what variables in ME are responsible for that but there should be some specific AI tendencies different for every playing model which can't be set only with sliders and instructions. And of course it should affect player roles instructions. For example, wide midfielders in british football and in spanish are different players. British one prefers more run with the ball, direct passing, more crossing, less through balls, while spanish - less run with the ball, short passes, less crosses, more through balls. In current TC if you wish to recreate some specific playing styles, you need manually tweak some individual instructions thus making some shouts useless because they are overridden with individual instructions. With Playing model will have to make less manual tweaks, it'll be easier just to choose playing style you want your team to play and some player roles will be specific for that playing style.

2. Team PPMs. I suggest to separate attacking and defensive moves. There are already some team PPMs in current TC - counter-attacks, use a playmaker, use a TM , move through the centre, move down the flanks (attacking), Ofside trap, Tight marking (defensive). Since we can't use different attacking/defensive formations it'll be useful to make such attacking PPMs as DM dropping deep and Overlapping defender enabling us to choose, which DM will drop to SW, and which DC will advance to attack. Maybe there are some more such tricks but as far as I know only two these can't be fully replicated in current TC. And also there should be some PPMs more specificly describing some playing combinations which cannot be set via instructions. For example, fake runs, triangle passing, square passing, one-twos, one-touch passes, one-touch shots and others. Even if they repeat some instructions, overall effect should be strengthened. It will be good to link some playing models with specific PPMs. For example, spanish playing style includes such PPMs as using playmaker, move through the centre, one-twos, one-touch passes, fake runs. Adapting PPMs should take some time and it'll be good to make different adaptation levels. It would be brilliant to see oppositions team PPMs in scout reports about next opponent. I think playing model and favorite PPMs should also be displayed in a manager's profile. And every team should have traditional formations, playing styles and PPMs which will affect on future manager choosing.

Individual instructions

I'd like to see as few unclear sliders here as possible. Without making players robotic but making instructions more flexible I think following is possible:

1. Player positioning. We can adjust player position with mentality and width sliders but it's too complicated. I think it's better just dragging him on the pitch image and dropping where you want him to play.

2. I'd substitute mentality slider with riskiness slider or something like this, which will define only how risky the player plays.

3. As we have Run from deep slider it'll be good to add Run back slider, which will define how much and how often the player will try to help his team in defense.

4. Separate Wide play sliders for the situations when the player has the ball and when he runs without the ball. I still don't know in which case this instruction works now, so it's better to make it clear and more flexible.

5. If the AI is not improved dramatically I still think Under heavy pressure option is needed. I'm absolutely sure IRL managers give their players such instructions if needed so it's quite realistic. Possible options - clear the ball, short pass, long ball forward, dribble. Maybe it can be done in a postmatch private chat with a player.

6. If someday the AI understands that there is no sense crossing to a low player or play through ball to a slow player there will be no need in this instruction, but till then I think it's needed - Player supply. To feet, to head, run onto ball.

7. Swap instructions box and New instruction option for Swap position instruction. It's described in my opening post.

8. Tackling frequency and aggressiveness separate sliders. Also described in OP.

9. Covered by combo box. Described in OP.

10. More player PPMs. I think Plays one-touch passes and Tries one-touch shots are needed.

11 False nine and False ten player roles.

Some interesting ideas i very much agree with, some i dont. Like you i feel the the TC is a good step, but there is much more it can do.

Some of your ideas dont actually require new PPMs, such as the DMC dropping deep. They just require a better ME.

For one touch passes, plays one twos covers it pretty well, and for out touch shots see First time shots.

I think it provides them with excellent food for though tregardless. But i think some of your ideas can make it a bit robotic. I think in some areas looking at your mock ups you over complicate the TC to unnecessary extent, by trying to control aspects of a players approach that can really only be controlled by the makeup of the play himself.

Still one of the best posts on the TC in recent times

[themadsheep2001]

Thanks.) I wish to hear some SI feedback or at list their thoughts about future of TC.

wwfan helps on the coding IIRC

[Exius]

Some interesting ideas i very much agree with, some i dont. Like you i feel the the TC is a good step, but there is much more it can do.

Some of your ideas dont actually require new PPMs, such as the DMC dropping deep. They just require a better ME.

For one touch passes, plays one twos covers it pretty well, and for out touch shots see First time shots.

I think it provides them with excellent food for though tregardless. But i think some of your ideas can make it a bit robotic. I think in some areas looking at your mock ups you over complicate the TC to unnecessary extent, by trying to control aspects of a players approach that can really only be controlled by the makeup of the play himself.

Still one of the best posts on the TC in recent times

As far as I know, plays one-twos ppm means that the player passes the ball to a teammate and runs forward to receive it back with a one touch pass, so the player is just a receiver but not the one who makes the pass actually. And thanks for first time shots - I forgot this one.)

I agree that 5), 6) and 8) won't be necessary when the AI will be smart enough. In that case we need some option to tell the players their mistakes, as RL managers do after the match. May be some sort of expanded team talk where you can tell every player what you think of every aspect of his play, for example "your shooting was good, passing - bad, too many passes to opposition, tackling bad - too aggressive..."

[Exius]

wwfan helps on the coding IIRC

I appreciate his feedback very match but as I understand he's not a SI official?

[Mitja]

I like their ideas but they are, as Speedas said, a dream. Unlikely to happen the next 5 years of FM development. I concern myself with minor tweaks and adjustments rather than complete rethinking of the entire game.

we know the new ME is being worked on, which is far more difficult task imo, than changing some TC aspects.

but you're probably right that underlying tactical mechanisms won't change in near future. with new ME it would be a perfect time to do that rethinking as mechanisms didn't change for a long time now. (since CM days?)

[milnerpoint]

I appreciate his feedback very match but as I understand he's not a SI official?

He is as official as you could hope for this kinda topic, and probably one of the best to comment on it all.

[Exius]

He is as official as you could hope for this kinda topic, and probably one of the best to comment on it all.

Well, anyway it would be interesting to see his feedback again.

[wwfan]

1. Among Philosophy and Strategy instructions I'd like to see something like Playing model - a combo box with such variants as British, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, Brazilian, Argentinian. And this choice should define not only different sliders values as it works with Philosophy and Strategy, but also different AI models. I don't know what variables in ME are responsible for that but there should be some specific AI tendencies different for every playing model which can't be set only with sliders and instructions. And of course it should affect player roles instructions. For example, wide midfielders in british football and in spanish are different players. British one prefers more run with the ball, direct passing, more crossing, less through balls, while spanish - less run with the ball, short passes, less crosses, more through balls. In current TC if you wish to recreate some specific playing styles, you need manually tweak some individual instructions thus making some shouts useless because they are overridden with individual instructions. With Playing model will have to make less manual tweaks, it'll be easier just to choose playing style you want your team to play and some player roles will be specific for that playing style.

This is already possible in the current TC, although there does need to be some more sophistication in some of the playing adjustment / style options. You seem to be asking for some form of further shaping via player roles. I can see that being useful at AI level, but perhaps restrictive for users.

2. Team PPMs. I suggest to separate attacking and defensive moves. There are already some team PPMs in current TC - counter-attacks, use a playmaker, use a TM , move through the centre, move down the flanks (attacking), Ofside trap, Tight marking (defensive). Since we can't use different attacking/defensive formations it'll be useful to make such attacking PPMs as DM dropping deep and Overlapping defender enabling us to choose, which DM will drop to SW, and which DC will advance to attack. Maybe there are some more such tricks but as far as I know only two these can't be fully replicated in current TC. And also there should be some PPMs more specificly describing some playing combinations which cannot be set via instructions. For example, fake runs, triangle passing, square passing, one-twos, one-touch passes, one-touch shots and others. Even if they repeat some instructions, overall effect should be strengthened. It will be good to link some playing models with specific PPMs. For example, spanish playing style includes such PPMs as using playmaker, move through the centre, one-twos, one-touch passes, fake runs. Adapting PPMs should take some time and it'll be good to make different adaptation levels. It would be brilliant to see oppositions team PPMs in scout reports about next opponent. I think playing model and favorite PPMs should also be displayed in a manager's profile. And every team should have traditional formations, playing styles and PPMs which will affect on future manager choosing.

Some nice ideas, but I'm still a little concerned with the over specificity of your passing, shooting instructions. Personally, I believe that most of these things happen within the context of a wider strategy, rather than being very specific managerial instructions. I think shape, style and strategy will dictate whether the team plays passing triangles etc, rather than them being set instructions.

1. Player positioning. We can adjust player position with mentality and width sliders but it's too complicated. I think it's better just dragging him on the pitch image and dropping where you want him to play.

I'd like something like this, but there would have to be some form of restriction or you risk massive exploits.

2. I'd substitute mentality slider with riskiness slider or something like this, which will define only how risky the player plays.

That's just a terminology change. Mentality already defines risk v reward decisions. I don't see any reason for this, or for having a second slider to differentiate between mentality and risk.

3. As we have Run from deep slider it'll be good to add Run back slider, which will define how much and how often the player will try to help his team in defense.

Definitely something that is missing. As a workaround for high strata players, specific marking does the job. Your AMs will track back if you give them a specific marking assignment.

4. Separate Wide play sliders for the situations when the player has the ball and when he runs without the ball. I still don't know in which case this instruction works now, so it's better to make it clear and more flexible.

I'd like the wide play instructions to be off the ball. I think much on the ball movement is determined by the players footedness, not tactical instruction. However, I do think there should be some form of option to determine which areas of the pitch you want to target when dribbling (i.e. attack the channels, attack the outside, attack the man).

5. If the AI is not improved dramatically I still think Under heavy pressure option is needed. I'm absolutely sure IRL managers give their players such instructions if needed so it's quite realistic. Possible options - clear the ball, short pass, long ball forward, dribble. Maybe it can be done in a postmatch private chat with a player.

Nice idea, although perhaps too complex. I think 'clear ball, mixed, play out of trouble' would be enough.

6. If someday the AI understands that there is no sense crossing to a low player or play through ball to a slow player there will be no need in this instruction, but till then I think it's needed - Player supply. To feet, to head, run onto ball.

This is already in the game for target men. I don't think it needs to be set for every player, although I do think multiple target options would be good, so you could 'supply TM to head' and 'supply poacher - run onto ball' within the same tactic. I also think GK distribution requires more work along these lines.

7. Swap instructions box and New instruction option for Swap position instruction. It's described in my opening post.

Agree that swapping could be far more sophisticated. However, this part of the ME is very buggy and difficult to get right, so it might take some time to implement.

8. Tackling frequency and aggressiveness separate sliders. Also described in OP.

Don't agree at all. I think the ME needs some work around positioning and decision making with regard to tackles, but tackling frequency is a nonsensical instruction.

9. Covered by combo box. Described in OP.

Not convinced by this. I think it is an ME issue that requires players, in general, to better cover teammates moving up field.

10. More player PPMs. I think Plays one-touch passes and Tries one-touch shots are needed.

We already have the latter. No reason not to have the former as well.

11 False nine and False ten player roles.

I'm all for new player roles. False Nine definitely. False Ten is a very new term and has not received much attention, which might make it problematic. I can see how it could work in FM and will keep an eye out for articles mentioning it. If it starts to be an accepted element of modern football, then I see no reason not to include it.

[themadsheep2001]

wwfan, any chance of the false nine making it into fm12?

[wwfan]

wwfan, any chance of the false nine making it into fm12?

No. You could recreate it by using the TQ mentality settings to ensure he fits within strategy shifts and manually changing his individual instructions to reflect the False Nine Role. Same for a False Ten. Just add RFD to Often.

[Mitja]

one thought about riskness. a player can take risk in attacking play through his aggresive movement, passing decisions and dribbling/running with ball. all these stuff is already influenced by forward runs, run with ball instructions and different passing instruction. I don't see any reason why it should be part of mentality, again it's an example where mentality interfears with other instructions. logically riskness should be part of creative freedom, where you giving your creative players freedom to take more time on ball and by-passing tempo instructions.

[Exius]

This is already possible in the current TC, although there does need to be some more sophistication in some of the playing adjustment / style options. You seem to be asking for some form of further shaping via player roles. I can see that being useful at AI level, but perhaps restrictive for users.

Thanks for your feedback.) I think adding this option will make the game easier for new gamers. If they want to play specific playing style - they just will choose it, without adjusting philosophy, strategy and other settings. And I'm talking not only about player roles, but also AI priorities and tendencies which you cannot adjust with TC instructions. With current TC you can easily replicate english and german playing style, partly - dutch, but it's almost impossible to recreate realistically spanish, italian and latin styles. It simply doesn't work good in FM. Maybe the main reason is ME and AI imperfection. So, there are two ways - to make ME more flexible, or to implement different styles and different AI.

Some nice ideas, but I'm still a little concerned with the over specificity of your passing, shooting instructions. Personally, I believe that most of these things happen within the context of a wider strategy, rather than being very specific managerial instructions. I think shape, style and strategy will dictate whether the team plays passing triangles etc, rather than them being set instructions.

Maybe. But still there should be some PPMs making each team more specific maybe even strengthening some instructions. Fake runs, one touch passing, more off the ball movement, keeping possession, stretching opposition defense...

I'd like something like this, but there would have to be some form of restriction or you risk massive exploits.

Maybe it's really a good idea to divide an area where certain position can be placed into 16, 25 or 36 sub-areas where you can place your player. It would be more obvious than adjusting mentality and width sliders.)

That's just a terminology change. Mentality already defines risk v reward decisions. I don't see any reason for this, or for having a second slider to differentiate between mentality and risk.

Agree. The idea is that this slider must be more realistic - it should have a RL analogue as well as its every value. And if we could manually position our players it should define only passing direction and playing riskiness.

Don't agree at all. I think the ME needs some work around positioning and decision making with regard to tackles, but tackling frequency is a nonsensical instruction.

Maybe it's really more a ME issue. There is no way to instruct your players to make tactical fouls late in the game. AI has to understand it when it's useful to make aggressive tackles and when - small fouls.

Not convinced by this. I think it is an ME issue that requires players, in general, to better cover teammates moving up field.

Disagree. If I want to play more defensively, I'd prefer to instruct my midfielders to cover defenders, more offensively - defenders to cover each other. Still, maybe there will be no need in this if Run back instruction is added.

We already have the latter. No reason not to have the former as well.

Yes, I forgot Tries first time shots.) And one-touch passes - that's what really is missing.

[Exius]

No. You could recreate it by using the TQ mentality settings to ensure he fits within strategy shifts and manually changing his individual instructions to reflect the False Nine Role. Same for a False Ten. Just add RFD to Often.

And what instructions on your opinion could make a TQ to drop deeper while attacking, gragging out the opposition defender as false 9 does it? I succedeed in recreating this role only with players who have Comes deep to get the ball PPM.

[Exius]

one thought about riskness. a player can take risk in attacking play through his aggresive movement, passing decisions and dribbling/running with ball. all these stuff is already influenced by forward runs, run with ball instructions and different passing instruction. I don't see any reason why it should be part of mentality, again it's an example where mentality interfears with other instructions. logically riskness should be part of creative freedom, where you giving your creative players freedom to take more time on ball and by-passing tempo instructions.

Yes, it's unnecessary overcomplicated. Maybe that's why some new users find this game too difficult.

[Mitja]

And what instructions on your opinion could make a TQ to drop deeper while attacking, gragging out the opposition defender as false 9 does it? I succedeed in recreating this role only with players who have Comes deep to get the ball PPM.

again a situation where current tactical instructions don't allow recreating some tactical basics to details. to make starting position deeper mentality needs to lowish, but it also affects other parts of play to be more reserved. examples like this show that movement and positioning should be seperated from mentality slider. there needs to be more in-depth control over movement, both vertical and leteral. a change I'd like to see is in forward runs and ME itself. rarely-mixed-often options should change to drop deeper - hold position - support the attack. as for droping deeper in defense I think the defensive formation should determine the shape. there's also a room for improvement here.

another example of mentality unlogically interefering with other instructions and it bothers me for long time is how mentality affects passing direction. in current ME mentality is responsible for passing direction and passing style for passing length. I believe many people would agree with me here. direct passing should ''allways'' be a forward pass, that's why it's called direct. on the other side short passing should promote more back and side passes, passing to nearest team-mate. imo passing instruction should determine both passing direction and passing legth in such manner:

1 (short passing) feet to feet / lots of back (and side) passing-----------------------20 (direct/long) gung ho aproach, hitting a forward / long distance ball as early as possible

[BiggusD]

again a situation where current tactical instructions don't allow recreating some tactical basics to details. to make starting position deeper mentality needs to lowish, but it also affects other parts of play to be more reserved. examples like this show that movement and positioning should be seperated from mentality slider. there needs to be more in-depth control over movement, both vertical and leteral. a change I'd like to see is in forward runs and ME itself. rarely-mixed-often options should change to drop deeper - hold position - support the attack. as for droping deeper in defense I think the defensive formation should determine the shape. there's also a room for improvement here.

another example of mentality unlogically interefering with other instructions and it bothers me for long time is how mentality affects passing direction. in current ME mentality is responsible for passing direction and passing style for passing length. I believe many people would agree with me here. direct passing should ''allways'' be a forward pass, that's why it's called direct. on the other side short passing should promote more back and side passes, passing to nearest team-mate. imo passing instruction should determine both passing direction and passing legth in such manner:

1 (short passing) feet to feet / lots of back (and side) passing-----------------------20 (direct/long) gung ho aproach, hitting a forward / long distance ball as early as possible

Yes it is very misleading that passing style affects the range of passing options only and not passing style.

[Mitja]

here's a graphical representation of different passing styles: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/256/passingstyle.jpg/

[Exius]

Maybe such passing slider values are better:

Possessional-----------Mostly possessional----------Mostly direct ground based----------Direct ground based------------Mostly direct air based-------------Direct air based------------Mostly long balls------------Long balls

[shirajzl]

Mentality also affects how quickly the players will try to do their thing, whether it is tackling a player in front of him, passing the ball or shooting. Which leads to question, what do Tempo and Time Wasting sliders actually do?

It seems to me Passing Style is not the only misleading thing here.

[bigdunk]

Sliders affecting each other is always going to be issue though, no matter what they are. At every moment in the game, the player with the ball has a choice whether to run with it, pass, shoot, cross, hold the ball, etc etc. Any slider that affects any of those options is going to affect the others because it's a single decision making process. If you encourage a player to make longer passes he's going to be less likely to dribble, for example, because when given the choice between a long pass and a dribble, he's going to favour the long pass. Whereas if you tell a player to only play short passes, he'll probably dribble when given the choice between a long pass or dribble.

[Mitja]

Sliders affecting each other is always going to be issue though, no matter what they are. At every moment in the game, the player with the ball has a choice whether to run with it, pass, shoot, cross, hold the ball, etc etc. Any slider that affects any of those options is going to affect the others because it's a single decision making process. If you encourage a player to make longer passes he's going to be less likely to dribble, for example, because when given the choice between a long pass and a dribble, he's going to favour the long pass. Whereas if you tell a player to only play short passes, he'll probably dribble when given the choice between a long pass or dribble.

of course they will interfere with each other. but the amount of that should be brought to minimum. especially mentality totally unnescesary interefers with almost all other instructions (team and player), as has been discussed in this thread. I think we proved that weel enough and have offered some good solutions. rewriting of mentality is really needed, or even better excluding it from tactics. there's no need to have one instruction as a balancing modifier for all others. it was needed in CM days maybe, when the tactics were much more simple. I'm sure it would end slider mystic. such a complex tactical system needs straight-forward instructions.

player decision making should be improved by better AI in ME, the distinction between players with poor/good mental attributes is a hard but important thing here. tactical familiarity and squad gelling should also have a huge role on decision making.

[howhigh1337]

really good suggestions

/signed