Seagulls Forever Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Funny you mention Pro Evo. That's on a similar path to FM at the moment, even to the point of the main chap admitting the last game was a load of crap. Anyway, the point I'm driving at is that many publications normally quite favourable to pro evo have been a bit lukewarm recently and are starting to realise that actually it's not really moving forwards. The same would appear to be taking place with FM, albeit at a less advanced stage, in that people are becoming less charitable towards them, less forgiving of faults, both the public and the gaming press. A lot of the goodwill SI have spent years building up is evapourating and it must be a source of immense frustration for them. The problem is that while it might not immediately impact upon sales, in the long-term it will. Badly and painfully. Personally I'd like nothing more than killer versions of the next PES and FM, but EA and Eidos are snapping ever closer at their heels, and it may be the case that the complacency of both developers can only be solved by being overtaken by someone else. All this is my opinion, not to be taken as rock solid fact nor indisputable truth. I'll be back wearing my flameproof suit just in case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seagulls Forever Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Funny you mention Pro Evo. That's on a similar path to FM at the moment, even to the point of the main chap admitting the last game was a load of crap. Anyway, the point I'm driving at is that many publications normally quite favourable to pro evo have been a bit lukewarm recently and are starting to realise that actually it's not really moving forwards. The same would appear to be taking place with FM, albeit at a less advanced stage, in that people are becoming less charitable towards them, less forgiving of faults, both the public and the gaming press. A lot of the goodwill SI have spent years building up is evapourating and it must be a source of immense frustration for them. The problem is that while it might not immediately impact upon sales, in the long-term it will. Badly and painfully. Personally I'd like nothing more than killer versions of the next PES and FM, but EA and Eidos are snapping ever closer at their heels, and it may be the case that the complacency of both developers can only be solved by being overtaken by someone else. All this is my opinion, not to be taken as rock solid fact nor indisputable truth. I'll be back wearing my flameproof suit just in case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermonger Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Just found and watched this on YouTube about ProZone in CM and how to work it to your advantage in adjusting your tactics. This is what we need for FM and after watching that video I can't help but feel SI has dropped the ball by not pursing it themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Seagulls Forever: Funny you mention Pro Evo. That's on a similar path to FM at the moment, even to the point of the main chap admitting the last game was a load of crap. Anyway, the point I'm driving at is that many publications normally quite favourable to pro evo have been a bit lukewarm recently and are starting to realise that actually it's not really moving forwards. The same would appear to be taking place with FM, albeit at a less advanced stage, in that people are becoming less charitable towards them, less forgiving of faults, both the public and the gaming press. A lot of the goodwill SI have spent years building up is evapourating and it must be a source of immense frustration for them. The problem is that while it might not immediately impact upon sales, in the long-term it will. Badly and painfully. Personally I'd like nothing more than killer versions of the next PES and FM, but EA and Eidos are snapping ever closer at their heels, and it may be the case that the complacency of both developers can only be solved by being overtaken by someone else. All this is my opinion, not to be taken as rock solid fact nor indisputable truth. I'll be back wearing my flameproof suit just in case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Agree wholeheartedly with this. I cant actually remember the last version of FM that really wowed me, especially in terms of new features. In the past flaws were forgiven because SI added numbers of new and interesting features- nowadays the formula is getting very stale, especially as longstanding issues such as the transfer system and finances (why do clubs create budgets that are guaranteed to make massive losses?) are still a mess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Powermonger: Just found and watched this on YouTube about ProZone in CM and how to work it to your advantage in adjusting your tactics. This is what we need for FM and after watching that video I can't help but feel SI has dropped the ball by not pursing it themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree- CM has its flaws but at least they are showing some kind of innovation and going for it, something that is really lacking from FM of late. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starr_Man5 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Powermonger: Just found and watched this on YouTube about ProZone in CM and how to work it to your advantage in adjusting your tactics. This is what we need for FM and after watching that video I can't help but feel SI has dropped the ball by not pursing it themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That looks really good, and the actual game itself looks fresh and exciting. FM feels old and tired and very much in need of an injection of life because, as was said by Seagulls Forever, Eidos are hot on the heels. I think the problem is that FM were in a comfort zone of being far and away the "Best, most realistic management Sim" on the market, and they were afraid to change it in case they broke it and/or lost money/customers/fans. The champ man series had nothing to lose and now it looks ten times better than FM. It may not play the better game (Yet), but as a package it's not a waste of money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Has anybody tried the latest CM- any less annoying than FM currently is? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by George Graham: Has anybody tried the latest CM- any less annoying than FM currently is? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> In answer to my own question- I joined their forums, rather a lot of people over there who have "moved" to CM due to FM08. Have yet to find any decent comparisons yet- but very tempted to grab a copy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermonger Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by George Graham: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Powermonger: Just found and watched this on YouTube about ProZone in CM and how to work it to your advantage in adjusting your tactics. This is what we need for FM and after watching that video I can't help but feel SI has dropped the ball by not pursuing it themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree- CM has its flaws but at least they are showing some kind of innovation and going for it, something that is really lacking from FM of late. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the reasoning behind this post honestly, I want to see the tactical and match analysis side of FM to evolve because the current incarnation has stagnated. SI are putting in alot of effort to optimise and perfect the code which drives the matches but the parts that surround it need to be developed as well. The last major change to tactics and the match engine was with CM4 when the wibble/wobble was discarded and the 2D match view introduced. That was about 5 versions ago now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Interesting that CM has a "Match Engine" forum and only 13 threads. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earmack Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Cm's 'innovation' is buying the rights to use the name pro-zone? K. Tactics are impossible to simulate but FM's system is as close to 'good' as we'll ever see. FM is ****TONS better than CM, but FM is not getting better, so maybe the next releases will challenge each other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
x42bn6 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 It's quite difficult to adapt to some strategies. Sometimes I think it's overcomplicated. For example, I can understand why if you go 1-0 up, suddenly the computer has 60% of the recent possession and you can't pass out of your own area. Unfortunately, it's a result of applying what you think is right. In real life, if you were Watford and you take a 1-0 lead against Chelsea, surely you'd ask your players to: 1) Be a bit more defensive. 2) Perhaps slow the game down, and start counter-attacking. 3) Pass shorter. What doesn't work is SI telling people that counter-attacks works best with plenty of width and fast tempo, and longer passing. If Watford tried that, their possession will drop faster than them being relegated a few seasons ago. But in real life, does it make sense for Watford to start playing wider and faster? What I do find daunting for newcomers is how good the computer is. It comes to the extent that you can't pass along your own defense line without having 3 players closing down. Interestingly, for a defender against say a winger and a striker, the defender almost always comes out on top in real life, while Joe Cole + Drogba flattens the poor full-back in Football Manager 2007/2008. The defender doesn't have to have perfect technique or strength, simply because the defender uses common sense and doesn't hold on to the ball for too long "because I turned time-wasting on higher!" It unfortunately gets to the point where the standard 4-4-2 tactic ends up being the most effective after hours of tinkering. But that teaches you absolutely nothing. I'm still not great at this game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seagulls Forever Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by George Graham: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by George Graham: Has anybody tried the latest CM- any less annoying than FM currently is? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> In answer to my own question- I joined their forums, rather a lot of people over there who have "moved" to CM due to FM08. Have yet to find any decent comparisons yet- but very tempted to grab a copy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> To be fair it's not perfect. But it's not bad. Interface needs work in places, it's a bit old school at times, and reminds me of an old amiga game at times, but the innovation, the fact that it allows as much tactical freedom as it does, the fact that tactics make sense, for me, make it a good game. The football is definitely more watchable than earlier versions by a mile, though it's still not as watchable as the FM engine. CM isn't there yet but it's coming, and SI better be careful not to get overtaken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by George Graham: Has anybody tried the latest CM- any less annoying than FM currently is? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Download their demo, it's worth a try. Kept me entertained for an hour or two, but there just wasn't enough going on - after using prozone a few times you realise it doesn't add anything useful to CM because the match engine is so superficial (that and the PZ advisor doesn't work very well anyway.) PZ itself is good for looking at the stats (even though presentation-wise it's very ugly) and gives more depth to analysing than FM currently does. The only thing CM has over FM is basically how easy it is to win things. They've even removed the lovely chalkboard-background from their tactics screen which was my favourite part of past games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the fact that it allows as much tactical freedom as it does </div></BLOCKQUOTE> It actually doesn't have any more freedom than FM, but their tactics interface makes it a little bit easier to see that freedom. The other thing that's really poor in CM is the team talks - now FM's team talks are poor, but CM's take it to a whole new level. The choices you get are a clear reaction to SI's straightforward and plain choices. Unfortunately it looks like they've got a 12 year old in to come up with the phrasing for CM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermonger Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter: Download their demo, it's worth a try. Kept me entertained for an hour or two, but there just wasn't enough going on - after using prozone a few times you realise it doesn't add anything useful to CM because the match engine is so superficial (that and the PZ advisor doesn't work very well anyway.) PZ itself is good for looking at the stats (even though presentation-wise it's very ugly) and gives more depth to analysing than FM currently does. The only thing CM has over FM is basically how easy it is to win things. They've even removed the lovely chalkboard-background from their tactics screen which was my favourite part of past games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I've tried the demo of CM08, after being so use to the FM interface, CMs seems rather clunky and confusing. Ter has done a great job of FM's interface. CM to me seems like it is trying too hard to be FM instead of it's own rendition. Although I must say the the ProZone implementation I found to be the star of the title but it's interface for using it is also confusing. After mucking around with ProZone after a few trial matches it's very hard to go back to FM and not having any of that sort of information or statistics available to make use of. Since the split with Eidos, CM has been copying alot of features from FM, it's about time SI did the reverse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Powermonger: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ackter: Download their demo, it's worth a try. Kept me entertained for an hour or two, but there just wasn't enough going on - after using prozone a few times you realise it doesn't add anything useful to CM because the match engine is so superficial (that and the PZ advisor doesn't work very well anyway.) PZ itself is good for looking at the stats (even though presentation-wise it's very ugly) and gives more depth to analysing than FM currently does. The only thing CM has over FM is basically how easy it is to win things. They've even removed the lovely chalkboard-background from their tactics screen which was my favourite part of past games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I've tried the demo of CM08, after being so use to the FM interface, CMs seems rather clunky and confusing. Ter has done a great job of FM's interface. CM to me seems like it is trying too hard to be FM instead of it's own rendition. Although I must say the the ProZone implementation I found to be the star of the title but it's interface for using it is also confusing. After mucking around with ProZone after a few trial matches it's very hard to go back to FM and not having any of that sort of information or statistics available to make use of. Since the split with Eidos, CM has been copying alot of features from FM, it's about time SI did the reverse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> So agree about the interface- they seem to not want to let go of the old CM look. Think I might grab a copy for the weekend (only £20 in Impulse I think) as I cant bear to play FM at the moment, especially as I think my carefully assembled squad deserve better. Seems that CM09 might be the one though- although I really expect FM to step up its game in terms of new features. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjm Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1519717/m/8052000891 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">they seem to not want to let go of the old CM look </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Theycan[/t] let go of the old look. That was "the thing" Eidos got out of the company split, if they abandoned it it would be tantamount to admitting they made a complete balls up of the decisions. They should abandon it, but they won't. Not any time soon. Seriously though Graham, try the demo first - it's only a small file and won't take long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbaW Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gubbs: The problem lies in the disparity between what the engine wants and what the end user is trying to achieve. Once you learn the quirks, you can exploit the system the same as the A.i. Sadly, a lot of people will loose a lot then decide they can't be arsed. Which is why there was talk of 'difficulty' levels being introduced - basically so you can turn a sim into an arcade game for the xb0xorz. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't quite see why that's a bad idea. It's a game. I just want to pretend being a football manager so there's only a certain amount of time I'm willing to put into it. People who play games where they play as soldiers aren't expected to have to know the infantry six section battle drills and it's a similar thing with FM. This of course isn't entirely to do with tactics (of which I have a very limited grasp) but the game in general. It's too damn complicated now. Makes me nostalgic for the old CM2 when you just stuck players in a position and sent them on their way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 BobbaW, if you have a PSP give FM Handheld a go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandaman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I do understand football tactics and concepts. I'm not a genius at it, by any stretch, but after being a player and fan of the sport for 25+ years you can't help but to pick up a thing or two. I understand roles and positioning. Player rotations to drag a marker away and create spaces. Soaking up opposition pressure. Winning the backs of markers. Wingers that hold up play and create room for attacking fullbacks. The difference between a midfielder that sits above the CDs and the same player supporting the AMC. Lots of things, big or little. Problem is that this tactical implementation and this match engine (since CM4 and possibly earlier) turns all the knowledge that players might have about the game and turn it into a game of poking and prodding a hermetic black box to see what happens and (hopefully) learn the system by reverse-engineering it. It's a completely backwards approach. Problems: - Not enough feedback. We normally do not know with certainty what things do. And when we do, and those things fail (which is supposed to happen and it's normal for it to happen), we don't know why it happened. And we don't know exactly how to correct it. Example. Suppose I don't play with attacking fullbacks. For 10 games I win 5 and I lose 5. Then I implement attacking fullbacks. The next 10 games, I win 8 and lose 2. Did the attacking fullbacks make the difference? Are they responsible for the improved form? Or was it just a synchronicity of easy fixtures that coincided with the change? Morale? Better weather? Worse weather? A majority of home fixtures vs. away fixtures? Team talks? Media comments? A couple of new contracts signed? All of the above? None? We normally have no idea. - The sliders are a bad idea because they are too granular. No manager in the world would tell their wingers "I want you to look for attacking options 65% of the time. Not 60%". The granularity is bad enough, but when you factor in that every different setting seems to affect the whole tactic, then you're glimpsing at sheer madness. In reality, in the sport as it's played all over the world, every day, the fact that the wingers look for attacking options 65% of their time with the ball instead of 60% really does change very little about the tactic, or the match outcome even. But here it seems to matter. - Tactical options are obscure, counter-intuitive, or both. Many people are still unclear on what do forward runs really do. How closing down works. How counter-attacking works. How man marking works versus zonal marking. What tight marking is. What run with ball is. And so on. The reason lots of people are unclear is not because they are complete idiots, but just because those concepts, as codified in the tactical options, do not correspond to their real life equivalent concepts. It's just not evident in-game. Counter-attacking in FM does not equal the commonly, well-known and well-understood counter-attacking concept in real life football. It's a bit different. It's the same with many other things. - Difficulty in translating simple concepts into a working tactic. There should be simple, easy, unmistakable options to achieve common tactical ideas in FM. People shouldn't mess with 5+ sliders all with a granularity of 20 just to get their fullbacks to overlap. Or to get a DM to just receive the ball and act as a second playmaker instead of a defensive player. Or to get their players to offer themselves as passing options. There should be no need at all to tell experienced centre-backs how to mark their oppositions. Or to tell playmaker AMCs how to pass the ball or lose their marker. Or tell a strike partnership how to interact, or each striker how to finish. The inability to translate simple football concepts into the game's tactical framework without having to navigate a million options and deal with 10 million potential slider combinations (8 million of which are either harmful or ineffective, but the game does not tell the player that) is a hard turn-off for many people that still hasn't been resolved, years into the franchise. In many ways, we're still basically playing CM4. Most changes through the years have been largely cosmetic. There hasn't been a radical change in the functionality of the tactics, and the approach to tactical creation for at least 4-5 years. - Tactical isolation and testing. In real life, managers have a lot of time with their team and are able to isolate players, or groups of players, giving them precise instructions regarding what he wants them to do and accomplish. This is done in a controlled environment, where this tactical ideas can be devised and tested by themselves, without any foreign influences, to see what works and what doesn't. To see what the team really can or cannot do. This is called training. We don't have a place like this, in-game. We don't have a place where we can try our ideas outside of matches, where all foreign factors come in play. We're always testing our ideas "live", under the influence of home or away, morale, weather, injuries, player condition, refereeing, different opposition every game, etc. As such, it goes back to point #1: We have little idea of what exactly went right or wrong when things go right or wrong. We cannot isolate elements trying to determine which one is the culprit for both success and failure. And if we don't know what we're doing right, and what we're doing wrong, we essentially cannot learn. Disclaimer: I did not buy '08, so I have no hands-on experience with that version. But from what I hear, there hasn't been many changes (other than simple cosmetic features) from '07, so these points should still apply. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmyt Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Don't have the faintest clue about them. Sometimes stumble on one that works, but in six months it'll be as useless as a 2-0-8 diamond. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmyt Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chandaman: LOTS OF GOOD STUFF </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Hear this man. He speaketh 100% accuracy! Spot. On. Played and watched football for 15 years and this game's tactics have naff all relationship with real life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermonger Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Great summary Chandaman and looking back at Sjm's provided link to an old thread, the same frustrations have been voiced for a long time and sadly all the old arguments in that thread are just as valid for FM2009 as they were for FM2006. I'm sure if I put the effort in to digging up similar threads for FM2005, CM03/04 or CM4, we would find the same opinions expressed again. It's actually quite depressing to see nothing really has been addressed by SI in all that time in terms of tactical complaints. While reading through Chandaman's thread I had a thought of tactical settings being more visually represented on the overview screen, such that a mentality adjustment would move a players token either more forward or back, closing down would provide a shadowed area to indicate where a player will start to close down the opposition. Players with swapping positions set would have arced arrows pointing to the position they are swapping with and vice versa. Perhaps everything could be represented and set via graphical means instead of the slider system, it might look messy perhaps but depends on how intelligently a system was put together. It be much easier then at a glance to exactly see all the settings for your tactic instead of having to constantly sift through team and positional settings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rishboy Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Originally posted by LFCrouchinho#15:I don't understand the tactics in FM... Generally,when you start to play fm, you should read the tips ant tactics on the forums first,then understand what tactics work for what kind of teams and how your opponents play.Also, use this tip,it has really helped me,use your team strength to your advantage,and exploit your opponents weakness.For example, my team's strength is pace, so i tell my wingers to use more thru balls to feed my pacey strikers who are target men, and tell the team to feed the target men by running to ball.And if u realised ur opponents have weak side backs, maybe you wanna try passing down both flanks? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermonger Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Just been doing a bit of mucking in around in Adobe Illustrator try to put together some ideas on making tactical settings more graphic. Here is a very crude screenshot of some of my thoughts. Basically, any graphical object that is bordered in red is a team setting, yellow means positional setting. Summary of what some of the graphics mean are as follows: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>The two long red arrows to side means 'Pass Down Both Flanks'. <LI>Small veritcal arrowed line below each player represents zonal marking <LI>Small yellow dot below each of the DCs means Man Marking <LI>The lines used for the midfielders have a number of different meaning, depending on their format. <LI>The wiggle lines as used by the ML, MCL and MR represents 'Run With Ball'. Both the Wingers are set to Often while the MCL is only Mixed. <LI>The solid yellow line used on the MCR is a normal farrows. Any line with a arrowhead and a dot end means a farrow, barrow or sarrow depending on their orientation. <LI>A dotted line means 'Forward Runs', so in this instance both wingers are set to Often, while the MCL is mixed. The MCR is set to rarely. <LI>The shaded arches projecting from the player markers is for closing down. The longer the shaded arch is the more rigorous the player will be in closing down. The two DCs have very low closing down values in this instance. To adjust mentality would be just a matter of clicking a position and maybe holding both mouse buttons to shift the position up and down. This would result in the position being aligned slightly differently on the tactic overview screen. The whole system would really work along right-click senstive menus or clicking and dragging graphical elements. Obviously a few things have been left off such as representing passing style, creative freedom, set pieces and various other team settings, perhaps a combination of sliders and graphic settings would need to be used. This is just one variation I've thought of to make tactics easier to use and visualise but I'm sure others may have even more creative suggestions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamiebarnes Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 tactics are too rigid, ridiculous and in my opinion far to much thought and planning is needed so your tactic doesnt contradict itself Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markcox7 Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 In all my games, no matter wether im with a Top team or a minnow in the depths of the league system, i can never keep possession. I change tatics so that i play short passes, no freedom, wide, narrow, defensive, attacking, it will always end in 40% possesion top! Its strange Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Respected_Boss Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I find player quality doesnt count enough. How many times have you seen a team who play horrible, be saved by flash(es) of brilliance from their star player? Doesnt seem to happen in my game Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyssien Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Powermonger, I would certainly find that useful! On the other hand, it might be a bit too confusing for the casual gamer. Maybe, there could also be an option to switch from graphical representation to wording (and vice versa). But I find your idea really good! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermonger Posted January 5, 2008 Author Share Posted January 5, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lyssien: Powermonger, I would certainly find that useful! On the other hand, it might be a bit too confusing for the casual gamer. Maybe, there could also be an option to switch from graphical representation to wording (and vice versa). But I find your idea really good! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks...for casual gamers it could do with a legend somewhere on the screen to describe what the graphics mean. Personally I'd like it because it be much easier to see at a glance how your tactic is setup instead of having to click through individuals all the time. Currently I keep all my tactic settings in a spreadsheet to look at but it is still messy to deal with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Powermonger: Just been doing a bit of mucking in around in Adobe Illustrator try to put together some ideas on making tactical settings more graphic. Here is a very crude screenshot of some of my thoughts. Basically, any graphical object that is bordered in red is a team setting, yellow means positional setting. Summary of what some of the graphics mean are as follows: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>The two long red arrows to side means 'Pass Down Both Flanks'. <LI>Small veritcal arrowed line below each player represents zonal marking <LI>Small yellow dot below each of the DCs means Man Marking <LI>The lines used for the midfielders have a number of different meaning, depending on their format. <LI>The wiggle lines as used by the ML, MCL and MR represents 'Run With Ball'. Both the Wingers are set to Often while the MCL is only Mixed. <LI>The solid yellow line used on the MCR is a normal farrows. Any line with a arrowhead and a dot end means a farrow, barrow or sarrow depending on their orientation. <LI>A dotted line means 'Forward Runs', so in this instance both wingers are set to Often, while the MCL is mixed. The MCR is set to rarely. <LI>The shaded arches projecting from the player markers is for closing down. The longer the shaded arch is the more rigorous the player will be in closing down. The two DCs have very low closing down values in this instance. To adjust mentality would be just a matter of clicking a position and maybe holding both mouse buttons to shift the position up and down. This would result in the position being aligned slightly differently on the tactic overview screen. The whole system would really work along right-click senstive menus or clicking and dragging graphical elements. Obviously a few things have been left off such as representing passing style, creative freedom, set pieces and various other team settings, perhaps a combination of sliders and graphic settings would need to be used. This is just one variation I've thought of to make tactics easier to use and visualise but I'm sure others may have even more creative suggestions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Very nicely done- particularly like the closing down option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Respected_Boss: I find player quality doesnt count enough. How many times have you seen a team who play horrible, be saved by flash(es) of brilliance from their star player? Doesnt seem to happen in my game </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Agree- but you know the best way to success? Just put your Asst Manager on teamtalks- you will then get the maxiumum out of your players and the tactics that are probably not as ineffective as you think. Ive just recently turned a Burnley side that could only draw 2 of it first 10 games, into 4 losses in 36 games and clinching promotion with 1 game to go. All by just going that- same players, same tactics. Its absolutely crazy that such a poorly constructed part of the game can have such a massive effect. Things I noticed from the AI teamtalks that I wouldnt tend to do: * The AI never once went mad at the team, no matter what the score/result. * When winning 1-0 HT the AI would pretty much tend to use pleased or disappointed (depending on oppo), whereas I would go for encourage. * The AI didnt use "dont let your performance drop" when 2 or 3 up, instead preferred please apart from one game against a side 2 leagues below. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmullet23 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 surely noone can truly analyse the tactical asepcts of the game being played unless you watch 90mins of the game, cos if you have the game on quicker then surely you only get snippets of play i dunno just an idea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermonger Posted January 7, 2008 Author Share Posted January 7, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by elmullet23: surely noone can truly analyse the tactical asepcts of the game being played unless you watch 90mins of the game, cos if you have the game on quicker then surely you only get snippets of play i dunno just an idea </div></BLOCKQUOTE> That's why we need something additional that gives us more statistical information and allows us to analyse our tactics better, like CM08 has with ProZone. We need to be able to filter out particular player actions over a course of a match, try and see where they are failing and correct it, highlight trends etc. Trying to do this by watching a full match all the time is tedious and time consuming, FM is no longer the case of 'set and forget' tactics wise and requires constant re-evalutation of your tactics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xouman Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chandaman: I do understand football tactics and concepts. I'm not a genius at it, by any stretch, but after being a player and fan of the sport for 25+ years you can't help but to pick up a thing or two. I understand roles and positioning. Player rotations to drag a marker away and create spaces. Soaking up opposition pressure. Winning the backs of markers. Wingers that hold up play and create room for attacking fullbacks. The difference between a midfielder that sits above the CDs and the same player supporting the AMC. Lots of things, big or little. Problem is that this tactical implementation and this match engine (since CM4 and possibly earlier) turns all the knowledge that players might have about the game and turn it into a game of poking and prodding a hermetic black box to see what happens and (hopefully) learn the system by reverse-engineering it. It's a completely backwards approach. Problems: - Not enough feedback. We normally do not know with certainty what things do. And when we do, and those things fail (which is supposed to happen and it's normal for it to happen), we don't know why it happened. And we don't know exactly how to correct it. Example. Suppose I don't play with attacking fullbacks. For 10 games I win 5 and I lose 5. Then I implement attacking fullbacks. The next 10 games, I win 8 and lose 2. Did the attacking fullbacks make the difference? Are they responsible for the improved form? Or was it just a synchronicity of easy fixtures that coincided with the change? Morale? Better weather? Worse weather? A majority of home fixtures vs. away fixtures? Team talks? Media comments? A couple of new contracts signed? All of the above? None? We normally have no idea. - The sliders are a bad idea because they are too granular. No manager in the world would tell their wingers "I want you to look for attacking options 65% of the time. Not 60%". The granularity is bad enough, but when you factor in that every different setting seems to affect the whole tactic, then you're glimpsing at sheer madness. In reality, in the sport as it's played all over the world, every day, the fact that the wingers look for attacking options 65% of their time with the ball instead of 60% really does change very little about the tactic, or the match outcome even. But here it seems to matter. - Tactical options are obscure, counter-intuitive, or both. Many people are still unclear on what do forward runs really do. How closing down works. How counter-attacking works. How man marking works versus zonal marking. What tight marking is. What run with ball is. And so on. The reason lots of people are unclear is not because they are complete idiots, but just because those concepts, as codified in the tactical options, do not correspond to their real life equivalent concepts. It's just not evident in-game. Counter-attacking in FM does not equal the commonly, well-known and well-understood counter-attacking concept in real life football. It's a bit different. It's the same with many other things. - Difficulty in translating simple concepts into a working tactic. There should be simple, easy, unmistakable options to achieve common tactical ideas in FM. People shouldn't mess with 5+ sliders all with a granularity of 20 just to get their fullbacks to overlap. Or to get a DM to just receive the ball and act as a second playmaker instead of a defensive player. Or to get their players to offer themselves as passing options. There should be no need at all to tell experienced centre-backs how to mark their oppositions. Or to tell playmaker AMCs how to pass the ball or lose their marker. Or tell a strike partnership how to interact, or each striker how to finish. The inability to translate simple football concepts into the game's tactical framework without having to navigate a million options and deal with 10 million potential slider combinations (8 million of which are either harmful or ineffective, but the game does not tell the player that) is a hard turn-off for many people that still hasn't been resolved, years into the franchise. In many ways, we're still basically playing CM4. Most changes through the years have been largely cosmetic. There hasn't been a radical change in the functionality of the tactics, and the approach to tactical creation for at least 4-5 years. - Tactical isolation and testing. In real life, managers have a lot of time with their team and are able to isolate players, or groups of players, giving them precise instructions regarding what he wants them to do and accomplish. This is done in a controlled environment, where this tactical ideas can be devised and tested by themselves, without any foreign influences, to see what works and what doesn't. To see what the team really can or cannot do. This is called training. We don't have a place like this, in-game. We don't have a place where we can try our ideas outside of matches, where all foreign factors come in play. We're always testing our ideas "live", under the influence of home or away, morale, weather, injuries, player condition, refereeing, different opposition every game, etc. As such, it goes back to point #1: We have little idea of what exactly went right or wrong when things go right or wrong. We cannot isolate elements trying to determine which one is the culprit for both success and failure. And if we don't know what we're doing right, and what we're doing wrong, we essentially cannot learn. Disclaimer: I did not buy '08, so I have no hands-on experience with that version. But from what I hear, there hasn't been many changes (other than simple cosmetic features) from '07, so these points should still apply. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Clap clap clap. Impressive post I think that tactics screen is not bad, maybe a too many range of sliders (1 to 20 is a big range), but I lack a player's training-tactics screen. In this screen, I could tell the player to dribble wingbacks and then cross, or just try to dribble center back then, and he will do this for any team tactic. Of course you will be able to have more than one tactic for any player and save it (that will be useful for multi-role players). Also players interactions should have more impact. Now it's not easy to set tactics correctly if you want to play a big forward and a small pacey striker. Or train defenders in order to have a good offside tactic, assigning one experimented player to make it effective or just any of the defenders. Tell explicitly your wingback to go forward and then your winger to cover his position under certain situations. tell your destructive DMC to find your creative CM and let him distribute the ball, but let one of your CB's to pass any player he wants if he has good decissions. FM should let managers to create players "missions". For example, for the big FW you can assign him to RWB rarely, TTB mixed but also "try headers and pass the ball" or "try headers and aim them to goal". Also "find wingers and striker" or "pass the ball to midfielders", "keep the ball safe"... and then valorate the players with those parameters. Of course a defender who scores a couple of goals has done a good match. If you asked the player to head corners and he scored both goals in that way, he has performed well. But if he only score them from 1 yard and he has not marked well forwards and them have not scored due to bad luck, that defender has played bad, despite the two goals. Think about Romario. He didn't never defend, rarely assist players, didn't score from headers... his manager just wanted him to be as forward as possible, get off the ball, dribble one defender and score. But other forwards have to press defenders when they have balls, pass the ball to the wingers, win the ball in the air... managers should have more freedom to set players tactics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
achilles elbow Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Re Chandaman's post, and various replies... In a nutshell, would you prefer greater Asst Mgr input? So post match you get his opinion on how things went, e.g. "your full backs defended well, but didn't support the wingers enough" or "striker A did very well as the big targetman job, he held up the ball well and got decent flick on's" or "the defensive line was a bit too deep".... etc etc. So, essentially an expansion of the 'key player' report. Would that help if it provided more input on why things worked well or didn't work??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powermonger Posted January 8, 2008 Author Share Posted January 8, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by achilles elbow: So, essentially an expansion of the 'key player' report. Would that help if it provided more input on why things worked well or didn't work??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that would be of some help and add a bit more personality to the game, but I still think more information presented in graphical means and extra statistical data is needed as well. I can only speak for myself but I think the whole tactical element of the game feels rather closed off with only the minimal amount of information given. It's rather frustrating and new players to the game must feel kind of isolated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
llama3 Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 It is just a matter of perseverence and trial and error, I found that tactics i used on FM06 and FM07 didnt work on FM08, so i had to redesign them, but you just need to think about what you want your players to do. If you want your full-backs overlapping then tell them to make lots of forward runs. The most important thing is to keep your tactics simple - i see people coming up with ridiculous formations 3-2-3-1-1 or something else stupid like that, i have only ever used 4-4-2, 4-1-4-1 or 4-4-1-1, which are all very common systems. Set the mentalities of the players properly and just take the time to set it up properly in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patsyBlah Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Chandaman, I think you just wrote the bible for those of us who experience severe irritation with the whole tactics interface. It amounts to a ridiculous reverse engineering process. I agree the 20 sliders are ridiculous, we are pretending to manage a team of footballers, not engaging in brain surgery. The system is arbitrary and leads to the feeling of pre-determined results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
This field intentionally l Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 If you take a look in the editor at a Manager you'll see a set of attributes which map directly onto the tactics slider settings. E.g., Manager X has 17 for attacking which maps to 17 on the team Mentality slider. This allows fine-grained differences in tactics between AI managers; surely a good thing. Now if us users were prevented access to such fine-grained tactics tweaking we would complain it was unfair. So the game exposes the same tactics interface to us as it does the AI managers; hence the 20/22 position slider nonsense. What might help if, in addition to the fine-grained slider ("Expert") interface, there was an another interface into the tactics more suited for human use. This interface would present more human (intuitive) options to the manager, but under the covers, would map them to the slider settings. Users could choose which interface; the "Expert" or the "Human". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandaman Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In a nutshell, would you prefer greater Asst Mgr input? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Personally I would prefer Asst. Manager input period. Not 'greater'. Greater assumes there is some input going on at the moment, which is not the case. The Asst. Manage could be a lump of coal for all the difference it'd make. I think having an Assistant that really assists would be great. At the moment, what does he do? Gives out a team report (which is okay, all things considered, but not spectacular), gives a team talk feedback (based on rules for team talks that have to be reverse-engineered) and gives out said team talks as per its own rules, which seem to be saying "For the fans!" every other bleedin' match. The Assistant tells me how are my players getting along with each other, and general morale (which we stare at every time we look at the selection screen, so what's the point?). That's about it. - He doesn't tell me how my players are understanding my tactical instructions. ("We're fine in the back, and fine upstairs, but boss, you need to keep it simpler on the midfield because we get the ball there and the guys don't know what to do.") - He doesn't tell me why my players may be under or over performing, so I can correct it or know what is working.("I've been watching him over the last three games and there's no point in telling #3 to join the attack so often. He's not that kind of fullback, boss. Either replace him, or tell him not to go forward so often.") - He doesn't suggest sets of individual instructions or roles that might be more appropriate to the kind of players I might have, and I might have missed while building up the tactic ("Boss, are you sure you don't wanna tell #11 to look for crosses? He's great at it, you know.") - He has no say whatsoever in the kind of reinforcements the team overall needs, in order to maintain the tactical work as is, or change it to utilize the abilities of new players. ("Right, well now that (x) left, we need to look for a similar guy that roughs it up in the midfield, because the youngsters are still not up for it. Mind you, if we can get a more skillful type of guy we would get him more involved in the midfield to support attacks, but you're gonna have to go back to the drawing board for that, boss.") And so on. Before I get sticks and stones thrown at me, this doesn't make the game any easier by default. This is not the easy way out of anything, because: A- Your tactics still have to work. B- You still need to have the best players you can. C- You will still inevitably face better opposition than you D- You still have to deal with injury crises, morale problems, etc. E- Your Assistant Manager still has to know what he's talking about. His stats may very well be junk. F- You are still free to ignore him and never consult him if you don't want to, and play normally. As it is now, we don't have an Assistant Manager. We have a slightly more vocal coach that most of the time sits on a corner and sucks his thumb, every now and then mumbling things like "For the fans!!!". I'd love to have an Assistant Manager. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
This field intentionally l Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 G- There would be an option to turn this feature off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandaman Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Well, sure, it's implied in F, so why not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
something less annoying Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I don't bother spending much time on tactics because team talks and media have such an enormous effect that your tactics can become almost irrelevant. It's a ridiculous way to play a football management game. I've had a quick go at CM and I think the main difference is the database: SI have a much better one than BGS do. If people stopped working for free for SI or transferred their work to BGS we'd definitely see the gap narrowed much further. FM probably/ remains the better game, FM07 certainly is, but CM is getting there. It progresses massively year-on-year while FM just gets buggier, worse to look at and more irritating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Graham Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by This field intentionally left blank: If you take a look in the editor at a Manager you'll see a set of attributes which map directly onto the tactics slider settings. E.g., Manager X has 17 for attacking which maps to 17 on the team Mentality slider. This allows fine-grained differences in tactics between AI managers; surely a good thing. Now if us users were prevented access to such fine-grained tactics tweaking we would complain it was unfair. So the game exposes the same tactics interface to us as it does the AI managers; hence the 20/22 position slider nonsense. What might help if, in addition to the fine-grained slider ("Expert") interface, there was an another interface into the tactics more suited for human use. This interface would present more human (intuitive) options to the manager, but under the covers, would map them to the slider settings. Users could choose which interface; the "Expert" or the "Human". </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Good points, although as Chandaman points out its just not realistic. After all there are literally millions of permutations, so would it really hurt the game if these permutations the AI could use were down to "just" a few hundred thousand, and at the same time giving the human manager a more realistic set of options. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
This field intentionally l Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Yes, you could reduce the number of permutations. I'd prefer keeping the current implementation, but put it behind a better, more Human, interface. Obviously easier said than done or SI would have done it, the lazy so-and-sos. Its a shame SI stopped releasing the code header files. I'm sure some enterprising individual could build a better tactics interface, as an external App. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaroq Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chandaman: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In a nutshell, would you prefer greater Asst Mgr input? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Personally I would prefer Asst. Manager input period. Not 'greater'. Greater assumes there is some input going on at the moment, which is not the case. The Asst. Manage could be a lump of coal for all the difference it'd make. I think having an Assistant that really assists would be great. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> My turn: clap, clap, clap! I've been arguing for the same thing since FM'05; you might enjoy - if you haven't read them already: In-character helpful suggestions, . New Media Items and Improved Feedback, and Metaphysical Angst in FM: Complexity and Uncertainty in Management Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
This field intentionally l Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I think what is needed is that FM09 comes with a warning sticker attached to the case saying:- "This is not a game nor is it a realistic simulation of how real-life managers manage. Do not buy if you already have a day job. Don't come crying to us if you can't win". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.