Tactics Creator vs. Classic Tactics

[RTHerringbone]

Morning all,

To avoid this topic taking over the ME1325 feedback thread, I'll attempt to condense the posts in that thread below.

Everything loses context with the way I'm quoting below, but these were the pertinent points (in my eyes).

The true context can be found within the ME1325 thread (http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/339887-Match-Engine-Update-13.2.1-ME-1325-Constructive-feedback-here-please/page20), in between ME1325 feedback posts.

The general gist started with a discussion about how player roles can appear to merge, how FM translates football, whether TC or Sliders adequately capture the essence of football, whether individuals are expressive enough, and other such stuff:

I don't really care about such things as "roles and duties". If I was asked "where do you, BiggusD, want your winger to move off the ball?" I would answer "where there is space, obviously". "And where do you want him to pass or cross?" "wherever another player has found or created space, obviously". "How tight do you want your players to mark the opponents, BiggusD?" "As tight as is necessary to prevent them from turning around and advance, obviously". "When/where do you want your players to start closing down an opponent advancing with the ball?" "Right in front of the first line of defense as soon as we have lost possession, obviously".

But I'm not allowed to build a tactic in this manner because the consensus is that a good manager in real life needs to tell his players all of the above from the sideline every match, because the players don't know how to play football and all tactics are specialized tools.

I agree with a lot of this TBH. I know FM is "Football Manager" but I still think it's gone a little far to being purely "Football Manager" and players seem to be a robotic entity now seemingly controlled by every mortal thing we do without being able to think for themselves. Even silly things I have in the game like two of my players finding it difficult to motivate themselves to play for my Captain Kevin Nolan seems to make life difficult especially considering how difficult it is anyway to get a captain with an influence stat of 18 and the fact that there is no option for me to tell them to grow up!!

Take Man United. Now if you play as Man United 9 times out of 10 against lesser opposition you should be able to win playing 4-4-2 because you have the players. Not every time as real life shows but you should have a good chance because your players are better and make decisions themselves. Do we really think Fergie told Giggs to launch that long ball forward to Van Persie on Sunday? Do we really think that Fergie told Van Persie how to control it and how to shoot? In the same game do we really think Big Sam told Joe Cole to "cut inside" and "cross from deep" to James Collins for both goals? No..... They are off the cuff decisions made by in those cases by good players as depending on the in game situation at the time. Granted most players wouldn't have been able to play that pass or control and finish, or even make that decision, but good or bad all players make decisions for the entire 90 minutes.

I know wwfan probably disagrees with me but after playing and managing in football for years I am a great believer that "all" players should try everything and probably have to try everything in a game because situations in a game call for that. Therefore in FM for years I am a great believer in having most settings on "mixed". I played as a striker but I am no more than 5 foot 5 but that didn't mean I didn't hold the ball up once in a while or attempt to win a header, Andy Carroll I wasn't but at the same time I didn't look to chase through balls off the shoulder of the defender "all the time" either, I just adjusted my decisions and way of playing depending on how our attack was going. And when I was out wide it was to find space and not a pre conceived idea taught by my manager and if I did cross the ball it was when I got a chance, I certainly didn't delay because I had been instructed to only cross from the byline!! Not every player can do everything and very few can do everything well but if you limit a player to only "pass short" or "hug the touchline" you are going to have problems when something occurs in opposition "to his instructions".

Players do have brains (footballing brains at least) and I just think with all these settings and roles now in the game we are literally making it a game of "Battle of the Managers" rather than managing a football team and as most managers will freely admit "not being able to influence the result too much once your players cross that white line".

I think there is a point in there: FM is catering to a more hands-on managerial approach -- but likewise, if all the tactical decisions to make in the game were on the same general level BiggusD is suggesting, FIFA Manager players would laugh their butts off (even though but the most shallow of their increasingly detailed team and player instructions aren't lost in translation on their way to the horrible pitch engine). Also, if players were actually this robotic and relied so much on your instructions as is suggested, which then they would follow to a T, I think tons more people would deeply struggle with the game. You are able to do well with fairly basic setups, as long as they are sound, and have always been able to do so. That is because there is you, and then are your player's decisions.

All I did on during my first FM seasons was tweaking the global mentality, passing and tempo settings a little, all long since extinct, and as long as I had a decent squad available and didn't give them instructions that would make them all sit back to invite pressure, spray them out all over the pitch so that they couldn't communicate or just bomb the opponent's box with six players and not a tiny bit of space in sight, they performed to expectations or thereabouts. It is both a bit ironic and inevitable at the same time that the TC later introduced into the game to make more in-depth tactical decisions more accessible and less abstract and decidedly less trial and error is now perceived as a massive shift in development. To a point it caused a shift, as the AI certainly has a far wider scope and nuanced options it utlizes during a match. Who doesn't remember the stallwart 4-2-4 formations it applied by default in desperate attempts to overrun the player and snatch a late equalizer? The time-wasting and endless passing around the back it often would apply 30 minutes into a game to see it out?

However, I don't think that shift is overall the case. FM's match sim is still no less or more about players as it has ever has been - that the movement has always been into the manager's hands to a large degree (PPMs influencing aside), has always been the case. With the arrows of old, arguably much more so, in much less realistic ways. However, as before, each of them players benefits from someone who fields them with a halfway sound logics attached. :-)

My take is that there has to be a level of tactical instruction, and I also feel that the move to Tactics Creator and Shouts from Classic Tactics is more intuitive, less ambiguous, and feels more human.

Sussex Hammer shares my broader hypothesis that (paraphrasing) "big teams should beat small teams more often than not". This is true in real life, and in FM.

The examples of Joe Cole vs. Man U are 100% valid and are replicated in FM with PPMs and player intelligence (Joe Cole maybe not a good example!) via attributes.

Is player intelligence and player individuality sufficiently simulated in FM? I don't know, but the risk is that if the framework reverses from tactical framework first, player intelligence / PPMs second, then that for me loses the essence of CM / FM.

BiggusD and Sussex Hammer aren't saying they just want to choose a formation and players and let nature takes it's course. I share the sentiment but can't put into words what it is they are after. Is it fun?

There is a real balancing act between micro-management and less involved management, and I think FM manages to tread that line well.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Certainly I am not and never have been interested in picking one formation and winning every game. Even though I still use Classic Tactics I at least have two and will sometimes tinker during the game. If I get beat I get beat but at times what bugs me is the inconsistency in the game and the lack of in game feedback which is of any real use. Perfect example in the game I am playing is that with my Away Tactic I beat Arsenal 4-1 at home and played some lovely stuff. The next week I played Man City at Home and whilst only got beat 3-0 in the stats side of things I got absolutely battered. Whereas I had good possession the week before against a good Arsenal team a week later it all fell apart and I am scratching my head because they played the same formations and I think Arsenal and Man City are similar in the game and the two teams I struggle against. The following week I beat Liverpool and then came unstuck against a Villa side who hadn't won in six weeks!!! Don't get me wrong I am not expecting to win all those games and yes it does happen IRL but it's a game and not real life so if some variables in the game just gang up against you one week which makes it impossible to win a game no matter what you do it does become a lottery.

Maybe half the problem is I am not an in depth player, ie I watch only extended highlights and not full match as I don't have the time. So maybe the one big thing that could improve is Assistant Manager feedback because it is pretty useless at the moment. In game he tells me that I would be better off with a shorter passing so I do, then two minutes later he suggests more direct passing!!! He then says that we are only threatening with long shots from too far out, despite the fact that all my players are on rare long shots! Then training - Every week he has it on Attacking Set Pieces so I take over and put it on Tactics then get a ticking off that it should be on a higher setting. In FM12 once in a while you had some feedback that was helpful from your Assistant like Man City do this or that so it was advised we concentrated on this or that in training,. It was a rarity to see though but it would be a good permanent addition. So for all sorts of gamer a better in match and build up Assistant Feed Back would probably be the best addition SI could make.

There has to be a balance in the level of tactical instruction though. As a real life manager myself I may ask a player to come back for a corner or free kick or mark an opposition player more tightly but I cannot say I have ever shouted to play wider or higher during a game. If you go one down the team starts to play more attacking to get the goal back anyway automatically and that is player decision and intelligence and also which is most overlooked in FM is the on field influence of the Captain. He IRL probably makes more on field decisions as the managers. You look at Managers in the live games, most of the stuff they are shouting is a quick point here and there to a player who is probably not looking anyway. So just a better balance between "management" and "player intelligence and decision" is all that's needed.

Would the ability to use shouts for individual players help atall? obviously appropriate ones.

I'd love to see that, pre-programme shouts for individuals as well that change with substitutions etc; i.e. shouts/instructions to individuals rather than a postition or role.

Just to jump back a few posts to the 'individual player shouts' idea, perhaps there's a middle ground - instructions for 'sets' of players. I'm thinking of something as broad as 'defenders/midfield/forwards'. Let's use the given example and say 'trailing by a goal in injury time'.

You could instruct your defence to hoof the ball up the pitch as soon as they get it, the midfield to push up and support the forwards who are asked to hold it up and wait for the extra men from midfield.

There's not too much 'faff' in there, and it would give a lot more control over your team without going overboard and having to tell every individual player what you want them to do every time you decide you want to change your approach.

Don't use the TC but I know what you mean but my concern would be we would be again moving further away from player ability, intelligence and decision making being a factor in the outcome of a fixture? My big worry about FM is that even though it's called Football Manager surely we don't want a game that is purely results based on the decisions of "you" the manager alone regardless of the quality of players you have at your disposal.

IRL to be a successful Football Club, yes a good Manager helps but generally it is the size of the Club and what quality players you can bring to your Club that brings that success, and to be a big Club and have quality players that is generally down to money. That's why the top sides are who they are, the Man United's and Chelsea's and Man City's and two of those were very ordinary before money played it's part. Pop Pepe Guardiola or Alex Ferguson in the hot seat at Reading they wouldn't be winning you the Premier League but put Brian McDermott in at Man Utd and he surely isn't going to do too badly because he has the players and money to spend on better than he can afford at Reading.

It's great that FM is trying to become as real life as possible but lets not forget that half the fun over the years was the fairly unrealistic options of getting money from a merchandising feeder Club, selling some of your players for extortionate fees and receiving unrealistic transfer budgets from your board or new sugar daddy to make your favourite Club a challenger to trophies they wouldn't have a chance of getting IRL. Take away that possibility in FM and you will have a very dull game.

I'd be more a fan of a pre match meeting with a decent AI Assistant rather than a TC where you discuss the opposition strengths and weaknesses, discuss your own and pick a team and formation accordingly. Maybe have a handful of shouts mid game if required and have a more in depth tactical discussion at half time. That would be truer to life than being able to shout 25 things at players in game who get confused very easily!!! Then after the game maybe a post match discussion with that efficient AI Assistant to see what worked and what didn't.

However, firstly we have to have an ME that allows you to play the way you want which means if you have players with rare long shots they won't hit it from 35 yards every time or if you are a goal down and have all your players on long passes they won't play keep ball in your back four until the cows come home!!! ;-)

I struggle with this argument as it is far too literal and confuses the necessity of limitations in game-play with how the real world works.

Firstly, classic v creator tactics. It is far more easy for a user to make a tactic that makes player quality completely irrelevant through the classic model. Why? The TC removes the fine-tuned control classic managers have access to. You are far more reliant on player quality because of this than you ever are when micro-setting sliders. The TC limits the manager to exactly the same decision structures as the AI, meaning he cannot magically beat everyone by getting his players to do something the AI is not capable of. The quality of the player becomes far more important that the structure of the tactic. In contrast, classic tactics can completely break the ME, giving the AI no chance of competing. Player quality becomes almost an irrelevance.

Secondly, nowhere in the game does it state that the "Shouts" as a match strategy cannot pre-exist the tactic and thus are not part of pre-match or in-match discussions. Indeed, you can develop and load up shout combinations to impose a playing style or match strategy prior to every game. You are restricting them to being something the manager only initiates during live play. That is not what they are nor how they are intended. I can accept that they are not integrated into the game as much as they could be and are sorely lacking from the training module, for example, resulting in people thinking that way. However, they are anything but random things shouted out from the sidelines to hopefully change games. They should be conceptualised as pre-match tactical planning put into operation, as should roles, duties, strategies and adjustments, and can be used to exactly simulate the meeting between the Assistant and manager. The FMC match plans touch at this and perhaps should be more integral to full fat FM.

Thirdly, as discussed in the tactics' forum, your idea that footballers should do a bit of everything and be trusted by the manager to make decisions on the pitch is fully integrated into the TC in the Very Fluid philosophy and generic role settings. Granted, there is no Vanilla Role for all positions in which every player is told to do everything on 'Mixed', which is what you seem to want. Do you really believe DCs should be given equal freedom to Run With the Ball as wingers? If so, then the TC doesn't do what you want. However, if you think they should be allowed to if the right opportunity opens up, then Very Fluid, the generic DC/D role/duty and some good decision making defenders will produce exactly what you are after.

Fourthly, you seem to think that your way of managing is the only way people manage. You state:

You continually misinterpret my position. I fully accept that some managers manage that way, and that the Very Fluid philosophy encourages and supports this belief. What I don't accept is that all managers manage this way, simply because of the reams of evidence, theoretical, empirical and practical, that they don't. Some manager are total control freaks and cannot abide players who deviate from their tactical plan. FM has to cater for both schools, in the extreme and the positions in between. The TC does that.

Ultimately, I think you are too focused on sliders and assume that your interpretation of them is how they actually work. That is the reason for your dissatisfaction with the tactical module. It has to be, because it does everything you are asking it to do and has actually moved the game significantly towards the necessity of having good players to do well and made dominance through exact tactical control far less likely, if not impossible. I'd go as far as flipping your whole argument over and argue that the sliders undermined player ability, intelligence and decision making, whereas the TC illuminates them.

The attributes are absolutely key. You need to create multiple chance types to break down a defence. To do that, you have to rely on FBs crossing or wingers dribbling, at least to an extent. What you can do using the sliders (or, at least, used to be able to do) is manipulate the players so they generated a series of one-dimensional chance types that the AI couldn't defend against or adapt to. In reality, a decent team would quickly adjust and mop you up. The knowledge of how you played would spread through the league, and all teams would counter your one-dimensionality.

Various aspects of the current ME have stopped a great degree of succeeding through one-dimensional ME and AI busting approaches. Many users have struggled in FM13 because they've suddenly discovered that they don't know how to create a range of chances. The range comes from perceiving your tactic holistically. You look at where you want to be creating chances, then do your best to train / buy players that fit into the system, or adapt it to those you do have. You know have to work out how to balance skills and attributes across a team, not just channel the ball to the one or two players who can make a difference.

If you have a good team, then you will have players capable of generating all these chance types on a regular basis, because they have good attributes. If not, then you'll struggle more, because your FB with a crossing of 7 keeps on overhitting his balls. What you can no longer do is artificially restrict everyone from trying all the things they should be doing in a holistic tactic and channel play through one or two key players, because the AI can now defend it. Good players and attributes are key across the whole squad, not just a few players.

Yeah I agree with this, actually. Holistic tactics is exactly what I am asking for. However, I'd argue that underpinning the TC is the idea that a certain singular approach should be achievable. Well not the TC but the roles and duties, really; the DMC D should defend and win possession of the ball, the AP MC should create chances, the IFA should join the TM in the box and the WS should cross to them. That's what people mean when they feel this ME does not make their players "follow the instructions". The expectation is that this should be what the players choose to do on a regular basis, regardless of other options, and they are of course disappointed since that is not how things work neither in FM nor in real life.

To avoid this misinterpretation of your TC, WWfan, maybe these specific roles should be optional along with more generalized roles in a team instruction system that.... pfff I mean, your constant communication to "keep it simple" indicates that people are confused and the wording of certain instructions should be looked at? I need to go to work but certainly you know what I mean?

Great stuff above, initiated by wwfan's response to Sussex Hammer's post.

wwfan far better articulates what I failed to do when I wrote "My take is that there has to be a level of tactical instruction, and I also feel that the move to Tactics Creator and Shouts from Classic Tactics is more intuitive, less ambiguous, and feels more human."

What I find interesting is that BiggusD and Sussex Hammer both (I think) use Classic Tactics, but their comments relate to the interpretation of player instructions and intelligence.

Classic Tactics for me are the embodiment of perfunctory tactics; TC is really intuitive and whilst Roles and Duties may not be regarded as perfect, they allow you to immediately control multiple perfunctory sliders and yield the same results (when coupled with shouts) as if you adjusted them all individually in Classic Tactics (albeit you can't remove individuals' propensity to run / shoot / cross without manually tweaking their sliders).

There's no way I'd begin to challenge wwfan's knowledge of in-game tactics considering his direct input into them, but what could be questioned is his ability to remain entirely objective considering that level of input. However, that's what forums are about; alternate views being discussed.

I believe that TC and Shouts are excellent, and that they enable BiggusD, Sussex Hammer et al to achieve broadly what they want.

However, I do feel that something remains lacking; I'm not yet convinced that individuality is sufficiently expressed within the frameworks we set. I don't have any hard and fast examples of this though, so it's just a hypothesis rather than a fact.

I'm not going to argue that the TC couldn't be more sophisticated or that the instructions couldn't be clearer. Of course it and they could. However, that's not the only problem.

We had a forum and scene wide misperception that the TC "dumbed down" the game and a long-time obsession with designing and downloading super-tactics. FM13 illustrated just how many people had never even tried the TC beyond a couple of cursory games after which they gave up as it "didn't work". We also have to deal with people obsessing about exactly what each slider means and thinking that a couple of clicks make all the difference in the world. We then have the "I understand football and it's not my tactics" posters. Not to mention myths about tactics-cracking, super-goalies and other AI cheats.

Add on the expectations that players should religiously follow instructions, no matter what, plus the notion that you should do well simply by setting sliders to mirror attributes, and you'll see the massive issue we have. Lots of bad but complex theories and blind hubris obfuscating what is really a very simple game. It's not just the lack of in-game info, but the masses of bad out-of-game info the fan forums generate. My method of dealing with it is strongly challenging those who try to spread incorrect information (as you've seen for yourself) and offering simple advice for those willing to listen.

In answer to your other point, the current ME certainly impacts on the TC in its mis-balance between long shots and through balls, but that's something I expect to improve. I also don't think it makes a logically sound tactic suddenly stop winning. If it did, it would never have been released.

I completely agree, atm almost all my tactics feature major changes to creative freedom and closing down, to achieve what I want. And then I make minor really minor changes to mentality. Its not to say that the philosophies are wrong, its just that I want a different style of football to be played. You can achieve good football with the TC and in fact I would recommend everyone should use the TC regardless of your knowledge of the game, but if one wants to use the custom tactic creator they need to know what they are doing. Once you get comfortable with the TC, you will be surprised at the football you can produce with minor changes.

The shouts arent even vital to the game, since you can actually get the same effect by modifying some elements in your tactic. The reason why the shouts exist is to help people achieve a certain level of play without having to delve into the complexities of moving sliders and ticks around to achieve what many perceive to be a fundamental style of play. I've seen some bizarre assertions made by people, the worse of them being mirror instructions based on the players you have..thats way too much micromanagement. The game is simple, the TC is just a simplified way of putting various styles of play out there.. consider them a template. Once people stop overcomplicating things..it should be easier, FM12 wasnt a better engine than FM13.

There are glaring issues with the engine but these are in no way game enders.

@BiggusD The challenge that your tactical process creates though is for the audience you upload to.

A holistic locked down tactic can only work without tweaks in a linear environment where the AI doesn't respond. The theory behind how the team is set up is all well and good, but as soon as the opposition drops deep, plays wider, goes direct.....

You may have the expertise to use Classic Tactics to respond to those AI responses, but I know from experience in the Upload forum that as soon as stuff goes wrong, you are probably getting inundated with people saying "how do I.....".

This is a symptom of the one dimensional nature of a Classic Tactic - one dimensional in the sense that if Plan A doesn't work, then to form Plan B you need to start moving sliders.

I don't think that many people actually understand sliders, and whilst uploading tactics is done with good intent, it possibly discourages users from learning.

That in turn generates a lot of the ire we see in this forum, which is probably people just not attempting to understand what is going wrong.

If the tactic is designed to both be able to counter-attack and have long, patient attacks without sending too many players forward too early, the players should have the framework at hand to be able to deal with various strategies employed by the opposition. I think I have achieved this, but I don't know if anyone else experiences the same when using it. I reject the notion that there is a need to respond to anything - simply because a response is an attempt at dealing with a problem, not a success. If FM ever became a game where the AI auto-stops your approach by doing "the right change" (even if it is logically the right thing to do), then it would become unplayable.

I disagree with the learning part. Many people can learn a lot by downloading a functional tactic and see what its creator did, as well as by using it until it is familiar and then tweak it based on observation.

Fair enough. I appreciate the difficulty of satisfying two extreme opposites; those who want a very specific game-plan to be followed to the letter and those who want on-the-spot decision-making. However, I believe there is an under-reported third group; those who don't really know what they want to achieve when making a tactic. Formulating that idea or philosophy requires insight not only into football but also how FM translates it. Not everyone is that analytical, or patient enough to figure it out for themselves the hard way. The problem, then, is that the TC or the game around it does not explain how to achieve what they vaguely believe they want from their tactic. If the tactic is unsound, the 3d animations do not really communicate what the problem is, and the assistant certainly do not. What if the TC is simplified even further as an option?

1. Choose formation

2. Choose philosophy: General or Specialized

3. If General, choose Strategy; Urgent, Standard, Patient

4. Give the tactic a name and save it.

5. If Specialized, you continue with the current TC ui

In other words, if you want you could create a "vanilla" tactic in three clicks, and this would be a rather fluid, symmetrical tactic with general roles like MC-s and MC-d and WM-A x2 and a DLF-S and an AF-A etc, and then these roles must be designed to leave most of the decision-making up to the players. Right now I feel that these "standard" roles are set to do too many things at Often, and the current Standard strategy is too passive. It should keep things tight in the back and allocate -enough- resources to overwhelm the opponent if the players are better, so the decision-making of the players should really be enough to control the match without manually dedicating more players forward and changing the playing-style by switching to Control.

This is where the discussion becomes interesting, I for one think that the TC for a new kid on the block, is going to be very challenging. In fact, I think that whilst it does a good job of making solid tactics, it makes a poor job of translating how the the tactic works holistically. For example, what do philosophies mean and what do they do? Then we get to strategy it says counter attacking..but when you look at the team playing it looks like its playing possession based football?; atm this is the TCs glaring weakness. The match engine merely translates the instructions that come from the Tactical Creator. So its fairly easy for someone to choose 4 shouts and go what the heck..its not working. FM14's biggest challenge will not be further refinement of the engine, but the Tactical Creator's relevance to translating football. Getting the TC to translate everything will mean adding so much complexity to the game that it will start becoming too hard to play. We dont need it to be dumbed down either, what we need are better definitions by style of play when you have the ball and when you don't. Thats what teams do in real life.

Style of Play (with ball) - Possession Based, Attacking, Balanced and Defensive, this should set your mentality, creative freedom dline, closing down

Urgency of Play (with ball) - Patient, Balanced, Fast, this should affect tempo, passing and timewasting.

Style of Play (without ball) Full Press, Forward Press, Press in Own Half, Press in Own third this sets closing down, Zonal Tight. Zonal Loose, Man Tight Man Loose

If I were to go into a game for the first time and I see something like that, I can actually visualize how my team will play the game, I am not suggesting that we should overhaul the TC, but I reckon if we were to either A, make better definitions or B, include styles of play when we have and don't have the ball, then more people will be able to translate the TC to get the football they want.

Interesting this discussion about TC vs Classic. Myself, I feel TC is the way forward beyond 13, but we need to make the roles far more recognisable inside the ME..........this will I feel add hugely to the experience.

But we are digressing

Maybe so Paul... but it would be a huge step backwards to take away the ability to manually tweak in the form of classic tactics too...

That's a huge part of football management and to simplify it right down to the TC would be horrible.

I dont see why, the sliders are nothing but confusing and unhelpful unless you have used them for years, the TC is easy to understand with a lot of room for improvement and expansion. I'd like to see FM without sliders at some point.

They did that with the training module.

I use the TC, but i like the way it is implemented right now. Because you can adjust (tweak) your player/team instructions starting from a base that the TC gives you.

When i built a tactic, i always start from the default "values" that the TC gives me, and after watching the team playing i'll adjust (with the slidders) my team and player instructions.

To remove the possibility to adjust this, it could be a dangerous path to go to, simply because will leave us with less freedom to change things.

[milnerpoint]

didnt copy my comment over

[Äktsjon Männ]

Eventually the sliders have to go. But there's a long way to go yet before the TC is anywhere near detailed and varied enough for that to be beneficial. I certainly wouldn't buy the game if it only gave me the TC in its current limited form with no ability to tweak any preset.

[RTHerringbone]

didnt copy my comment over

Or did I?!

Updated to include you and welshace - I started pasting stuff before those comments had appeared on my screen.

I'm trying to sneakily do this at work in a small window onscreen too......

[milnerpoint]

Or did I?!

Updated to include you and welshace - I started pasting stuff before those comments had appeared on my screen.

I'm trying to sneakily do this at work in a small window onscreen too......

Haha good man!

[lunarsea]

I think sliders are important, and perhaps it should be more clearly explained to the user specifically what difference it makes when one adjusts the Mentality of a player from the most defensive to the most attacking, and in exactly what ways it impacts their behaviour. Because right now it's just about anyone's guess unless they have been playing for a long time.

Personally, I don't want to see the sliders disappear and be replaced only by player roles and team shouts right now. Sometimes (or quite often, depending on what team you play with), you will have at least one or two players who don't "fit the mould" of a specific player role, i.e. they will have either a very strong or weak attribute that a player normally in their position does/doesn't have. If it reaches a point where you are unable to alter specific aspects of a player's game, it will destroy a large part of what football management is about.

Also, whilst the Match Engine is in the somewhat poor state it's in right now - whereby players DON'T seem currently capable of making the "right" decision in most of their given opportunities and where the player roles don't seem to be working properly NOR are specific slider instructions (i.e. excessive long shots and lack of through balls just to name two sliders that are being ignored by the AI) - there's going to be a big problem if sliders are taken away altogether.

If it reaches a point where the AI both follows your tactical instructions AND can also see in a clear opportunity where there is a better decision to be made which deviates from their instructions (i.e. if a big striker is free on the far post but the winger has only been instructed to drill crosses from the byline, yet has the "intelligence" to deviate from this), then it might be a different story.

But right now, I think the major focus of SI should be to program the ME so it plays out as much like a realistic game of football as possible AND your players will follow your instructions faithfully unless they can see a better option available at the time (and their Creative Freedom level allows this). Both of which are currently lacking from FM13 in my opinion.

[milnerpoint]

Eventually the sliders have to go. But there's a long way to go yet before the TC is anywhere near detailed and varied enough for that to be beneficial. I certainly wouldn't buy the game if it only gave me the TC in its current limited form with no ability to tweak any preset.

Yeah id agree with that. At some point it would be good to completely move away from them, but only when the TC is able to do more than it can at the moment. You dont NEED to tweak everything, but you should still be able to make the decision on it if you like that kinda thing.

[RTHerringbone]

I think lunarsea's post is a thing of beauty, and contains several very good points.

I agree that sliders cannot be entirely dropped now, but also believe that the TC will evolve to a point where it allows users full control of individuals and so will eventually render sliders redundant.

I'm not sure how big a role player intelligence currently plays in allowing players to deviate from the framework we set.

It would be interesting to know, but probably hard to articulate for PaulC, wwfan and others "in the know".

I don't want the ME to be a prescriptive case of "I have set a, b and c, and that is what I have seen". There absolutely must be individuality, but not to such a point that your created tactical philosophy cannot be recognised.

[lunarsea]

I think lunarsea's post is a thing of beauty, and contains several very good points.

Sir, you are my new best friend!

[Mighty Red]

I try to get my tactic largely in place using the TC, and then just use the sliders to remove instructions that are not needed. For example, I may want a wing-back in the FB position to get forward and overload the opposition flank but he's useless at dribbling. I therefore need him to do an attacking WB role but set run with ball to rarely - so I do this through the slider. If, as I think I saw someone suggest, that we had individual shouts then I could live without the slider (i.e. I could get this message to him via the shout).

Of course, I'd love to buy a player that could run with ball - but until I've got the cash....

[RTHerringbone]

Another good post relating to this in the ME feedback thread:

Exactly my thoughts.

I have gone from pissed about the removal of the screen in the past, to only using classic and micromanaging sliders, to use the TC exclusively with some very minor tweaks for a given player.

As some have said, a coach doesn't tell his midfielders, stay one click in attack lower than your partner, and pass the ball to 9 yards as your partner will pass to 11,3 yards. Instead you would tell them, stay a bit more defensive than your partner and try short passes to control the game. It means less micromanaging, but it's more realistic than classic sliders, and for sure way less confusing for new FM players.

I still would like to hear from those that still micromanage every slider, if they really think there is a noticeable difference in what is displayed in the ME is one players has passing at 10 and another at 11. Imho there should be just short, mix and long passes and that is what the roles and shouts do, and not to have an scale of 1-10 with no differences unless you set it at the middle or extremes.

I think most of us have enough knowledge about football tactics, but find it hard to translate them to sliders with very confusing labels. That is exactly the TC purpose, but FM still fails on:

- Strategy and philosophies names, still too confusing and very limited.

IE: If i want my team to go more attacking to tie a game, i might want them to push higher, take more risks on their passes and moves without ball, and to have more players going up the field, but it doesn't mean necessarily that i want to them to play totally wide hugging touchline and crossing often and to kick long balls as soon as they get the ball. That is why the attacking strategy is not working, as imho it only suits teams with quick wingers and a TM but not for example teams with skilled midfielders, no wing play and quick but small striker. So if i want to attack but not playing wide and crossing, i need to select attacking, then use 3 or 4 shouts to counter the settings that attacking tactic has predefined.

- Roles, some are very well defined, but others are not that much, so they require some sliders adjustments, what if we could save those as our own predefined roles that perfectly suit our players?

- ME that doesn't fully represent what is created and defined in the TC.

This is my biggest frustration right now, as the current ME doesn't suit the football I see in la Liga, and seems more biased to the stereotypes of old English football playing 442.

Of course i wouldn't ever get rid of the classic mode and sliders as some FM customers still love it, but of course if they mess their tactics or create supper tactics that way, then they shouldn't complain that much, or maybe to have a tactical forum split in two, the same for the ME feedback thread.

[Sussex Hammer]

Great idea to put this thread up as I was feeling guilty putting my posts up in a thread not designed for the purpose. And I do love a good discussion even if I get pummelled to pieces by wwfan all the time!!! :-)

Can I just start by saying I have absolutely nothing against the TC. I actually think it's a great tool but it's in it's present form not for me as I just don't feel in control of what I am doing. Strange comments from someone who uses the sliders some may think, so let me explain.

I far from understand the sliders 100%, I am not claiming I do but I am a tinkerer, a blind tinkerer maybe but that's what I have always loved about this game. I also don't use just one Classic tactic. I have three, Home, Away and Attacking and won't always use them as their name suggests and sometimes adjust individual team sliders in match. I have played three seasons in a new game and have gone 5th, 6th and presently 7th with West Ham and by god have I tinkered on the way but have now become happy with the three tactics I have although they will probably become useless after the new patch!!! ;-) However, in my defence because most (not all) but most player settings are on mixed I actually think they are about as balanced as you can get tactic wise because by having "mixed" settings I don't aim at one way of trying to exploit any ME weakness. All I am trying to do with "mixed" settings is give my players an option. Eg, Matt Jarvis. A winger but not particularly high stats in dribbling or crossing but he is fairly pacey. So with his limited dribbling skills I can't expect him to cross from the byline all the time so I have him on mixed crossing.

Easier to put him down as a winger in the TC I hear some say?! Well yes and no IMO. I did try to embrace the TC. I picked my team formation and starting strategy and then picked each player for the roles I had chosen in the TC. Nolan as an Attacking Midfielder, Noble as a deep lying playmaker, all as per the players advice screen. I then played the games and did use shouts fairly willy nilly I have to say because I use extended highlights. I won 4, drew 2 and lost 2 which is a fair record for a newby with the TC. However I didn't feel fulfilled after each game. The shouts and changes in strategy I used in game were the reasons for me winning so the tactic that won that game was in the end a totally different tactic to the one I started with and because I don't make a note of the changes I made I am feeling oblivious to what actually worked and what didn't, I just felt like a selection of random choices got me the result not giving me much reasoning as to why and what benefits it had given my team. I honestly felt like I had played the game using someone else's ideas rather than my own.

Then I started reading some of the threads with people questioning what role would Player A be suited to because his ideal role according to his information screen wasn't working. Stands to reason really as Kevin Nolan the Attacking Midfielder is somewhat different to Samir Nasri the Attacking Midfielder. Andy Carroll as a Target Man is somehwhat different to how you would play Robin an Persie as a TM, and so forth so I just felt player roles were somewhat boxed under one banner. Some of the TC sliders seemed confusing as well. Poachers with Run From Deep often?? Don't you want him up there all the time? Practically ALL forwards are on a high creative freedom? Why?

Half the problem is we still don't know after all these years "exactly" what half the terms in FM mean or do. Search Creative Freedom, Defensive Line, Mentality, Time Wasting etc and there will be numerous threads and posts with conflicting opinions. Take CF. One person will say that to get the best out of Sergio Aguero you need to allow him a lot of CF. The next will say he is better utilised in low CF. Time Wasting : Someone will say it's kick it into the stands in the last 10 minutes or your player will run towards the corner flag. Whereas someone else will say higher TW will make your team take their time in a build up or a striker will take his time on a chance and couple that with his CF level his decision making will change. Useless unless you know exactly what each instruction means. If you are one up with 10 minutes to go you may want to defend deep and hit a team quickly and direct on the break but at the same time if it goes out for your throw in or corner you don't want your player running to quickly collect the ball. So how do you set that up? Defend deep, direct passing with low timewasting or high timewasting? We need someone, like wwfan to make a bible in the manual once and for all 100% stating that this is what each instruction does because we have been arguing about what each does since 2006 and no one seems any the wiser!!!

It's just my humble opinion but when I do well with my classic set I actually feel that's down to me rather than slotting in someone else's ideas and as strange as it sounds I feel more in control. I think it would be a shame that to win a game you had to tactically outthink the AI every time they made a change or tweak your strategy because they neutralise the effectiveness of your approach every five minutes. It's football, not chess and I still think there is a place in football for the "let them worry about us rather than us worry about them approach" because in a lot of cases it "should" be down to the quality of players you have.

At this point in time if SI got rid of the sliders I probably wouldn't buy the game but that's not to say that I wouldn't embrace the TC again in the future, and as I said in one of my other posts I think there is a massive potential to utilise a higher IQ AI Assistant in future versions.

I'll just finish by saying I am not right or wrong and I am certainly not saying anyone else is right or wrong. If it's advice on how to play the game then I am not the person to ask it's definitely the likes of wwfan and Cleon who can help you. I am just merely outlining my feelings and personal opinion. And as I said I am in no way criticising the TC. I would advise anyone to use it rather than the classic approach. Maybe I am just a dinosaur who hates change but life takes all sorts!!!

PS, How many changes and tweaks can you make to a TC Tactic before shouts become useless and it becomes basically a classic tactic? Always wondered that!!!

[Rashidi]

All fair and valid points ralsed and RT beat me to creating the post lol...i just returned from my evening run.

I raised a point in my blog a while back about the relevance of the game with modern day tactical systems and I concluded that it came up short. The engine has promise but what a lot of people fail to understand is the level of complexity thats needed in making a system work. I have stopped talking in terms of tactics and have now treated the game as a system of play which is fundamentally more accurate to whats really happening in the real world. Now where people generally fail at making systems work is because they compartmentalize the game and make each individual part far to complex. A recent discussion in TT&Q regarding creative freedom springs to mind. The game needs to be treated holistically, and this is where I believe even the AI manager fails desperately. Whats needed imho is an overall approach that defines how the game is played by both the AI manager and the Human Manager.

Let me elaborate, At present we have these fundamental issues in the game : the AI manager lacks ambition, regens come out looking like they have been trained randomly..AI managers in games dont react realistically enough when they are a goal up with 5 minutes to go..

To treat the tactical side of the game separately imho is flawed, what we need to do is look at the whole thing systematically. Clubs need to characteristics based on the style of football they want to play...and they should train players with a view to achieving that style of play, managers need to develop in the game over time to be either more tactically astute over time and adopting various strategies to counter shifts in a game, and shifts in league position. I have seen Liverpool field their first 11 in a league cup game then collapse 4-1 5 days later when they faced United. No top class team will field their best eleven in the league cup early round stages. AI managers need to be able to rotate their squads for different levels of competition..etc etc. These are elements in the game that need to be addressed.

This all then gets interlinked with the tactical creator. Presently the tactical creators definitions aren't good enough, they are fine for people like me cos I understand to a tee, what each slider, attribute arrow does but to the novice player, he is going to assume the gospel truth when he looks at strategy, and then he is going to get confused with philosophy and then hes going to give up when you tell him that a fluid system is incompatible with having multiple specialized roles. Give this to Hiddink and he will fail at making a tactic. No. What the game desperately needs realistic and simple definitions, that people understand. I guarantee you that most people will get confused if they are told to adopt a counter attacking strategy if they want to play a patient probing game. What the game needs to do is to define styles of play better.I have already alluded to a simple example earlier which has been quoted in this thread.

What we should do is to expand this further by offering presets for training as well for AI managers, if an AI manager wants to create a high octane possession based tactic then it has to identify those ppms it needs to achieve that goal. What the majority of people dont understand is the vital role ppms now play in the game. If you want to get a Messi like player then he needs to learn the ppms get forward as much as possible, looks for killer balls, likes to dribble the ball through the centre and place the shots. Then go get the AI team to identify these players within its team and then train players accordingly. Futhermore AI teams can have distinct styles of play by hiring the right people for the Bootroom. What this will do in the long run, is make teams that invest time and effort in training really hard to beat.

For human managers they need to understand this vital part of the game too, so here a human manager who doesnt want to micro manage can then look for an Assman who has the right mental attributes to achieve a certain style of play, and within the formation that he plays so well he can then automate the ppms needed. AI staff desperately need to know more than ONE TACTIC, I cant accept the notion that a coach in a top club like Manchester United only knows 442 formation? They play up to 3 formations a season, my profile should show this. And these tactics then get embedded into the system for the coaches so when they are assigned ppms they can choose the ppms for you accordingly. Naturally they wont be as good as a person like me micromanaging my side, but that should be the difference between the top gamers and the average gamers.

Should the tactical creator be dumbed down to the point where sliders are removed. NEVER. Until the TC can translate EVERY role a human manager can conceive this should not be allowed to happen. Presently I am happy to say I have a great 442 working where my DC dribbles the ball from my half to the opponents penalty box. This was achieved by a combination of sliders, instructions and ppms. Its now a great sight to see especially since a hole isnt created in my defense. Tactics are dead, and have been for a while now, I am happy to see that with the right combination of tactics and training you can actually get a wonderful system working. I reckon the custom tactic creator should be removed, but the tactical creator in its present form can stay but with the option of adjusting the sliders. What we need to do is to make the definitions easier to understand.

There are various tactical systems that arent in the game atm, we shouldnt be limited to a game without sliders. I hate the sliders at the present moment, I have for ages but its the only way I can get some interesting patterns happening. What I want to see is the possibility of creating custom "styles". So if I wanted to create a barca system where I patiently probe at the back, play narrow and cramped in my own half then unleash with direct passing in the final third, I want to be able to create the "system" name it, and export it. If a system then becomes successful I want the AI manager to attempt to copy it and toss it back at me, and he will never be able to achieve it unless he grabs all my backroom staff. Furthermore I would like the option of creating my own roles within the game.

I believe with collision physics and the added variability that the current match engine has this is possible. The upside is you gonna have a game with different styles of play, different kinds of players coming from clubs with different philosophies but the downside is, you gonna make it really hard for someone to take Stafford to the Premiership in consecutive seasons and then stomp over the rest.

[RTHerringbone]

Stunning post rashidi1, and full of good ideas.

I love your vision of the holistic approach to "systems of play", and have been happily pinching your approach to PPMs for a few weeks now.

It is such a key point because as you say, the AI doesn't appear to have the opportunity to apply all of these elements as part of a single end goal. Your training preset suggestion for AI teams bridges this apparent gap.

Increased intelligence for the AssMan and AI in general would truly push the game to a phenomenal level.

Your point regarding the embedding of a philosophy "I want the AI manager to attempt to copy it and toss it back at me, and he will never be able to achieve it unless he grabs all my backroom staff." is also a great one, and encourages users to build a real legacy.

Above all, and as touched upon in Sussex Hammer's equally brilliant post, is the feeling that definitions and terms aren't as clearly defined as they could be.

Removing that ambiguity alone would be a big positive, and would be achieved with nil coding effort.

[Icy]

Good points Rashidi.

As for the AI in general, there is a thread from yesterday in this same forum analysing the long term games and AI after 30 years, just looking at CA, and it states that the AI does a good job in FM13 keeping the CA levels constant. What that study has not done, obviously because it would require a massive manual effort, is to check team by team, to if the players they have hired or grown as young players match their playing style.

An (exaggerated) example would be that i can keep the CA constant in my team in 3 years but to have only 25 goalkeepers, in that case the average CA would mean nothing as my team would suck.

The AI in general seems to look mainly and maybe only at CA, and not ppm, positions, specific attributes, etc and in general how a player fits your tactic as a human does.

Your ideas are very good, the AI managers should have their own playing styles (they have already in the DB) but they should also search for the players that are the best fit for their tactic and now just to look at the CA to build their squads and to train their youngsters.

Back in topic about the TC.

What we need is more flexibility as you said. For example, i might want an attacking tactic but with short passing and quick triangle passing, like Barcelona, and it's totally counterintuitive that i need to either use attacking strategy and then either slider adjustments or shouts to stop the wing play, crossing and long balls default from that tactic, or to use counter strategy (even less intuitive) but lower time wasting and raise tempo.

It could be fixed with the current TC just allowing us to have saved custom player roles and custom shouts.

For example, i might have a custom shout that just raises the mentality 5 points to all my players and to raise tempo 5 points. That way my team will play more offensive but keeping same overall play style.

Same with custom roles adapted to our own players.

[milnerpoint]

What we need is more flexibility as you said. For example, i might want an attacking tactic but with short passing and quick triangle passing, like Barcelona, and it's totally counterintuitive that i need to either use attacking strategy and then either slider adjustments or shouts to stop the wing play, crossing and long balls default from that tactic, or to use counter strategy (even less intuitive) but lower time wasting and raise tempo.

One thing on that point, is that not part of creating a tactic? Your going for a very very specific way of playing football, one only adopted by a few teams around the world. Do you not think you should have to put more thought into that, than just setting up a normal attacking team? When i want an attacking formation, i want it to do all that you described above, i want the team to play wider, get the ball wide to stretch the game, i want longer quicker balls forward and i want balls pumped into the box as often as possible.

edit: another point to consider is Barca dont really play an attcking formation at all, there set up is a primarily defense one, they keep the ball so much because the other team cant score when they have the ball.

It would be quite interesting to see if SI could incorporate something like playing style, but they would have to add a hell of a lot of styles to make it worthwhile i think.

[BiggusD]

There is no noticeable difference to what a player does if you increase one of his sliders one notch. However, the tactical balance may strengthen or weaken so that over time the likelyhood of certain events increase or decrease.

After all, that is what FM is all about; numbers.

I'm not privy to inside information about the code, but by observing the game for years, it is clear to me that whenever the ME calculates that a goal has been scored and you get to see a highlight where how it happened is animated, that calculation is based on probabilities. So when you build a tactic, you increase or decrease the probability of something. There is a lot of perceived randomness to the game that is not random at all, and realizing this can improve the ability to read what is going on on the pitch a lot.

For instance, I don't see this cross-to-far-post defending problem nearly as much as some complaints in the feedback threads would indicate. I did see it a lot before I made my full backs stay back more, though. Also, with two DMC's and nobody between them and the strikers, there is a lot of space there for the opponent, but on the flanks I have up to three players closing down aggressively, sluicing their attacking play into the centre where I have four players tightly together. If they do create something on the flanks, usually through sending their wing-backs forward, I make changes to stop them, like specific man marking and/or withdrawing my own wingers one notch. Thus, I reduce the probability of the opponent managing to score a goal that way, and then such highlights do not appear. Instead, they shoot from outside the box, centrally. Or cross from deep into the box, where I should have five players. Similarly, setting your winger to cross often does not mean that the likelyhood of you scoring on a cross from that flank increases significantly. It only means that he will do it also when the movement in the box is less than stellar (compared to Sometimes, not Rarely). The clue is therefore to ensure that when your winger has the ball on the flank, there is good movement in the box and then he should cross when it is right to do so, and it is here that the most significant slider comes into the picture: Run from Deep.

Run from Deep does not do what it says it does. A better name would be Run Timing, with the three choices Immidiately, Wait a little and Wait a while. When you gain possession, RfD influences when your players decide to start running forward. Personally I don't see the point in setting any player to do so half a second after the team gains possession of the ball. Counter-attacks are launched automatically even though you haven't ticked off the button, and if the opposition is not out of balance it is very risky and quite frankly rather detrimental to almost any strategy I can think of to lurch ahead uncritically. I mean, you would have to go almost Overload to have the right tempo to use those runs for anything worthwhile. Similarly, Rarely was very good in FM12, but in FM13 full backs and strikers wait too long for my tactic at least, while the defensive midfielders are too eager to bounce off the offside line with Sometimes, and a bit too cautious with Rarely. I suppose if you play a slow, short passing game most of the players should be set to Rarely run from deep so that enough players are making themselves available for a pass... because that is the point here; when a forward, midfielder or full back starts such a forward run, they don't stop until they reach the opponent's defensive line and then they are not good enough at making space for themselves and others.

So if your winger is advancing up the flank looking for a cross opportunity, there must be enough players with good movement inside the box that he can do so properly. Otherwise there is no point to do so, and this means that the runs of the other forwards and midfielders and full backs can't be over at that point because then they will stand still and they will be marked. Thus, Passing Range(style), Tempo, Mentality and Run from Deep must be timed so that by the time the winger is ready to cross, the other players haven't already reach the target area.

In my opinion, the Attacking strategies and the Attacking duties of the TC do not pull this off well enough in the ME. I guess you could offset the disadvantages of the Attack strategy by setting all players to Support and Defend duties, but this is unintuitive. The same could be said about the Defensive strategies which would be better off with a higher tempo and quicker forward runs, which is more intuitive at least to me.

[Sussex Hammer]

Good points by all and especially Rashidi with the phrase "system of play". I cannot think of a better way of putting how I would ideally like to play in FM.....

It's actually got me thinking how one dimensional in many ways FM is with regard to tactical systems, hence why I try and leave most of my players on mixed. Let me explain.

My perfect way of playing which I aspire to is the way West Ham played in the mid 80's, especially the 1985-86 season. In a nutshell it was free flowing, attacking, one touch football. However the way the team played IRL is filled with headaches for me when trying to get it to work in FM because there are illogicality's to that system of play when trying to get it to work in a game with the tools at our disposal.

The team played attacking yet Centre Backs Tony Gale and Alvin Martin were not quick players and by their own admission they played a deep defensive line to protect themselves from their lack of pace. Straight away some would be confused as to how you can play attacking with a deep defensive line. One touch passing suggests short passing, bit again that is not necessarily so. West Ham mixed it up, short and quick to the wide men or a direct pass over the top for the strikers to run onto the ball. Already that is at loggerheads with the "manuals" suggestion that passing and tempo are linked and short passing is best used with a slow tempo and direct passing with a quick tempo!! They were also more than adept in a counter attacking game, but it wasn't launched forward up to the "big man", it was quick/short and direct, a very difficult thing to get right in your tactical set up.

Other individual roles are equally tough to set up in the present game. Alan Devonshire was a wide midfielder who was more than at home cutting inside and playing quick one two's with the strikers (again a move practically impossible to implement) or running at the left back with a turn of pace. I mean by that Devonshire "had gears", he slowed down approaching the full back then accelerated past him and crossed from the byline. Certainly players in FM are one paced and a change through the gears is impossible to implement. Basically he is assessing what to do all the time in his mind, do I go inside or do I go down the line translates in FM to "mixed" instructions but without a high enough player intelligence to implement it.

On to strikers McAvennie and Cottee. Cottee was a poacher, a lazy so and so whose job it was to score goals, however he developed a work ethic during the course of that season to close down defenders or cut off the supply to the goalkeeper preventing a pass back. At times however he would step back, refrain from closing down to help keep the teams shape. You haven't got a setting in FM to close down differently depending on the situation in one tactic. McAvennie would chase everywhere, move into the channels (if we are talking about the width of the pitch rather than between the centre backs - another phrase which is an area of confusion) and yet he was found centrally in the penalty area enough times to head for goal so once again "mixed" settings required!! So not custom roles so to speak but a mixed bag with emphasis placed on their strengths as a player and their reading of a situation at any point during the game.

Same goes for team play. You can quite happily knock it around short but if a full back breaks forward or a striker makes a run a long direct pass may be called for. Another great old West Ham example,, the near post cross. In FM you can instruct your wingers to cross to the near post but in open play there isn't an option as far as I can see to tell your striker to attack that near post to wait for the cross to arrive.

I look forward to the day that the TC may be able to allow ALL types of moves and systems of play, it will truly be a fantastic game when that happens.

[themadsheep2001]

Some excellent stuff here.

Sussex, did you ever read some of SFrasers threads? You would have really liked his Meet the System thread.

[mortiscausa]

Other individual roles are equally tough to set up in the present game. Alan Devonshire was a wide midfielder who was more than at home cutting inside and playing quick one two's with the strikers (again a move practically impossible to implement)

At least in FM12 I have done it. My IF and DLF exchanged a lot of one two's -PPM's. Although it took 2-3 seasons to find correct players and to teach them right PPMs.

[RTHerringbone]

PPMs and how / when they are used (in isolation and in combination with other players) are the individual expressions of intelligence which enable us to break from the general template of tactics.

This thread contains a load of quality input so far, and I'm keen to see how some of the "usual suspects" from the Tactics forum respond to some of the content.

I think that ultimately everybody aims to converge on the same FM end product, but we are approaching it from a range of angles and a range of knowledge of the product, and it is these factors which drive the debate.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

I struggle with this argument as it is far too literal and confuses the necessity of limitations in game-play with how the real world works.

Firstly, classic v creator tactics. It is far more easy for a user to make a tactic that makes player quality completely irrelevant through the classic model. Why? The TC removes the fine-tuned control classic managers have access to. You are far more reliant on player quality because of this than you ever are when micro-setting sliders. The TC limits the manager to exactly the same decision structures as the AI, meaning he cannot magically beat everyone by getting his players to do something the AI is not capable of. The quality of the player becomes far more important that the structure of the tactic. In contrast, classic tactics can completely break the ME, giving the AI no chance of competing. Player quality becomes almost an irrelevance.

Are AI managers restricted to the same explanations, given to human players, in the manual, or are they privy to clearer/actual/updated info? (eg your recent explanation of Creative Freedom)

[also transferred from me feedback thread]

[Sussex Hammer]

Some excellent stuff here.

Sussex, did you ever read some of SFrasers threads? You would have really liked his Meet the System thread.

Read some of the stuff and it's a good read I'll probably look in more depth sometime....

RE PPM's.... What does annoy me is this for example. Kevin Nolan has a PPM where he slows play down. Now in the position he plays in I don't want that, I want him making quick through balls. My coach says he is too old to unlearn the move of slowing play down and even if I persist eventually it says Nolan has failed to do this etc. Same as Andy Carroll he has a PPM of first time shooting, which a lot of the time doesn't come off!! Again he is apparently too experienced to unlearn the move!! Age IMO is no barrier, whatever age they are they should be willing to learn something to better the teams performance so there should be more options with regard to this.

[Cleon]

Read some of the stuff and it's a good read I'll probably look in more depth sometime....

RE PPM's.... What does annoy me is this for example. Kevin Nolan has a PPM where he slows play down. Now in the position he plays in I don't want that, I want him making quick through balls. My coach says he is too old to unlearn the move of slowing play down and even if I persist eventually it says Nolan has failed to do this etc. Same as Andy Carroll he has a PPM of first time shooting, which a lot of the time doesn't come off!! Again he is apparently too experienced to unlearn the move!! Age IMO is no barrier, whatever age they are they should be willing to learn something to better the teams performance so there should be more options with regard to this.

Make sure you use the appropriate coach when unlearning them, they work majority of time then I found. I.e attacking moves an attacking coach and so on.

[DGN]

Tactics Creator is far more powerful than Classic IMO.

I'm playing with "standard" strategy and "balanced" style using only one tweak* to the formation settings provided by the Tactic Creator - see Cleons post which has been very helpful for me

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/342124-FM-13.2.1-Reducing-long-shots-and-increasing-through-balls

Anyway, by watching the ebb and flow of the game and using the necessary shouts I can generally eek out some kind of result, my best was 2-0 down away from home after 20 mins, we finished winning 2-5 using "Work ball into box", "Retain Possession" and "Exploit the Middle" - it would take a degree of time to micro manage each player using the classic system and implementing similar shouts.

*Long shots set to "rarely" on all players for the obvious ME issue!

[Kuchiki]

It's my belief that you should always be able to customize player roles or you should have a much wider variety of player roles to choose from. Currently there are things which bug me with player roles like ball winning midfielders having longshots on sometimes - useless if your bwm is rubbbish at long shots or having an advanced playmaker on high dribbling - useless if your player has rubbish dribbling.

[Svenc]

On to strikers McAvennie and Cottee. Cottee was a poacher, a lazy so and so whose job it was to score goals, however he developed a work ethic during the course of that season to close down defenders or cut off the supply to the goalkeeper preventing a pass back. At times however he would step back, refrain from closing down to help keep the teams shape. You haven't got a setting in FM to close down differently depending on the situation in one tactic.

Not my intend to fully derail this thread, but seeing as some of the "gurus" are just around the corner, maybe that can be cleared up: The influence on closing down to me isn't situational, but to my eyes it's barely visible full stop. I can do what I want, the ball carrier is always pushed unless he's half a mile away from the next player, and even within the opponent's half I would see MC's doing plenty chasing the ball even if they are set to the least aggressive you can go, and that includes mentality settings. What are you actually looking at when deciding that your team appears to close down too hard/too little? The shape is lost anyway as soon as someone has the ball, because he starts being chased - now by packs of two or three - even if you OI your players to never close that player down.

On PES or FIFA, such settings are immediately obvious, as players more and more put the ball carrier under pressure, here it's mostly all the same to me.

[milnerpoint]

It's my belief that you should always be able to customize player roles or you should have a much wider variety of player roles to choose from. Currently there are things which bug me with player roles like ball winning midfielders having longshots on sometimes - useless if your bwm is rubbbish at long shots or having an advanced playmaker on high dribbling - useless if your player has rubbish dribbling.

You can adjust both of those things already.

[BiggusD]

Not my intend to fully derail this thread, but seeing as some of the "gurus" are just around the corner, maybe that can be cleared up: The influence on closing down to me isn't situational, but to my eyes it's barely visible full stop. I can do what I want, the ball carrier is always pushed unless he's half a mile away from the next player, and even within the opponent's half I would see MC's doing plenty chasing the ball even if they are set to the least aggressive you can go, and that includes mentality settings. What are you actually looking at when deciding that your team appears to close down too hard/too little? The shape is lost anyway as soon as someone has the ball, because he starts being chased - now by packs of two or three - even if you OI your players to never close that player down.

On PES or FIFA, such settings are immediately obvious, as players more and more put the ball carrier under pressure, here it's mostly all the same to me.

All I know is that I saw a clear difference in the number of highlights where the opponent was passing the ball around in the back, drawing me out eventually, when I tried lowering the Closing Down setting from Max (20) to first of Whole Pitch (15) for my non-defender players. When I reset it to max, the highlights where I was drawn out of position all but disappeared.

Since you are standing off keeping it tight, one of the ways to counter that; drawing you out, has a higher likelyhood of taking place. The most common way my ultradefensive, cynical 5-4-1 tactic is broken down is that despite being set to almost minimum Defensive Line and little Closing Down, I am drawn out and "countered" upon. Obviously, the likelyhood of a through-ball, cross or being outplayed centrally are lower than the already existing counter-attack strategy. Utterly ridiculous, of course, but that is how it is...

[RTHerringbone]

PPMs and how / when they are used (in isolation and in combination with other players) are the individual expressions of intelligence which enable us to break from the general template of tactics.

This thread contains a load of quality input so far, and I'm keen to see how some of the "usual suspects" from the Tactics forum respond to some of the content.

I think that ultimately everybody aims to converge on the same FM end product, but we are approaching it from a range of angles and a range of knowledge of the product, and it is these factors which drive the debate.

I'm reading more and more about PPMs.

What I want to know for sure is what triggers when a PPM is used, and whether a domino effect up the pitch can be seen with PPMs where players down the same flank have complementary PPMs.

So, what triggers my right wingback when running forward to use his "Play One Twos" PPM with my DLP?

What triggers my DLP to return the ball courtesy of his own "Play One Twos" PPM?

What triggers my wingback to then use his "Cut Inside" PPM?

What then triggers my DLP to intelligently notice a player moving into his space, and use his "Moves Into Channels" PPM etc.?

Is it all about space and movement; a players' perception of space and their intelligence in being able to identify the opportunity?

[NakS]

Some very good points here. My 2cts.

1. Wording and ingame documentation:

I don't think the wording is good enough to be fair. It's not clear for everyone that counter, control, attacking are just "relative names" to describe what is a more risky or cautious game along with team settings. Barcelona is playing possession, where is that option? It is completely unintuitive to go counter to achieve this, except if you know what you are doing, not tactically speaking, but when translating IRL tactical concepts into FM TC concepts...That's what need refinements in ingame documentation and I fully agree with rashidi on this.

2. TC, shouts and holistic system:

Shouts are more accurate in the wording in what they do. "hit early crosses" and "work ball into box" or "shot on sight" for example are pretty cristal clear. These are basic football concepts that, I think, need to be more available when using TC and from what TC should be looking inspiration when setting up a tactical system when it comes to wording. TC and shouts were meant to work hand in hand but I somehow fail to see the obvious link for a newcomer in this. Sure you can create groups of shouts and firing them right before the game but I thin they are not integrated enough in TC and match preparation and if SI wants to go "holistic road" more then something as to be done here, both in logic of thinking/setting up things in UI.

3. Team instructions and shouts:

When creating a base system, I am thinking which style I want to achieve and i feel shouts and some team instructions to be redundant sometimes. For the newcomer, what is the difference between "get the ball forward" and "more direct"? Nowhere it is hinted than one is increasing tempo apart from passing range. "Press more" and "push higher up" are both modyfing D-Line and Closing down. Meanwhile "more expressive" is more "base system/concept" tool when making a tactic. Tacking hard and get stuck in? In TC, teams instructions are called "playing styles" and a group of shouts before game is about playing style as well. It may be confusing for some and a bit redundant. I don't know if you see where I am coming from but TC - Team instructions - Pre-game shouts need to be more integrated, more connected, more clear.

4. No more sliders? I am on the fence on this one. First I feel people should not, at first, be focused on sliders as these are not football concepts but tools, simple as that. On the other hand, I feel more experienced users should be able (advanced mode is great for that) to go further than base TC concepts. For that reason, I don't want sliders to be removed just yet even if I feel TC was a great step forward, not dumbing down at all, when it comes to flexibility. What it lacks is "custom flexibility" in my opinion when it comes to "number sliders" like closing down, mentality structure and passing. I don't have any problems with editing CF; RWB, LS, TTB or hold-up ball as this is more player's instructions than team one. An example with mentality structure, here are 2 3 years old pictures that I made to help people visualizing what philosophie are about.

Easy to spot that very rigis is five groups, rigid is four and are groups are made position wise. Philosophies are concepts and if I have my own concepts for passing, mentality or closing down (which is too rigid in my opinion) I should be able to design a "structure" of my liking that fit my tactical concept. In a 4231 with CM, I am using a half fluid/half rigid mentality structure. My back 4 + 2CMs (RDF-rare- are on the same mentality to reduce space between line so I have a 6 people unites. But as the same time I have 2 layers of attack with 3AM and 1 striker on top. I may have workaround using balanced and DLP roles though but it is not convenient and elegant. I may want a short passing game for my 2CBs-DMC, but very direct on the wings to reach high flying wingers for example, then again very short for my forwards. What if I think closing down should not be function of position? If I go very fluid, why not having a very fluid, high press, uniform closing down system? Basically, the ability to create concepts for passing, mentality and closing down. It's not about tinkering, creating exploit or anything, it's about translating more easily

5. Not holistic enough? I completelty agree that tactics should not be worked in isolation. I'd go even further and say tactics/trainings and players development are 2 sides if the same coin and except all of this, like PPM, HoY, specific style coaching badges, match preparation, shouts, tactics, to be more clearly and holisticaly link.

Here is an extract of a feedback thread I have done regarding new training module in FM13 which illustrates my point to match group of shouts with workshop.

Example 2.

I'd like to set a simple yet specific offensive mobility and high press workshop for some players including : workrate, stamina, acceleration, agility, off the ball. The thinking behing is simple, I want all my AMC and Wingers, ST to be deadly when looking for space, getting into it and be ready asap (first touch) to make offensive actions like passing/long shot. In defensive phase, I want them to harass more efficiently the opponent.

Basically I want them to practise high press, mobility and use of offensive space.

Why the new training module is restrictive

• I am not able to practise attribute related to a basic footballing action like closing down and finding offensive space for a group of player (say front 4). Sames goes for crossing, making run from deep ; harassing opponent, play offside trap ; keep defensive shape, etc…

What I propose

Simple. Possibility to edit and create role training with obvious constraints (6 attributs max for example, at least 3) to keep the game balanced and prevent "training exploits".

Based on this possibility and since individual training is based on role, I think group training/workshop/individual options could be based on shouts as well. Let’s take some examples, I am using Cleon’s work regarding shouts to illustrate my point

Play Out of Defence – It will instruct any player with a defensive duty (midfield and defence) to play shorter passes. So it reduces passing. It’s worth using this if you find that these players are just hoofing the ball forward and giving possession away cheaply.

Workshop : For defenders and midfielders of my choice: passing + creativity + composure.

Stay On Feet – Everyone (unless you use a BWM) will be instructed to easy tackle. This is useful if you feel challenges are been miss-timed or if you are just been reckless. Also good to use if your players are lack the tackling attribute. Using this also helps the team keep its defensive shape, especially against technically fast sides.

Workshop : Positioning – Concentration – Anticipation – Stamina

Get Stuck In - This tells the team to tackle hard. Useful if the motivation widget tells you if the opposition are playing nervous or if a team has low bravery. Use this if you get the sense of your team been to0 soft and you think they could be winning the ball back quicker. Note though that you need the correct attributes from your own players to time the challenge right or you could pick up extra bookings and sending off’s.

Workshop : Tackling – Balance – Strength – Anticipation – Acceleration

Run At Defence - Instructs all attacking players to run with the ball often. This does not include MC’s on attacking duty, only attacking midfielders. This is best used when the opposition allows your attacking players time on the ball .i.e. not closing you down. It can be a great shout to use if the opposition is standing off you. It can be equally effective if the oppositions defence are bad at tackling as well.

Workshop for AM, wingers, strikers: Dribbling – Balance – Flair – Agility – Acceleration

Shoot On Sight – Increases the long shots for your team. Can be used against sides that are deemed to park the bus in front of the goal. Advisable to use if your attacking players have a good long shot attribute.

Workshop : long shot – technique – first touch

This is training coupled with tactical projection. What I usually so at the beginning of the season is to use team comparison tools and assess my assets amongst other team in my league. If i have a creativity/passing/off the ball advantage I usually set as a starting shouts « pass into space ». This workshop option would complement very well a TC and shouts way of playing.

[RTHerringbone]

NakS, great stuff. What would also be useful in any Training Workshop would be for players to also be trained on PPMs which suit the element being learned.

So, with Run At Defense as an example, it may be sensible to ask all players in the module to learn PPM "Run With Ball" to supplement the attributes being trained.

Obviously this can be achieved manually in isolation, but it would be nice to be able to ring fence a broader concept of training and development for a selection of players in one module.

[Svenc]

All I know is that I saw a clear difference in the number of highlights where the opponent was passing the ball around in the back, drawing me out eventually, when I tried lowering the Closing Down setting from Max (20) to first of Whole Pitch (15) for my non-defender players. When I reset it to max, the highlights where I was drawn out of position all but disappeared.

Since you are standing off keeping it tight, one of the ways to counter that; drawing you out, has a higher likelyhood of taking place. The most common way my ultradefensive, cynical 5-4-1 tactic is broken down is that despite being set to almost minimum Defensive Line and little Closing Down, I am drawn out and "countered" upon. Obviously, the likelyhood of a through-ball, cross or being outplayed centrally are lower than the already existing counter-attack strategy. Utterly ridiculous, of course, but that is how it is...

Well, I'm watching matches in full pretty frequently, in terms of players actually closing down I barely see a difference. It is as likely for low-termined, low-workrate, low-CD striker to put pressure on the oppisition's centre back as it is for the exact opposite to stand off of him, that is my experience in a nutshell. Similarily, there is absolutely no way to actually stand off an opposing player even in specific non-dangerous areas, the moment he has the ball somebody steps up and closes him down in 9 cases out of 10. I might be exaggerating, and maybe there is a little difference, but it is often times so minimal that it is hard to make decisions watching. Similarily, if a player actually ISN'T closed down, which is rare, it is impossible to tell what is causing it. But maybe I'm looking for something wrong, and that I what I keep an eye on is fixed behaviour inherent to FM and the ME.

[PaulC]

In terms of sliders vs roles/duties - a bit of an insight in terms of the ME code:

- All AI teams use TC only. We do not micro tweak any player slider. AI use touchline instructions of course.

- As some human teams *may* not use roles/duties, or they may *edit* them using sliders, the ME cannot directly reference a player's role or duty, only it's components aka the slider settings.

I am sure you can see where the advantage of forcing all teams to use roles and duties would be in terms of tweaking and tuning the ME and the way roles and duties behave within it, but I understand the other viewpoint too.

[RTHerringbone]

In terms of sliders vs roles/duties - a bit of an insight in terms of the ME code:

- All AI teams use TC only. We do not micro tweak any player slider. AI use touchline instructions of course.

- As some human teams *may* not use roles/duties, or they may *edit* them using sliders, the ME cannot directly reference a player's role or duty, only it's components aka the slider settings.

I am sure you can see where the advantage of forcing all teams to use roles and duties would be in terms of tweaking and tuning the ME and the way roles and duties behave within it, but I understand the other viewpoint too.

Thank you Paul, much appreciated input.

Your final sentence appears to imply that that will be the ultimate end position with FM? I could be interpreting that completely wrong!

[RTHerringbone]

- As some human teams *may* not use roles/duties, or they may *edit* them using sliders, the ME cannot directly reference a player's role or duty, only it's components aka the slider settings.

And I read this as meaning that in view of the tweaks users are able to make via sliders, that the ME still references the sliders to factor those changes in, but the AI itself is unable to make any slider changes itself.

Sorry to go all Noddy, but my brain isn't working today.

[PaulC]

And I read this as meaning that in view of the tweaks users are able to make via sliders, that the ME still references the sliders to factor those changes in, but the AI itself is unable to make any slider changes itself.

Sorry to go all Noddy, but my brain isn't working today.

What it means is I cannot say for example:

if( is_advanced_playmaker )

{

do_this;

}

but of course I can say:

if( try_through_balls_often )

{

do_that;

}

etc

[haunted1234]

does that mean if you set for example a Striker on Target Man, but give him the same sliders as a Poacher, he will be a Poacher in disguise?

[NakS]

does that mean if you set for example a Striker on Target Man, but give him the same sliders as a Poacher, he will be a Poacher in disguise?

He will indeed.

[PaulC]

does that mean if you set for example a Striker on Target Man, but give him the same sliders as a Poacher, he will be a Poacher in disguise?

Yes, pretty much so.

[haunted1234]

in that case i think there should be a attribute calculator or something like that, for example if you pick the position poacher, but tune the sliders, i assume the "important attributes" of a poacher are going trough some changes as well? would be nice if the game would adjust the important attributes according to the slider changes~

maybe thats a little part of the reason people usually having so much problem with their own strategies, the second they are picking a role, but changing the sliders, not everything but some things change, but iam just gonna assume they are still looking for a poacher in the transfermarket, where the slider changes may suit better for a other striker~

but maybe iam overthinking

[milnerpoint]

Yeah the roles and everything the TC uses are bascially templates for the sliders, am i correct Paul? So you can set up anything you want, you can just use the TC as a starting point.

[Kuchiki]

You can adjust both of those things already.

Sorry I should have clarified that my comment was made as a kind of defense for classic tactics as people were debating whether we should get rid of the slider system. I believe that until we can do the things I named previously in the tactics creator, the classic tactical system should remain.

[milnerpoint]

Sorry I should have clarified that my comment was made as a kind of defense for classic tactics as people were debating whether we should get rid of the slider system. I believe that until we can do the things I named previously in the tactics creator, the classic tactical system should remain.

Ah right, sorry i misread what you were saying then.

[Rashidi]

does that mean if you set for example a Striker on Target Man, but give him the same sliders as a Poacher, he will be a Poacher in disguise?

Yes, cos ultimately the AI at the moment won't and logically shouldnt reference tactics via roles, but simply through slider and individual instructions, which is why the whole argument that we should go completely TC can happen but it will limit managers to playing with certain strict parameters. So they cant really customize for unique positions.

What I am keen to see ever since we removed wimbos is having customized roles and specialized instructions, that can be shared with the AI manager. That way the "playbook" gets larger. I am fairly certain we aren't adding a huge level of complexity, cos the level of complexity will be tied in directly to the users level of competence. So in essence if a user can make a "supertactic" the AI can create a similar system but this should be modified by the same "fluidity" and "development cycles" within the club. So if I wanted to play like Barca but play like Wimbledon now, I cant do it today, I can only do it if I change my back room staff, find the right players with the right ppms and then play a certain way over a period of time. And even then it won't be 100% perfect.

To me thats the ultimate challenge, and the only real reason why I could get gripped, if people started downloading tactical systems from other people, without understanding them completely, then they run the risk of making the game harder for themselves cos the AI manager would be able to "learn". Currently thats how I play, its how I achieve long term success and out play the AI each season, if AI managers want to do the same, then they need to invest in youth, develop, trade..its a cycle. And a good cycle to boot.

What i desperately want to see in this game is a tactical creator that we can use that allows us to create customized roles we can name. If over time your system proves to be successful and clubs recognize that by heralding your success and copying it, then, I truly believe we will create a behemoth of a challenge. The training module has already been improved and I can already see how the linkages can work. Its a fair bit of work, some roles may not always work cos they are limited by the ME, but then again some might. And that will give the me a framework, a target of sorts to aim for. Players can pick up the game and decide all they want to do is grow, groom and harvest players so they can make oodles of money. Others can try and be the next Chapman. (Chapman is such a bad example was thinking of the russian but forgot his name). I can forsee a future then without a classical tactic creator cos we can do the same now through the Tactical Creator..I have been creating heavily customized tactics off the TC., players just need to understand what shouts work and don't and I think thats a fair price to pay for customization.

[haunted1234]

still, the game should help identify which attributes you need for your custom created roles, when i create a tactic trough classic mode, i can only make rational guesses which technical and physical attributes fit the role, but for mental, almost any is as good as the next

[PaulC]

My problem with humans creating customised roles is that they will always be the pioneers, whereas FM is a football world where you are incidental rather than the world being incidental to you. At least that is the ethos we started from back in the day. Its the same reason I have never supported a true set piece editor.

[peleJunior]

What it means is I cannot say for example:

if( is_advanced_playmaker )

{

do_this;

}

but of course I can say:

if( try_through_balls_often )

{

do_that;

}

etc

Terrible indentation

[Icy]

In terms of sliders vs roles/duties - a bit of an insight in terms of the ME code:

- All AI teams use TC only. We do not micro tweak any player slider. AI use touchline instructions of course.

- As some human teams *may* not use roles/duties, or they may *edit* them using sliders, the ME cannot directly reference a player's role or duty, only it's components aka the slider settings.

I am sure you can see where the advantage of forcing all teams to use roles and duties would be in terms of tweaking and tuning the ME and the way roles and duties behave within it, but I understand the other viewpoint too.

Thanks for this confirmation, so if i understood it well, in this sample:

- Player A is a good BWM but with long shots attribute=0

- The AI "sees" that player A is a good fit as BWM, will set that role for him, and won't lower the long shoot slider as humans would.

Am I right?

If so, i'm even more convinced on using the TC and standard roles exclusively, as else I feel we have a competitive advantage against the AI (or sometimes a disadvantage if we don't understand some sliders as we think we do).

In that case, both us and the AI need more roles, either predefined or custom or maybe just individual shouts that both us and the AI would use (in that sample, work ball into the box but only for that player).

[PaulC]

Thanks for this confirmation, so if i understood it well, in this sample:

- Player A is a good BWM but with long shots attribute=0

- The AI "sees" that player A is a good fit as BWM, will set that role for him, and won't lower the long shoot slider as humans would.

Am I right?

Yes, that is correct!