FM 13 New Video: Changes in Training

[hursty2]

What do you mean ?

To me everything the game allows is " legal ". I consider the usage of FMRTE as " illegal " or better said " cheat ".

Telling someone to do 6 hours shooting would be something I'd consider unrealistic. As is being able to focus all your efforts on one slider as players don't focus on the same things 24/7.

[x42bn6]

You shouldn't be able to manipulate training in an unrealistic manner though.

"Unrealistic" as in "that's not possible", or "unrealistic" as in "nobody would ever do that"?

If it's the former, then yes, the user should be prevented from having training schedules like everything at the maximum, because it's not possible to load a player that hard. However, I don't see how the old system does things like that (with the overall workload and natural limitations).

If it's the latter, I disagree and users should be able to apply stupid training schedules and cry as their players turn out rubbish. What is important is that the user does recognise when they are blatantly doing something wrong (i.e. a giant, uncultured centre-back having a trequartista's training schedule). This is because there is, on occasion, a need for a player's training schedule to be rather exotic and unusual (think Ledley King and physical activity). Having a limited upgrade like this is the equivalent of lowering the skill ceiling (because users will really need to try hard to fail - you can't be dreadful at training, but you can't be excellent, either) and removing choice and customisation (like wing-backs' shooting, or your extremely exotic full-back/attacking midfielder hybrid).

I don't see the latter as "unrealistic" - I see it as "rare".

It's arguably more unrealistic to pigeonhole all your attacking full-backs into the same training schedule (with one different area of focus). It is entirely possible, for example, for one of your full-backs to be a skinny midget who needs to bulk up, and one of your full-backs to be a pacey machine who has the first-touch of Emile Heskey shooting, who needs technical training. So it is natural that they will need different training schedules (for the same role), where focus won't be enough (as it's a general weakness in multiple areas, not one glaring weakness).

[grep]

I don't see the latter as "unrealistic" - I see it as "rare".

Again I share your post 100% above all the quoted statement.

It seems to me that someone seeks to find a valid reason for everything SI does. I am not one of those sheep.

[AlexLightsaber]

"Unrealistic" as in "that's not possible", or "unrealistic" as in "nobody would ever do that"?

If it's the former, then yes, the user should be prevented from having training schedules like everything at the maximum, because it's not possible to load a player that hard. However, I don't see how the old system does things like that (with the overall workload and natural limitations).

If it's the latter, I disagree and users should be able to apply stupid training schedules and cry as their players turn out rubbish. What is important is that the user does recognise when they are blatantly doing something wrong (i.e. a giant, uncultured centre-back having a trequartista's training schedule). This is because there is, on occasion, a need for a player's training schedule to be rather exotic and unusual (think Ledley King and physical activity). Having a limited upgrade like this is the equivalent of lowering the skill ceiling (because users will really need to try hard to fail - you can't be dreadful at training, but you can't be excellent, either) and removing choice and customisation (like wing-backs' shooting, or your extremely exotic full-back/attacking midfielder hybrid).

I don't see the latter as "unrealistic" - I see it as "rare".

It's arguably more unrealistic to pigeonhole all your attacking full-backs into the same training schedule (with one different area of focus). It is entirely possible, for example, for one of your full-backs to be a skinny midget who needs to bulk up, and one of your full-backs to be a pacey machine who has the first-touch of Emile Heskey shooting, who needs technical training. So it is natural that they will need different training schedules (for the same role), where focus won't be enough (as it's a general weakness in multiple areas, not one glaring weakness).

Isn't that were individual training comes in, you can give your player an individual training focus so they could work on technical training or whatever they need to.

[hursty2]

Oh I agree with what your saying about the needs of differing players, who play the same role. The thing is you shouldn't be able to train up your wing back to become an exceptional finisher because it takes time and it should have its limits. If they were that good at shooting, play them up front. The old system allowed users to superficially manufacture players into something that they would never become, by redistributing attributes.

Although you should be able to bulk up your weak youngster whilst still nurturing that physical beat you have.

[hursty2]

Again I share your post 100% above all the quoted statement.

It seems to me that someone seeks to find a valid reason for everything SI does. I am not one of those sheep.

I'm not validating anything SI have said, if you read some of my previous posts in this thread, you'll see that I kind of disagree with the fact that you can't separate training for youngsters (physical vs technical). If anything you're being a sheep and not bringing forward any of your own ideas/thoughts.

[grep]

I'm not validating anything SI have said, if you read some of my previous posts in this thread, you'll see that I kind of disagree with the fact that you can't separate training for youngsters (physical vs technical). If anything you're being a sheep and not bringing forward any of your own ideas/thoughts.

I was not referring at you in fact.

[7Bestie7]

Oh I agree with what your saying about the needs of differing players, who play the same role. The thing is you shouldn't be able to train up your wing back to become an exceptional finisher because it takes time and it should have its limits. If they were that good at shooting, play them up front. The old system allowed users to superficially manufacture players into something that they would never become, by redistributing attributes.

Although you should be able to bulk up your weak youngster whilst still nurturing that physical beat you have.

Except for the fact that both Ashley Cole and Patrice Evra were strikers in their youth teams and retrained into exceptionally good attacking full/wing backs, Tom Cleverley was an average looking full back converted into a very solid central midfielder and Darren Fletcher was considered the future Beckham until he was remoulded into a good/great central ball winner.

The game is littered with players who have been completely retrained from their youth positions because of great training, manager foresight and hard work. Why should training in FM be limiting the user from being able to do exactly this?

[hursty2]

Except for the fact that both Ashley Cole and Patrice Evra were strikers in their youth teams and retrained into exceptionally good attacking full/wing backs, Tom Cleverley was an average looking full back converted into a very solid central midfielder and Darren Fletcher was considered the future Beckham until he was remoulded into a good/great central ball winner.

The game is littered with players who have been completely retrained from their youth positions because of great training, manager foresight and hard work. Why should training in FM be limiting the user from being able to do exactly this?

This would've been from a very young age. Evra obviously hasn't kept the finishing from his former striker days.

You should be able to change youngsters but what I was referring to was when you're able to change already good players for their position into different players just by redistribution of their attributes.

[x42bn6]

Isn't that were individual training comes in, you can give your player an individual training focus so they could work on technical training or whatever they need to.

There's only so much you can do with focus. What if you want, effectively, two areas of "half-focus"?

Oh I agree with what your saying about the needs of differing players, who play the same role. The thing is you shouldn't be able to train up your wing back to become an exceptional finisher because it takes time and it should have its limits.

Who said they would be able to be trained to become a natural finisher? If that is possible with the sliders, then that is a problem with the slider system (assuming, of course, that it is indeed not possible - I would argue it's an open question).

If a poor finisher is given van Nistelrooy's training schedule, you will find your finishing 1 full-back at his peak is only slightly better than Emile Heskey at finishing. That's perfectly fine (assuming this is what would happen in real-life). It's probably a waste of his training schedule, but hey! that's up to the user to decide. Maybe they wanted that all along (finishing 1 < finishing 10).

If they were that good at shooting, play them up front.

They might not be good at finishing (hence the training schedule - to make them so).

The old system allowed users to superficially manufacture players into something that they would never become, by redistributing attributes.

The thing is, you cannot know how good a player could be, because the majority of the time, most players in reality are given fairly standard training schedules (with some tweaks) - players like Ledley King are exceptions to the rule. Few full-backs would be retrained as strikers in reality, at least not at the top level (it could well happen a lot as you go down the leagues due to the lower skill requirements), but we should be able to try to make full-backs into strikers (and possibly fail - a lot).

If the ability to redistribute attributes is the problem, hiding behind a new UI won't solve anything. It's an issue with the underlying training model, i.e. the maximum workload for a particular area is unrealistic. The UI overcompensates by removing nearly all customisation.

[7Bestie7]

This would've been from a very young age. Evra obviously hasn't kept the finishing from his former striker days.

You should be able to change youngsters but what I was referring to was when you're able to change already good players for their position into different players just by redistribution of their attributes.

Evra was 20/21 when he was properly moved to left back at Monaco, roughly the same age as Cole broke through into the Arsenal first team. It's only been the last four/five years of Fletcher's career that he has stopped being shifted to the right as cover so again we're talking 20/21 before the move infield was began (maybe older).

Henry was moved infield by Wenger, Walcott wants the same positional shift. Mascherano at 26 was being retrained into a decent cerebral centre-back at Barcelona who have also retrained what was the most consistently dangerous striker in Villa into an outside/inside left.

And let's not forget how Phil Neville has been moved forward into DM, and Matthaus was moved further back the older he got. Retaining good players into different positions and helping them develop isn't something that has only existed in FM.

[spankie]

AFAIK it isn't as you have the option of retraining players and putting them on a traning schedule for the role you want to play them in.

I must admit however, that this training module doesn't work for the rare player that x42bn6 mentioned where their attributes are less suited to the new position and role you want to play him in. In these cases I don't really understand why you would want to retrain a player whos attributes are that unsuitable for the position and role.

To be honest all this talk in conjecture until the beta is released and we can try the training out to see what happens over a few seasons.

We all know that this new training module won't be perfect, but it may be the right step in making a training module that is far more realistic and caters for the people who want more options and flexibility whilst catering for people like me who want a degree of automation.

It may take several versions of FM, but hopefully SI can achive something like that in the future, even if it is by letting people create and improt new training schedules that can be used on individual players.

[hursty2]

I've made a point and I agree with what everyone else is saying.

It's the redistribution of attributes that is unrealistic and this has been covered up by a UI, which doesn't allow you to go to excessive means.

[TOUGHGUY]

AFAIK it isn't as you have the option of retraining players and putting them on a traning schedule for the role you want to play them in.

I must admit however, that this training module doesn't work for the rare player that x42bn6 mentioned where their attributes are less suited to the new position and role you want to play him in. In these cases I don't really understand why you would want to retrain a player whos attributes are that unsuitable for the position and role.

To be honest all this talk in conjecture until the beta is released and we can try the training out to see what happens over a few seasons.

We all know that this new training module won't be perfect, but it may be the right step in making a training module that is far more realistic and caters for the people who want more options and flexibility whilst catering for people like me who want a degree of automation.

It may take several versions of FM, but hopefully SI can achive something like that in the future, even if it is by letting people create and improt new training schedules that can be used on individual players.

As far as I am aware there is no "new training module" and the training is roughly the same, as the sliders were just basically locked into twenty pre-set schedules corresponding to tactics wizard player roles. That's not much of a step forward as it is... half a step sideways?

[spankie]

Or a small step backwards to take 2 steps forward in the future.

AFAIK the training module has been completely unchanged for a number of years and besides from not being as realistic as it could be it was overdue for some changes.

I think that this change could eventually lead onto something that is far more flexible for those who love to go into minute detail and far more automated for people like me who either leave it all to default or download training schedules that other people have devised.

[TOUGHGUY]

Your optimism, or is it naivety, is nice. However, some intangible two steps in the future that might or might not come do not make up for a definite, actual step back right now. Particularly when this step is in no way necessary for the training overhaul to be introduced.

Any such profound change will probably do away with the slider system we have had for years now. That in one of its (hopefully) last iterations this system was suddenly and severely limited will have no bearing on the future training module.

I don't see how the current changes could lead to 'something better'. It is still the same system, you are just not allowed to (ab-)use it fully. 'Something better' will be something different to what we have now. Whether we can or can't move our sliders.

[spankie]

Training did have to be overhauled and SI have done it in such a way to make it more realistic. You and others still want the old system so that, as you put it, you can "abuse" it.

Surely I am not the only person who can see that by letting us "abuse" training as we see fit the game is giving us an obviously unfair advantage over the training that the AI can do. The AI only has access to the default training schedules and so their players, on average, increase at a steady rate. When we use our training schedules that "abuse" the training system our players are increasing at levels that the AI can't match.

Now that is totally unrealistic that one club has a training method that increases players at levels that are far beyond the capabilty that other clubs can do. Perhaps there are other ways that SI could have changed training to level the playing field a bit, but I can't really think anything.

I remember similar complaints when the previous training system was introduced quite a few years ago. befoer then we could select each and every training exercise involved in a training like "ping in the middles" and so on. The ujprar back then is much similar to what it is now. But as you can see the change was embraced as it was seen that there were advantages with that training system.

Until we have time to play the game and evaluate the changes we have no idea if this new training schedule works. At the moment we are all basing our opinouns over screenshots and a video.

[7Bestie7]

Training did have to be overhauled and SI have done it in such a way to make it more realistic. You and others still want the old system so that, as you put it, you can "abuse" it.

Surely I am not the only person who can see that by letting us "abuse" training as we see fit the game is giving us an obviously unfair advantage over the training that the AI can do. The AI only has access to the default training schedules and so their players, on average, increase at a steady rate. When we use our training schedules that "abuse" the training system our players are increasing at levels that the AI can't match.

Now that is totally unrealistic that one club has a training method that increases players at levels that are far beyond the capabilty that other clubs can do. Perhaps there are other ways that SI could have changed training to level the playing field a bit, but I can't really think anything.

So your point is rather than increase the AI's ability to use the training system, the user's options needs to be limited until they are in line with what the current AI can do. Backwards thinking.

[spankie]

The only way to increase the AT's ability to use training schedules would vastly increase processing time as the AI would have to go through each and every player in your savegame to determine what training schedule they should be in and the game would have to repeat that every season.

I can imagine the complaints that peoples game has frozen when it's going through the code to sort the players into their right training schedule.

I am not saying that there aren't other ways that training could have been changed, if you've got any suggestion then please post them. But surely saying that nothing should have been changed is not really an option as the system was getting stale.

[x42bn6]

Training did have to be overhauled and SI have done it in such a way to make it more realistic. You and others still want the old system so that, as you put it, you can "abuse" it.

Not "abuse". "Customise", possibly to weird results.

Being able to customise is arguably more realistic, because two players do not always have the exact same training schedule. Depending on how team drills play out, a player may be asked to cover different roles which arguably affects their training schedule - i.e. a full-back who occasionally is put as a winger in 5-a-side drills arguably has a more attacking training schedule than a full-back who does not.

Surely I am not the only person who can see that by letting us "abuse" training as we see fit the game is giving us an obviously unfair advantage over the training that the AI can do. The AI only has access to the default training schedules and so their players, on average, increase at a steady rate. When we use our training schedules that "abuse" the training system our players are increasing at levels that the AI can't match.

Take the tactics creator and sliders. A user can create and abuse an exploit tactic, such as the various corner bugs over the years. Would that be an argument to remove the custom tactics altogether because the poor AI can't cope?

[7Bestie7]

The only way to increase the AT's ability to use training schedules would vastly increase processing time as the AI would have to go through each and every player in your savegame to determine what training schedule they should be in and the game would have to repeat that every season..

Not really. Give the AI the training system we see in this video, it already is able to judge what role a player should be best at so that's not an issue and it can make "guesses" at the attributes that need tweaking. How do we know? The coaches point these out to us when we're manager. Sorted.

I've got nothing against role specific training. I've got a problem with no lack of deeper tweaking to then make it personal for each player if we so wanted.

[TOUGHGUY]

Training did have to be overhauled and SI have done it in such a way to make it more realistic. You and others still want the old system so that, as you put it, you can "abuse" it.

Surely I am not the only person who can see that by letting us "abuse" training as we see fit the game is giving us an obviously unfair advantage over the training that the AI can do. The AI only has access to the default training schedules and so their players, on average, increase at a steady rate. When we use our training schedules that "abuse" the training system our players are increasing at levels that the AI can't match.

Now that is totally unrealistic that one club has a training method that increases players at levels that are far beyond the capabilty that other clubs can do. Perhaps there are other ways that SI could have changed training to level the playing field a bit, but I can't really think anything.

I remember similar complaints when the previous training system was introduced quite a few years ago. befoer then we could select each and every training exercise involved in a training like "ping in the middles" and so on. The ujprar back then is much similar to what it is now. But as you can see the change was embraced as it was seen that there were advantages with that training system.

Until we have time to play the game and evaluate the changes we have no idea if this new training schedule works. At the moment we are all basing our opinouns over screenshots and a video.

I am not really complaining anymore, there is no need for me to do that as there is no chance of any of us changing anything - I was merely pointing out how naive and completely off the argument that this change is in some way beneficial to any future training overhaul, or that it is a step that was necessary to, at some unknown point down the line, introduce a new training system. Also nowhere did I say I wanted to abuse the system.

[spankie]

You did bring up the word abuse in terms of the training that people could use under the old sceme, not me. That is what I put it into quotation marks. x42bn6's sue of the word Customized is more accurate then abuse where it comes to training schedules in the old scheme.

Complaining might not help your issue here, but constructive criticism might. Unfortuantely from both sides of the arguement there is little constructive criticism here, myself included. I can understand that you feel that some level of control has been taken away from you, which is why I think SI should at least let people write their own training schedules and import them.

If the training schedules are held in XML files then it still may be possible to edit new ones in using Notepad, we just won't know until the beta is released. I will have a look and see if it is actually possible to edit them. Just because SI don't think that it isn't possible doesn't mean that it actually isn't.

[wwfan]

My interpretation of the new training regime relates to that of the TC. Neither dumbs down the game. They just make ongoing decision making more important.

Consider how the classic tactics and training sliders work/ed. If you devised a point perfect system, you guaranteed the AI couldn't compete with your tactic nor produce players to the same calibre as you could. The skill in the game was merely down to pushing sliders into certain combinations until you found/devised a combination that guaranteed you results week-in, week-out. Then you sat back and relaxed.

The TC was intended to let the AI have a more level playing field by giving it some decent tactical concepts to access. It was also intended to help those unable to understand the messy abstractness of the sliders to quickly put together tactics. All the decision making was transferred away from the sliders into the dressing room or onto the pitch. You now had to think about which strategies, roles and instructions (plus psychological preparation) could best help you gain the small advantages considering the opposition strengths, weaknesses and formation, and the pitch and weather conditions. You could no longer just expect your minutely prepared tactic to bring you results no matter what.

The shift into the new training module seems to be bringing in the same sort of change. You can no longer set up a system of individually perfected training routines that guarantee you have every player reach his absolute ability. You have to mix and match training of individual skills, tactical roles, team training and match preparation. Decision making has become more dynamic. You ned to think about how much training to do at team and match prep levels to ensure the squad doesn't get upset with the workloads and players can develop their skills/roles more fully. You need to make a decision on this every 2-3 weeks. To much intense training mid-winter with multiple fixtures and you risk the team being knackered. Too little specialist training and your players don't develop correctly. You rarely if ever needed to worry about this previously.

Exactly the same dumbed down arguments are being made here as were made about the TC. Nothing has been dumbed down. The ability to gain huge advantages over the AI has been reduced and the "thinking" part of the game has transferred away from slider manipulation into decision making. They should all make the game harder, not easier (although the learning curve is not as steep). The only people who will be heavily affected are those who relied on perfect slider combos to get huge player development bonuses.

That's not to say it's perfect. The complaint about not being able to train for a tactical role in conjunction with training for a new position is perfectly valid. If I want a player to be a DMC, I should be able to train him for a related tactical role while training him for that position. Nonsensical to not be able to.

[TOUGHGUY]

You did bring up the word abuse in terms of the training that people could use under the old sceme, not me. That is what I put it into quotation marks. x42bn6's sue of the word Customized is more accurate then abuse where it comes to training schedules in the old scheme.

Complaining might not help your issue here, but constructive criticism might. Unfortuantely from both sides of the arguement there is little constructive criticism here, myself included. I can understand that you feel that some level of control has been taken away from you, which is why I think SI should at least let people write their own training schedules and import them.

This is what you said: 'You and others still want the old system so that, as you put it, you can "abuse" it.' - and nowhere did I say I wanted to abuse nor even alluded to wanting to "abuse" it, I just enjoyed being able to, for example, train a fullback in a different way than the one and only prescribed by the developers. As for constructive criticism - there has been enough of it. The changes to the training are fairly minimal, even if the impact seems fairly big, so there is no need for massive brainstorming or many pages worth of arguments.

My interpretation of the new training regime relates to that of the TC. Neither dumbs down the game. They just make ongoing decision making more important.

Consider how the classic tactics and training sliders work/ed. If you devised a point perfect system, you guaranteed the AI couldn't compete with your tactic nor produce players to the same calibre as you could. The skill in the game was merely down to pushing sliders into certain combinations until you found/devised a combination that guaranteed you results week-in, week-out. Then you sat back and relaxed.

The shift into the new training module seems to be bringing in the same sort of change. You can no longer set up a system of individually perfected training routines that guarantee you have every player reach his absolute ability. You have to mix and match training of individual skills, tactical roles, team training and match preparation. Decision making has become more dynamic. You ned to think about how much training to do at team and match prep levels to ensure the squad doesn't get upset with the workloads and players can develop their skills/roles more fully. You need to make a decision on this every 2-3 weeks. To much intense training mid-winter with multiple fixtures and you risk the team being knackered. Too little specialist training and your players don't develop correctly. You rarely if ever needed to worry about this previously.

Exactly the same dumbed down arguments are being made here as were made about the TC. Nothing has been dumbed down. The ability to gain huge advantages over the AI has been reduced and the "thinking" part of the game has transferred away from slider manipulation into decision making. They should all make the game harder, not easier (although the learning curve is not as steep). The only people who will be heavily affected are those who relied on perfect slider combos to get huge player development bonuses.

I cannot speak for everyone but for me the problem was always not 'dumbing down' per se, but removing options. The points wwfan makes are valid - in the end the sliders were counter-intuitive and potentially game breaking. In this regard the 'casualization' brought on by the tactics wizard is actually a good thing. But see the fullback training example above - the same applies to tactics, perhaps even more so, as ultimately they matter much more than training. With things like arrows gone, a player can't emulate Inter Milan from 2010 or thereabouts with Zanetti and Maicon. With the tactics wizard now a key and integral tool of the game, you cannot come up with and easily use interesting and new player roles - if you do, you lose the otherwise superb features of the inter-connectedness of tactics and shouts etc., and perhaps even risk the game not being able to handle it, as it suddenly pushes it outside of its 'comfort zone', so to speak. We have had 'more', now we have 'less'. I would have prefered to keep 'more' and have its problems fixed rather than have 'less' but have fewer problems.

[wwfan]

I cannot speak for everyone but for me the problem was always not 'dumbing down' per se, but removing options. The points wwfan makes are valid - in the end the sliders were counter-intuitive and potentially game breaking. In this regard the 'casualization' brought on by the tactics wizard is actually a good thing. But see the fullback training example above - the same applies to tactics, perhaps even more so, as ultimately they matter much more than training. With things like arrows gone, a player can't emulate Inter Milan from 2010 or thereabouts with Zanetti and Maicon. With the tactics wizard now a key and integral tool of the game, you cannot come up with and easily use interesting and new player roles - if you do, you lose the otherwise superb features of the inter-connectedness of tactics and shouts etc., and perhaps even risk the game not being able to handle it, as it suddenly pushes it outside of its 'comfort zone', so to speak. We have had 'more', now we have 'less'. I would have prefered to keep 'more' and have its problems fixed rather than have 'less' but have fewer problems.

Interesting post. I'd agree with one point but have issues with two.

I certainly think the core weakness of the tactics wizard is the inability for the user to change the individual settings of current roles or add new ones without losing the functionality of the shouts. I would hope that this is addressed in the future.

However, I'd disagree that the loss of arrows prevents you from emulating tactics. All they were was a second method of assigning forward runs, but robotically, as a player followed the run without "thinking" about the effectiveness of the run in relation to the ball position. Removing them has not decreased functionality, merely taken out a redundant instruction alongside adding a lot of work on FWRs to make them more realistic and effective. You have lost a little bit of lateral control, but each version of the ME adds better decision making to the players, which counters that as they increasingly have a greater tendency to move laterally into free space where possible.

I'd also strongly disagree that the TC has casualized the game. The most casual way of playing is to download a super-tactic and super-training regime, sit back and press continue. TC tactics require much more dynamic decision making during matches, meaning you have to be more focused. It has made it far easier to build a solid tactic, but much more difficult, if not impossible, to build an exploitive one. Designing an exploitive tactic does take some serious thought and masses of slider tweaking, but is it really a "cleverer" way of playing that using the strategies, roles and shouts in a TC tactic to try and win games? Many super-tactic creators simply replay games, tweaking slider settings until they see they have an advantage somewhere, then play a season out to see how much of an advantage. All that really is is finding a weakness in the ME/AI then fine-tuning a way to exploit it. I don't think removing the potential for playing that way is "dumbing down" or "casualization". Just the opposite, in fact.

[TOUGHGUY]

Interesting post. I'd agree with one point but have issues with two.

I certainly think the core weakness of the tactics wizard is the inability for the user to change the individual settings of current roles or add new ones without losing the functionality of the shouts. I would hope that this is addressed in the future.

However, I'd disagree that the loss of arrows prevents you from emulating tactics. All they were was a second method of assigning forward runs, but robotically, as a player followed the run without "thinking" about the effectiveness of the run in relation to the ball position. Removing them has not decreased functionality, merely taken out a redundant instruction alongside adding a lot of work on FWRs to make them more realistic and effective. You have lost a little bit of lateral control, but each version of the ME adds better decision making to the players, which counters that as they increasingly have a greater tendency to move laterally into free space where possible.

I'd also strongly disagree that the TC has casualized the game. The most casual way of playing is to download a super-tactic and super-training regime, sit back and press continue. TC tactics require much more dynamic decision making during matches, meaning you have to be more focused. It has made it far easier to build a solid tactic, but much more difficult, if not impossible, to build an exploitive one. Designing an exploitive tactic does take some serious thought and masses of slider tweaking, but is it really a "cleverer" way of playing that using the strategies, roles and shouts in a TC tactic to try and win games? Many super-tactic creators simply replay games, tweaking slider settings until they see they have an advantage somewhere, then play a season out to see how much of an advantage. All that really is is finding a weakness in the ME/AI then fine-tuning a way to exploit it. I don't think removing the potential for playing that way is "dumbing down" or "casualization". Just the opposite, in fact.

I am of course not talking about arrows of the past two or three games, which are indeed just the forward runs setting, but forward/back/side arrows - those that admittely could often break the game, but they also allowed to emulate real life tactics. Those were not "just another way of setting up forward runs", they were a tool for better positioning and swapping of players. Yes, they were not perfect, but you just cannot simply wave away and dismiss players losing "a bit of lateral control" when right now there is little or none of it. How can you now (or rather, since about two or three titles ago when the f-arrows were removed) emulate the Inter Milan setup of 2010 or thereabouts with Zanetti playing both as a defensive midfielder right in the middle of the pitch, but also as a right back, with Maicon not just supporting the attack from his right back position with occasional runs, but actually playing as a right winger for extended periods of time?

The casualization comment was not meant in a bad way, it could have read 'streamlining' or 'becoming more user friendly' or whatever. In fact, I believe I did in the couple of sentences that followed explain how most of the changes in the user interface (which actually does remind me of another favorite topic of mine - how many of the 'changes' we have seen over the last couple of years are just interface changes as opposed to actual gameplay or game mechanics changes), how this 'casualization' was ultimately a good thing. Or perhaps more precisely, how its intended goals are commendable, as sometimes their application leaves something to be desired. Still, the point stands, and it is hard to dislike the idea of a system that not only does work within parameters the game is able to handle, but is also clever enough to work as a dynamic whole, with one change, one shout, changing several things accordingly and easily, making it more fun for the player, and above all does so in a concise and clear way. As I alluded to in the previous post, this kind of 'dumbing down' or 'casualization' - again we can call it 'having a better user interface that more clearly communicates the underlying system' - this shift towards a greater ease of use is not at all a problem. That arises only when when functionality suffers as a result

[wwfan]

I am of course not talking about arrows of the past two or three games, which are indeed just the forward runs setting, but forward/back/side arrows - those that admittely could often break the game, but they also allowed to emulate real life tactics. Those were not "just another way of setting up forward runs", they were a tool for better positioning and swapping of players. Yes, they were not perfect, but you just cannot simply wave away and dismiss players losing "a bit of lateral control" when right now there is little or none of it. How can you now (or rather, since about two or three titles ago when the f-arrows were removed) emulate the Inter Milan setup of 2010 or thereabouts with Zanetti playing both as a defensive midfielder right in the middle of the pitch, but also as a right back, with Maicon not just supporting the attack from his right back position with occasional runs, but actually playing as a right winger for extended periods of time?

I was talking about those arrows. They didn't quite work that way. If, for example, you played Zanetti as a DMCR and wanted him to cover the DR position, he couldn't do it dynamically. You could either position him as a DR with a farrow to DMCR or as a DMCR with a barrow to DR. In both instances, as soon as the team won or lost possession, he would run to his secondary position no matter where the ball was on the pitch or whether that move made any sense or not. If the run intersected the path of the ball/ball carrier, he might get involved in defending. If not, he was just blindly shuttling between positions.

The lateral movements (cuts inside / moves into channels / hugs touchline) were supposed to help with this loss of lateral positioning functionality and make the decision making of the player better. Although it works quite well for attacking players, we have lost some functionality in defence. You can't tell a DMC to drop deep into the back line when in possession (a la Busquets, at times, for Barcelona), instruct the DMCs to move wider, or the FBs to tuck in or cover if the other advances. However, the system does allow for such possibilities to be added, whereas the static element of the arrows prevents it. The only problem is developing an interface that enables this extra lateral movement, which is a tricky task indeed.

[BiggusD]

I was talking about those arrows. They didn't quite work that way. If, for example, you played Zanetti as a DMCR and wanted him to cover the DR position, he couldn't do it dynamically. You could either position him as a DR with a farrow to DMCR or as a DMCR with a barrow to DR. In both instances, as soon as the team won or lost possession, he would run to his secondary position no matter where the ball was on the pitch or whether that move made any sense or not. If the run intersected the path of the ball/ball carrier, he might get involved in defending. If not, he was just blindly shuttling between positions.

The lateral movements (cuts inside / moves into channels / hugs touchline) were supposed to help with this loss of lateral positioning functionality and make the decision making of the player better. Although it works quite well for attacking players, we have lost some functionality in defence. You can't tell a DMC to drop deep into the back line when in possession (a la Busquets, at times, for Barcelona), instruct the DMCs to move wider, or the FBs to tuck in or cover if the other advances. However, the system does allow for such possibilities to be added, whereas the static element of the arrows prevents it. The only problem is developing an interface that enables this extra lateral movement, which is a tricky task indeed.

Yes this is why I have proposed that the Mentality slider is divided into Attacking and Defensive mentality. This way you will have better control of each player's responsibilities on the pitch. There are some problems about doing this, though; if they are independent of each other customization is at the maximum but you would have the issue of "tweakers" like me trying out crazy stuff like maxing out both attacking and defensive mentalities (or minimizing both) and what happens then? If they are interconnected so that reducing one increases the other, their functionality would become very linear... or boring I might say. It would just be a better visual representation of the current single slider.

But the -potential- of getting things right is undoubtedly higher with two independent sliders for mentality.

[greco]

a real life manager could create whatever schedule he´d like for a certain player and so should we be able to. We always get the same line regarding press conferences, that its a realistic feature as it exits in real life, AND SO DOES CREATING COMPLETELY INDIVIDUAL TRAINING SCHEDULES.

The AI cant keep up with us, so therefore the obvious choice was to remove our freedom and options.??? Here´s a suggestion, how about improving the AI.? This is taking a step backwards imo and quite frankly pitifull.

[Keyzer Soze]

I tend to agree with greco.

I think this is the first time SI implement a feature, or modify a feature, that give the user less options when compare with the precious version.

Even when they introduce the TC, we still have the older slider system as option, so no harm was done there.

I'm not saying that the older slider system for training was perfect, and i agree that we human manager could get great bennefits from this system, creating schedules that improve, perhaps unrealistic, players.

But the question is... Is the right aproach reducing the options of training, so that human managers can't deviate much from the AI manager ability to train?

I believe not, and the fact is, SI never took this road before! For example, we all know the capacity to create super tactics by human managers, and did SI ever decide to reduce the tactics options and freedom so that we could only built tactics as AI do? No... they have been improving the game, improving the AI, so that even when human manager create those kind of tactics, the game is getting harder and harder.

We have to wait i see, if this aproach by SI will be the right one, but one thing is sure... not always the easiest path is the right one.

[WizbaII]

I admit I do like the freedom of the sliders and how simple they are to use. I'm sure the new system will make just as much sense, though. I'm sure SI has some valid reason as to why they changed it and so I'm trusting this new system will be fine. It's just a matter of getting used to change.

[TOUGHGUY]

I was talking about those arrows. They didn't quite work that way. If, for example, you played Zanetti as a DMCR and wanted him to cover the DR position, he couldn't do it dynamically. You could either position him as a DR with a farrow to DMCR or as a DMCR with a barrow to DR. In both instances, as soon as the team won or lost possession, he would run to his secondary position no matter where the ball was on the pitch or whether that move made any sense or not. If the run intersected the path of the ball/ball carrier, he might get involved in defending. If not, he was just blindly shuttling between positions.

Yes, as I said, they were far from perfect, but the fact remains that they were basically the ony tool available to the player trying to emulate what Inter did, or simply put the only way of giving the player more positional and particularly lateral movement options in general - again, something impossible to do since then. Getting rid of a quirky, if fun, but ultimately broken feature would of course not bother anyone much, but we are talking about something as fundamental to football as player positioning and different shapes when defending or attacking, about basic functionality - which has been removed and not replaced.

It is not a particularly nice way of putting things, and the resources and work involved are of course incomparable, but to use a couple of examples - no wonder some people are getting jaded when things like press conference tones are introduced, but issues remain unresolved for years and there is no way for players to have their team play like Barcelona - i.e. your Busquets example, or central defenders spreading wide on occasion - the biggest, most successful, probably most popular in the world right now. Which I think is fair to say is something you would expect players to be able to do.