Farewell to Football Manager

[RTHerringbone]

Conspiracy Theorist maybe, maybe in some leagues the coding needs checking up. Maybe the popular leagues are not having this issue as more of the non popular leagues are having.

The code isn't league specific; the same code applies for all teams / nations / leagues

Next theory please.

[HUNT3R]

Firstly I never chose a team like inter. I chose a team from the greek league thats not worth millions. I turned them into a million dollar team that beat popular german teams let alone QPR in the eufa cup. Yeah it was a great feeling when i beat their teams with my low budget team. When it comes to the other way around it dissapoints me when you end up playing a relegation battling team in your own league that can't compare to your own team price wise an you loost to them 5-2. Let alone the coaches and training staff involved you have is top quality. So help me out here.

Conspiracy Theorist maybe, maybe in some leagues the coding needs checking up. Maybe the popular leagues are not having this issue as more of the non popular leagues are having.

League choice won't matter. The ME is the same for all of them.

[themadsheep2001]

For the best part of 3 years I've been saying that in game feedback (or the lack of it) has become ever more important. In fact right now I would say it's the single most important aspect of the game that needs improve. FM is rightly adding more depth, but you cannot maintain that depth if the information on the concepts, and feedback on what one is doing are left behind. An additional problem is the need (arguably rightly so) to have a basic grasp of real football concepts. For example: how many people here know what a high block or a low block defense is. Or that it's widely accepted there are 4 general phases in football: defensive shape, attacking transition, attacking shape, defensive transition? Such concepts need be put across to the player in game. Does the play know his 4-4-2 looks like a 2-1-4-3 when it attacks (just an example, not a general rule)? If he did, he would know in this case that he is vulnerable to quick direct counters behind the two full backs. Small example, but it's the difference between a player knowing why he might concede, and him being frustrated.

[Cougar2010]

Dude I gota say one thing. Finaly someone feels the same way i do about he match engine. There is so much Bull i can't believe it. When i put up posts i get heaps of people calling me a nub and you need more time on the game. Cough bloody cough. Look the graphics are awesome, the team got it right. As for RESULTS it hugely dissapoints me (& others). No matter how much i spend on players my team will bend over for the soap frequently on playing lowbie sides. Now ok i'm not saying big teams should never loose to small teams I'm saying how often out of ten times will a lowby team win a game over a big name team. In this version of the game I'm seeing it frequently happen beyond the boundaries of our solar system.

As far as i can see, the game favors small teams. Don't spend money just buy some crap players and you will have a frequently win against big teams. Thank you for the imbalance in this game. No matter what training and chatting i setup for my team loosing to a small team is going to happen and when it happens you won't loose by 1 goal. You will most likely loose by 4 or 5 which has happened to me. Your telling me i got the setup wrong. Yeah right. i might as well go player OOTP Baseball. Go check that match engine out, thats what you call a realistic match engine without any ******** in it. Sorry for the swearing but you feel my pain.

I aint playing FM14 club season any more till an improved realistic match engine is released god knows when that will be.

Firstly I never chose a team like inter. I chose a team from the greek league thats not worth millions. I turned them into a million dollar team that beat popular german teams let alone QPR in the eufa cup. Yeah it was a great feeling when i beat their teams with my low budget team. When it comes to the other way around it dissapoints me when you end up playing a relegation battling team in your own league that can't compare to your own team price wise an you loost to them 5-2. Let alone the coaches and training staff involved you have is top quality. So help me out here.

Conspiracy Theorist maybe, maybe in some leagues the coding needs checking up. Maybe the popular leagues are not having this issue as more of the non popular leagues are having.

Your problems are clearly tactical ctfm and its obvious you don't cope well against teams that set up to be defensive, restrict space and counter attack - ie lower ranked teams that expect to be attacked.

You aren't the only user to have those issues, its a fairly common theme we see on the forums but that does leave you a choice to make.

You can either learn how to deal with these teams by reading/posting in the tactics forum and adjusting the way you approach these games or you can continue to ignore the issue which will lead to more frustration for you.

There are people on the forum who are prepared to help you learn but for that to happen you have to accept that you have something to learn.

[THOG]

As far as i can see, the game favors small teams. Don't spend money just buy some crap players and you will have a frequently win against big teams. Thank you for the imbalance in this game. No matter what training and chatting i setup for my team loosing to a small team is going to happen and when it happens you won't loose by 1 goal. You will most likely loose by 4 or 5 which has happened to me. Your telling me i got the setup wrong. Yeah right. i might as well go player OOTP Baseball. Go check that match engine out, thats what you call a realistic match engine without any ******** in it. Sorry for the swearing but you feel my pain.

What happens is that a lot of players use aggressive formations and mentalities with every team in every match; usually it's some variation of Control/Fluid 4-2CM-3-1 with shorter passing and high pressing. When they play as smaller sides, the AI doesn't adapt quickly so they end up catching a lot of teams by surprise with their aggressive tactics and run up the league table, but when they play a big team or their smaller team becomes a big team, they get frustrated when they end up playing their high-tempo technical game against sides that park the bus and look to exploit their high line. This issue is common because a lot of people play the exact same way, but it's not universal and it's easily addressed.

In regards to OOTP Baseball, it's worth noting that baseball is a game where most of the match involves the players standing around and doing nothing. In the brief instances of actual movement, defenders never have to leave their position and players for the attacking team always run in straight lines between fixed points in a specific sequence. OOTP is a fantastic baseball game, but the fact that the sport itself is less complex means it's easier to simulate, especially with the amount of statistical data and analysis available as a result of the actual game's relative simplicity.

[DizzyPenguin]

Best thread in a long, long time.

(Because even the forum's gone downhill.)

[HUNT3R]

What happens is that a lot of players use aggressive formations and mentalities with every team in every match; usually it's some variation of Control/Fluid 4-2CM-3-1 with shorter passing and high pressing. When they play as smaller sides, the AI doesn't adapt quickly so they end up catching a lot of teams by surprise with their aggressive tactics and run up the league table, but when they play a big team or their smaller team becomes a big team, they get frustrated when they end up playing their high-tempo technical game against sides that park the bus and look to exploit their high line. This issue is common because a lot of people play the exact same way, but it's not universal and it's easily addressed.

This is where Mentality's descriptions and their descriptions need changing. Attacking (for example) is wrong. Attacking's description says, best to use when you're the favourites to win and defend is when you're favourites to lose. This is why everyone uses Attacking when they're the big team. This is why they lose too, because they're using a hammer to pick a lock.

Attacking is "high risk football". Defensive is "Low risk football." I'm Chelsea in 2031 right now and I'm beating the teams below me (I'm in 5th) with a Defensive mentality tactic. I've even toned it down more and I'm now beating them using Contain!

[Moose-Stuff-For-Money]

This is where Mentality's descriptions and their descriptions need changing. Attacking (for example) is wrong. Attacking's description says, best to use when you're the favourites to win and defend is when you're favourites to lose. This is why everyone uses Attacking when they're the big team. This is why they lose too, because they're using a hammer to pick a lock.

Attacking is "high risk football". Defensive is "Low risk football." I'm Chelsea in 2031 right now and I'm beating the teams below me (I'm in 5th) with a Defensive mentality tactic. I've even toned it down more and I'm now beating them using Contain!

The language of tactics in FM need a complete rethink. Words like Attacking, Counter, and Defensive all come with preconceived ideas which are not totally true in the game itself. If you asked most casual players or even fans of football what type of mentality Barca used in their pomp a lot would say Attacking, in FM however its best translated to Counter. (well imo at least)

Defend/ Support/ Attack in roles also don't mean what they may first appear to.

[Jimbokav1971]

It's been going on longer than that. I remember back when FM09 was out there was a phenomenal thread, (might have been the old forum back then), that was focussed on how the Ass Man would work in a perfect World and there were some great ideas.

For people who might not like that amount of intrusion, of course it was suggested that there would be settings which would influence quite how much feedback the Ass Man would give you in different areas.

It might help in other areas of the game too.

The problem I guess is that the Ass Man will have to be "intuitive", (not 100% sure that the exact word I was looking for), in calculating what the user was trying to do and why. It's no good the Ass Man saying, "that's a rubbish tactic". He needs to say what might create a problem, what problem it might create and what the alternative options are that will allow the targeted outcome.

How realistic is it for us to expect SI to deliver on something like that? Well not very at all I would have thought. When this was discussed before, the suggestion was that it might be done as a very gradual process and developed longer-term on quite a gradual basis. Already we have an Ass Man suggesting preferred formation that might best suit a team, and within a game there is an awful lot of tactical feedback given, (some good and some less so), but I get the impression that a lot of people completely ignore this feedback because they either don't understand it, (maybe that's a tad harsh), more realstically do understand it but struggle to work out exactly how to adapt their tactic to take in the given advice, (and not being harsh at all), people are too lazy.

Can't be bothered with team-talks.

can't be bothered with OI's.

Can't be bothered creating their own tactic and can't be bothered understanding how their down-loaded tactic works or why it works, (or occasionally doesn't).

Some people just want to press continue again and again and if a downloaded tactic doesn't work then it is the fault of the tactic rather than anything else, (yes I appreciate that's not everyone and I am not aiming it at anyone in particular).

I don't agree with the OP, but that doesn't make his opinion any less valid, (or mine any more valid). It's just a personal opinion.

It is an area, (tactical feedback within the creation/development of a tactic), that requires significant development if the game is to continue to flourish. I think the game in it's current form is a bit of a turn-off to those who don't want to delve into the nitty-gritty of why something happens and how it can be stopped happening.

[THOG]

This is where Mentality's descriptions and their descriptions need changing. Attacking (for example) is wrong. Attacking's description says, best to use when you're the favourites to win and defend is when you're favourites to lose. This is why everyone uses Attacking when they're the big team. This is why they lose too, because they're using a hammer to pick a lock.

Attacking is "high risk football". Defensive is "Low risk football." I'm Chelsea in 2031 right now and I'm beating the teams below me (I'm in 5th) with a Defensive mentality tactic. I've even toned it down more and I'm now beating them using Contain!

That's not necessarily true though. If your style is based on playing direct and physical football, Attacking may be a good choice for a big team. If your style is based on playing possession football with smaller players who need to be patient when faced with a tough defence, Attacking typically isn't the best choice.

I agree that the TC needs to be updated to reflect the ideas that have been developed and refined since the old Tactical Theorems documents. However, this is also a counterpoint to the idea that the game needs to provide more tactical advice/feedback as opposed to just clarifying what various instructions do. Tactical advice needs to be contextual, and I don't think it's feasible to achieve the level of sophistication and depth necessary for advice to be consistently useful. It's more likely that, like much of the advice currently provided by the TC and assman, overly general advice could just lead players astray and cause more problems.

[benallen002]

Now the 3D isn't going to be sophisticated enough to show subtle elements of balance and body position etc any time soon, but I do think the commentary could do a better job here. You never see things like "he just never quite had the ball under control" or "X did just enough to put him off the shot" etc which you hear all the time IRL commentaries, and I think could help assuage some of the frustration here.

Couldn't agree more with this bit. I stopped watching in 3D because it was too frustrating to watch, and then I went commentary only because even 2D just doesn't look right. And the thing with commentary only is the commentary is absolutely horrendous in some cases. You are spot on in that they never mention misses because of diffiuclty, it's always "even his manager has his head in his hands" or "there's only possible outcome!" right before a miss.

I've thought about modifying the commentary files some to remove some of those phrases because it really is quite silly when you are playing 5 or 6 matches in a row and they keep popping up after every miss. How about "he was under intense pressure and did well to get the cross off at all" or "the keeper did well to close down the space and give him a hard angle".

I think that falls under the whole "feedback" discussion; better commentary.

[milnerpoint]

I think something has been lost with the commentary in the last few versions, it seems a bit less immserive than it was previously, it misses a lot as well. When you do score that rare 35 yard volley into the top corner, and nothing comes up but "goal for inter" you kinda feel a bit robbed. A few years ago the commentary never missed wonder goals, or the fact your striker just scored his hattrick, but now it misses quite a lot.

[HUNT3R]

That's not necessarily true though. If your style is based on playing direct and physical football, Attacking may be a good choice for a big team. If your style is based on playing possession football with smaller players who need to be patient when faced with a tough defence, Attacking typically isn't the best choice.

Tbh, you're proving my point. The names should change. Attacking is risky and direct. It's not solely for a favourite to win. Defensive isn't necessarily for the favourites to lose. It's for teams who want to play safe and less direct. It depends on your style of play too.

I agree that the TC needs to be updated to reflect the ideas that have been developed and refined since the old Tactical Theorems documents. However, this is also a counterpoint to the idea that the game needs to provide more tactical advice/feedback as opposed to just clarifying what various instructions do. Tactical advice needs to be contextual, and I don't think it's feasible to achieve the level of sophistication and depth necessary for advice to be consistently useful. It's more likely that, like much of the advice currently provided by the TC and assman, overly general advice could just lead players astray and cause more problems.

Personally, I think we need both. Tactical concepts need to be made clearer, like the Mentality concepts I mentioned. Advice needs to be added explain how the tactical system work and what duties are and what they do. The TC should aid people (to a point!) in building a tactic.

[vlobben]

In fact, randomness shouldn't be eliminated. It's still a football simulator, hence it should simulate football. In football, the best team doesn't always win. It's often the details or just a moment of luck that can win or lose the day for your team.

If you analyze those "moments of luck", you may find that there was nothing random about them. When it seems like incredible luck that your mediocre striker manages to dribble two world class stoppers before scoring, going into more detail will reveal that one of the defenders was off-balance, while the other's attention was on the AML who was about to start a run into the box, and being through on goal was something he had spent thousands of hours practicing with his mates before signing for your team. But all this is really irrelevant since the only feasible way of having it in a computer game is to use randomness. Or luck if you will

[llama3]

I think more advice and contextual help is an essential addition - but we still need the user to be able to screw up badly.

[Loki679]

The 'fluid' and 'rigid' terms could use a rethink also. When you talk about a rigid formation I think of managers like Fat Sam and Pardew and the negative, anti-football connotations that brings. Fluid on the other hand conjures visions of Barca and Man Utd's quick transitional play.

[themadsheep2001]

The 'fluid' and 'rigid' terms could use a rethink also. When you talk about a rigid formation I think of managers like Fat Sam and Pardew and the negative, anti-football connotations that brings. Fluid on the other hand conjures visions of Barca and Man Utd's quick transitional play.

There is a notion among some that rigid = boring football, and fluid = sexy football. I still tend to think back to the names they roughly fell under in TT and F. If i recall correctly rigid was bands of two, and fluid was 5x5.

For what it's worth; for the most part, Man Utd were generally bands of two/rigid under Ferguson (though there was usually some kind of split striker steup). Fluid/5x5 would have been someone like Rafa Benitez, or going to a personal favourite of mine, Arrigo Sacchi.

Then the actual concepts should be explained in game in the TC, plenty of space on the left when you create a new tactic.

[wwfan]

This bold stuff couldn't be further from the truth.

Whilst mods offer advice in there - after all, that is their purpose! - a higher proportion of the advice comes from members of the community.

Regarding the stickied threads, we by default send people there if they haven't been before, as those threads offer the core advice to get going with the game tactically. Several users are still posting set ups which are simply dysfunctional, and they need to get a basic, logical system in place before constructive advice can be given.

Have to agree with this. I'm not posting as much in the tactics forum not because I don't want to give advice but because the advice given by others is usually so good I don't need to. That certainly wasn't the case a few years back. There's a large group of users who have got FM in a way that I've never seen previously. I still get involved when a user has completely frustrated himself and can usually make a difference, but these instances are few and far between.

There are some serious debates in this thread that need to be worked through.

1: The idea that the game needs more information about how things work versus people have got turned off by FM because of the large amount of information generated in the tactics forum. Can't have it both ways. Either information is good or bad. How much is enough?

2: The notion that advice that's based on a wrong opinion about how FM works should be given equal weight to that given based on actual knowledge about how FM works, even if the wrong opinion is producing results in the short-term. If these forums don't stop misinformation spreading, then what's the point of them?

3: The feeling that real life football has logical patterns whereas FM football is random. Real life football throws up odd results all over the place, but when it happens in FM people yell "broken game!" Are expectations realistic and fair in the first place?

4: The in-game concepts don't keep up with the way in which the forums think about the concepts. Hence, the notion that the tactical terms aren't very accurate. They were accurate throughout the original thought process but haven't kept up with how we talk about things now. Is it possible or realistic to expect the in-game instructions to keep up with the quality of advice given on these forums and are we not actually asking the impossible from SI in expecting them to do so? They can't predict the future.

5: The idea that sliders were accessible and the current system isn't!! In my opinion, less than a handful of people could explain the sliders properly, and doing so required a huge word count. I think people need to recognise that the slider system enabled super-users to beat the ME, not the AI, and their removal has, largely, prevented this from happening. The feeling of accessibility came from the "post ME cracking" tactical downloads, when masses of users could begin to press continue without thinking, merely winning and buying better and better players. This is not accessibility, it's reliance on others to beat the game for you. In contrast, as the tactical forum indicates, many users have grasped the basics of tactical and strategic gameplay better than ever before with FM14. The accessibility is better than it's ever been, but you have to try and climb the learning curve if you've never played that way before. The question is how to help users start that climb?

I'm not pretending I have the answers, but these questions underpin the whole thread and require careful consideration if the thread is to continue its positive vibe

[saiyaman]

I think something has been lost with the commentary in the last few versions, it seems a bit less immserive than it was previously, it misses a lot as well. When you do score that rare 35 yard volley into the top corner, and nothing comes up but "goal for inter" you kinda feel a bit robbed. A few years ago the commentary never missed wonder goals, or the fact your striker just scored his hattrick, but now it misses quite a lot.

I brought this up in the Feedback topic. I barely got a reply or two for that as I suppose it wasn't important to many.

That really is what makes the match. The one great sentence describing how your striker scored after that stupid "Goal!!!!!!!". That time when you imagine the crowd rushing like it says.

[THOG]

Tbh, you're proving my point. The names should change. Attacking is risky and direct. It's not solely for a favourite to win. Defensive isn't necessarily for the favourites to lose. It's for teams who want to play safe and less direct. It depends on your style of play too.

Fair enough (and I think I misread your point a bit), I just wouldn't say Attacking is flat-out wrong; rather, the advice just doesn't apply universally. But I agree that those prescriptive snippets of when to use this or that are generally unhelpful, and this is why I'm averse to having much advice built into the game. The assman widget is another example of how in-game advice is often unhelpful. When I play a 4-1-4-1 system set up around goal-scoring midfielders, my assman spends the entire match moaning about how my formation doesn't have enough forwards completely irrespective of how I'm actually trying to play. If I'm playing a direct and counterattacking style premised on allowing the opposition time on the ball, he constantly insists we need to increase our possession and play a shorter passing game. Since the game can't really detect the player's stylistic intentions, it's hard to see how the game can incorporate useful advice without nudging everyone towards the same basic style of play. Meanwhile, everyone wants the TC and ME to incorporate more distinct styles of play, but expanding the options and variety available to the player necessarily makes contextual feedback more difficult.

Personally, I think we need both. Tactical concepts need to be made clearer, like the Mentality concepts I mentioned. Advice needs to be added explain how the tactical system work and what duties are and what they do. The TC should aid people (to a point!) in building a tactic.

As I've discovered, trying to explain mentality in a way that makes its more counter-intuitive applications obvious is easier said than done. Personally, I think it would make more sense to have team settings go the way of roles and replace the more abstract, classic tactics settings with a broader array of stylistic presets (beyond the basic five offered by mentality). The problem now is that everything is still rooted in classic tactics concepts that very few people ever really understood. You shouldn't have to engage in any kind of critical reasoning to figure out how to get a team playing a low tempo, possession style. You should just be able to select it.

[HUNT3R]

Have to agree with this. I'm not posting as much in the tactics forum not because I don't want to give advice but because the advice given by others is usually so good I don't need to. That certainly wasn't the case a few years back. There's a large group of users who have got FM in a way that I've never seen previously. I still get involved when a user has completely frustrated himself and can usually make a difference, but these instances are few and far between.

Not posting at all is not an option. You can post in GD more often now.

I'll have a go at the questions to get us started. Hope I understood them well enough though.

1: The idea that the game needs more information about how things work versus people have got turned off by FM because of the large amount of information generated in the tactics forum. Can't have it both ways. Either information is good or bad. How much is enough?

People complain about have to read 50 pages on a forum. Hyperbole, obviously, but I assume they've had to sift through a lot of threads to find the information they need and information that better their understanding of FM. That can be off-putting. FM can introduce more information in the right areas, preventing users from going through that trouble in the first place. It doesn't even need to be 50 pages worth. A paragraph of explanation here and there, especially on the tactical side, could make a world of difference.

2: The notion that advice that's based on a wrong opinion about how FM works should be given equal weight to that given based on actual knowledge about how FM works, even if the wrong opinion is producing results in the short-term. If these forums don't stop misinformation spreading, then what's the point of them?

I agree. I try to stop mis-information spreading too and I know you have an issue with it spreading as well. As you say, it may get you results in the short-term but when the next update rolls out the forums get flooded with "the update broke my tactics!".

3: The feeling that real life football has logical patterns whereas FM football is random. Real life football throws up odd results all over the place, but when it happens in FM people yell "broken game!" Are expectations realistic and fair in the first place?

It's an expectation issue. When I manage a small team, I live for the unexpected victories. They're down to my brilliance as a manager, even I didn't expect a win. I see a lot of people managing say, Crystal Palace, and expecting to compete for European Qualification in the 1st/2nd season when it's highly improbable. Lose 2/3 in a row? ME is broken, obviously. With lower expectations, you'd realise that you're managing a team predicted to finish last so even if you finish 18th, you've over-achieved!

Managing the bigger teams, I expect to win every game. By miles too. This causes a world of frustration, because I don't always win and things don't always go my way. Opposition might steal a goal on the counter or catch my team sleeping at a corner and then I really have to work to get back in the game. It may not have been my tactics, but I know these things happen from time to time so I try to get back into the game rather than just rage-quitting and giving up on FM.

4: The in-game concepts don't keep up with the way in which the forums think about the concepts. Hence, the notion that the tactical terms aren't very accurate. They were accurate throughout the original thought process but haven't kept up with how we talk about things now. Is it possible or realistic to expect the in-game instructions to keep up with the quality of advice given on these forums and are we not actually asking the impossible from SI in expecting them to do so? They can't predict the future.

I don't venture into the Tactics Forum much, so I'm not really up to date with the latest developments. I wouldn't say they're inaccurate though. It just needs updating and FM15 would be the perfect time to do it. If anything, FM14 has highlighted the need for a good update on that front. Things like Mentality and Fluidity could remain, but we need better terms and/or descriptions to go with it. I wonder how many people could really describe what mentality and especially fluidity is and what it does?

5: The idea that sliders were accessible and the current system isn't!! In my opinion, less than a handful of people could explain the sliders properly, and doing so required a huge word count. I think people need to recognise that the slider system enabled super-users to beat the ME, not the AI, and their removal has, largely, prevented this from happening. The feeling of accessibility came from the "post ME cracking" tactical downloads, when masses of users could begin to press continue without thinking, merely winning and buying better and better players. This is not accessibility, it's reliance on others to beat the game for you. In contrast, as the tactical forum indicates, many users have grasped the basics of tactical and strategic gameplay better than ever before with FM14. The accessibility is better than it's ever been, but you have to try and climb the learning curve if you've never played that way before. The question is how to help users start that climb?

The sliders weren't more accessible. You're correct, of course, that very few people could explain the sliders properly. Very few could explain just the mentality slider properly. What the sliders offered, was a basic visual set out of your tactic and what the team and players would do. That's missing this year. It's not as easy to know how much a regista will close down compared to the rest of the team, as an example. The description doesn't mention how he will behave defensively. If the sliders were there, we could see what he's been instructed to do. This is where FM15 could improve as well, either by improving the existing UI (making it clearer which options are on/off/unavailable and perhaps why) as is or adding something visual to compliment the instructions.

[Äktsjon Männ]

I think the game in it's current form is a bit of a turn-off to those who don't want to delve into the nitty-gritty of why something happens and how it can be stopped happening.

It can also be the opposite. There was an excellent article (review) on FM14 in RPS and specifically a part of it that struck a chord with me perhaps a bit more than I would have liked.

Sometimes when I’m playing it, I feel like I’m a pigeon inside a skinner box. I press the button, and food comes out. I press the button again… and there’s no food. Why?! I’m trying to work out this system which is too complex to fully fit inside my brain. Because they’re simulating a world, it’s erratic and unpredictable. But also it’s a system and it has rules. It turns me into a mad mathematician trying to work out chaos theory.

This is all partly my own psyche, of course. Like, as a kid, Championship Manager is the only thing that has ever made me superstitious. Actual madness. I used to pump my first every time I scored a goal, because I’d become superstitious that if I didn’t, if I took it for granted, my opponent would score against me. I knew that was rubbish but did it anyway, in the pursuit of success.

I wonder if there isn’t something slightly unethical about this kind of game. Books like Football Manager Ruined My Life are played for laughs, but there’s something about this mixture of success and failure, control and lack of control, that… If they included microtransactional gambling, Football Manager would bankrupt people, because it’s hitting the same chemical highs and lows. I’m not sure it’s not bad for the brain.

[Jimbokav1971]

It can also be the opposite. There was an excellent article (review) on FM14 in RPS and specifically a part of it that struck a chord with me perhaps a bit more than I would have liked.

Of course it can be the opposite. (I am obviously in that camp). But I think for those of a younger genaration, they might want more immediacy.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Of course it can be the opposite. (I am obviously in that camp). But I think for those of a younger genaration, they might want more immediacy.

Maybe. But sometimes I wish I was more like them anyway. It might be a grass is always greener thing but I remember being much less obsessed about this stuff in the past and as such enjoying the actual game much more than now. Of course you also had to be able to be successful at the game which probably was easier in those earlier versions. But I long for the days when I could just boot up the game and enjoy it without working myself all up about some thing or other. In that sense it's not the game, it's definitely me, but I can't help it at all.

[Lyssien]

1: The idea that the game needs more information about how things work versus people have got turned off by FM because of the large amount of information generated in the tactics forum. Can't have it both ways. Either information is good or bad. How much is enough?

I think there was a fundamental mistake made when building the ME:

It should be easy to set up a simple tactic that plays more or less as one would expect. Then, complications could (should!) be available for gamers who wanted to optimize their team's performance. In contrast, in FM14 it is quite hard (or sometimes impossible) to have your players perform simple actions. Some of it is down to the embryonic state of this particular ME maybe, so we aren't allowed to ask for actions that AI cannot cope with. But many cases are inexcusable, IMO.

For example, the decision for the "relativeness" of the Defensive Line is beyond my comprehension. Shouldn't the manager just be able to point where the Defensive Line should be? Of course he should. When I played some amateur football the coach never told us to play with a normal/standard or deeper Defensive Line. He walked on the pitch and showed us where the Line should be in various scenarios. Nothing else would make sense.

That was just one example of unrealistic complexity (both complicated and unrealistic!). It was choices like this that make FM14 tactics incomprehensible. I understand that SI wanted to move away from the sliders but they overdid it a bit and dove into vagueness.

In short, the FM14 ME has been built in a way that does not allow quick and easily digestible advice to get a decent tactic going. In my view, that's a flaw of the ME itself.

[milnerpoint]

Dont confuse the ME with the tactics creator.

[aderow]

I imagine that there is still a mindset that is closely linked to the slider system where getting the settings in the right place was at times much more important than any other aspect of the game, it will take time for players to adjust to the post-slider world & we can certainly help that through improvements to the feedback tools that are in the game.

Yep. That has been my biggest issue. It doesn't help that I spend most of my time playing FM10 where the sliders are still visible. I'm trying to change my approach; spending more time thinking about what I want my players to do in football terms rather than ticks on the sliders.

Once I stop thinking about sliders completely and start thinking about actual football, I'll be much better off. Of course more feedback from the game will make things a lot easier.

[Lyssien]

Dont confuse the ME with the tactics creator.

The fact that the ME problems were artificially migrated to the TC does not make them any less "ME problems".

[Sussex Hammer]

I asked you for the PKM's or the saved game in one of them and you never replied, hence I stopped answering any questions you had as it was pointless if you couldn't provide the extra info I needed to help you. I also disagree about people being more helpful when it was about sliders. In the tactics forum it didn't matter which system someone was using. The reason why threads don't get much attention these days are all the helpful people who were the ones answering questions have stopped posting due to getting abuse, people ignoring their advice or being dismissive. That's the real issue with the forum (tactics forum) these days as its not worth helping people anymore. I mean, myself in the past year have tried to help lots of people with detailed helpful replies and I think for most cases the info posted gets dismissed if the reply is deemed too long. People seem to ask for help but then fail to accept it when given.

That's the real underlining issue with the comment I quoted off you..

Cleon, I have scrolled through various posts but can't find the one about the PKM request although I do remember something about it and it must have slipped my mind with work etc so I apologise if it seemed if I was ignoring any advice. I wasn't and always appreciate advice from all those who contribute especially long term advisors such as yourself and wwfan.

I thought it would have been in my last thread

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/386290-Starting-again-the-4231-project.

It wasn't but there was some great advice from you about finding space etc which as I say I always appreciate.

You are probably right about the advice situation I can imagine it gets frustrating when you are trying to help as I am only to aware as I have offered my thoughts intending to help several times and been ignored or overlooked so again I apologise if it seemed I was unappreciative.

What I probably meant about the in previous versions with the sliders is that with sliders it was pretty black and white for a lot of things. The TC is very in depth with roles, duties etc and allows far more scope and of course the ME has changed as well so advice is more in depth than maybe with the sliders in some ways.

I certainly stick with my point though about more in game feedback whether that is with your idea or improved staff or even feedback from the captain and maybe more of a helping hand for those with time constraints and watch matches on highlight mode. I know there is FMC but I tried that and bizarrely still preferred the full game!!

[Jimbokav1971]

I also don't think that the forums really help as much as they could do as well.

I think this is a pretty poor comment.

I know for a fact that I have offered suggestions again and again to people who complain of common problems, and even on one particular occasion, loaded up their save, played their game, (when I should have been playing my own), did exactly what the OP said that he was unable to do, (not lose), and explained why I was able to draw, (a lovely 0-0), while he just continued to ship goals.

The problem was that he wasn't really interested in learning, (whether it be from me or someone else), and just wanted to vent. He wasn't interested in media comments during the week. He wasn't interested in player condition or match fitness and he certainly wasn't interested in pre-match team-talks god forbid he be expected to set OI's.

No. What he wanted to do was download a tactic, (without reading in any detail at all about how it was created, how and why it worked and what were the areas to keep an eye on that might cause it problems from time to time.

No. What he wanted to do was pick his team at the start of the season and with the exception of injuries, (which of course mustn't happen to his key players), play the same team every week until he had win the World!

I saw the same bloke making exactly the same complaints, (about a different tactic), in the T&TGF, exactly a week after I had taken the time to go through, (in quite a lot of detail actually), what he was doing wrong with his first tactic and how he might hope to improve.

He was just venting. He wasn't interested at all in changing the way that he played.

This is quite a common occurrence and it has meant that I just don't bother giving proper advice anymore. If people want tactical advice then there is a place for that. (It's where I went, and still go). I don't presume to know enough about anything to offer advice in there, but I know for a fact that others do. While a lot of the advice in GQ comes from MODs this certainly isn't the case in T&TGF, (although they still do more than there bit). This isn't part of their role. They are not "moderating" when they offer help and advice. They, (and other non-Mods), do it simply because they want to help.

I think these forums are an ENORMOUS resource. The biggest issue with them is the flippin search feature and I urge urge urge the power at be to do something about it.

Please.

[Sussex Hammer]

I've read the whole thread and there is some fascinating views.

What I would have loved is just for one version you would have been able to transfer all your old slider tactics into a TC tactic (just a reversal of last years transferring a TC tactic to sliders) and see what roles and duties your TC tactic came out as. In my case something that didn't resemble a football formation at all I suspect. It could have been horrific!! However it might have just given a slight insight into what you were trying to achieve, it certainly would have been interesting.

On the issue of better game feedback, one area I really would like to see improved is a players best position. Take for example in my game Kevin Nolan has pretty much the same stars for AM, Engache, Teraquista, Shadow Striker. IRL I would pitch him as an Attacking Midfielder but because he has 4 stars for all those roles but is down as an Engache via the Assistants feedback in training it can get a bit confusing on what role you use him in so a little more help in a players better role would be helpful without being spoon fed all the correct info!!

Another idea I thought of, although I doubt it would be possible is this. It would be great if those in the know created default tactics for new/casual gamers. The tactics would be real life based tactics that could be chosen like Arsenal, Home - Arsenal, Away - West Ham, Home - West Ham, Away. I am sure if someone was that way inclined a lot of study could be made to recreate some of the tactics for well known Clubs. The user could then pick one which would be a good starting base and tinker from there if he so wishes. Yes I know you have the standard defaults but something like this would give you a good start with the team you want to play.

[Sussex Hammer]

I think this is a pretty poor comment..

I have apologised for that it was poorly worded.....

[isignedupfornorealreason]

Yep. That has been my biggest issue. It doesn't help that I spend most of my time playing FM10 where the sliders are still visible. I'm trying to change my approach; spending more time thinking about what I want my players to do in football terms rather than ticks on the sliders.

Once I stop thinking about sliders completely and start thinking about actual football, I'll be much better off. Of course more feedback from the game will make things a lot easier.

Actually am glad sliders are gone and I suspect most people are. Put it this way, I win quite often in all iterations of FM, 75% win rate usually in the top or lower echelons and in International matches as well. These are on clean saves, with a tactic I'm confident with. But in the slider-era, if you asked me how I managed it I honestly couldn't tell you.

Rather I think the issue isn't so much the transition from slider to roles that is the problem, it's that some may have been playing with no idea about how it works (because, to me the sliders were gobble-dee-gook anyway) - when you don't understand the system or the concept and you're just bludgeon you're way through the game for so long, it shouldn't be a surprise that people are still grasping at a more 'cleaner' system as the roles and duties. Obviously the lack of information has been touched on earlier, I'm sidestepping that, hopefully my point makes sense as I can't quite explain it properly, but if you don't know what to look out for and rectify in the first place it's going to bring a world of pain in the new system.

I honestly think the new tactics system will be a LOT more clearer and easier to understand, I expect in about five years time it should be accessible to the majority of gamers. However, I'll qualify this with two issues; 1) It needs clearer explanations of roles/duties /mentality and fluidity (I still don't really understand fluidity or mentality according to these forums) and 2) The match engine and commentary NEEDS to be clearer in what it is showing - this is some people's hang up of the game;

I'll give an example; over on Gamefaqs, I told someone if they want to understand where they're going wrong they should watch the match to see the positioning etc. I was practically flamed off the topic and told to shut up for speaking such nonsense that it was even conceivable that the 3D engine would even show anything worthwhile to learn from or to demonstrate incidents in a game. (This touches my last post's point, outside of these forums people don't have the information accessible to them, they are wilfully ignorant or otherwise. The game needs to stress some of those points; if the match was easier to decipher things from, maybe they'd be more receptive to such suggestions?)

[forameuss]

Actually am glad sliders are gone and I suspect most people are. Put it this way, I win quite often in all iterations of FM, 75% win rate usually in the top or lower echelons and in International matches as well. These are on clean saves, with a tactic I'm confident with. But in the slider-era, if you asked me how I managed it I honestly couldn't tell you.

Rather I think the issue isn't so much the transition from slider to roles that is the problem, it's that some may have been playing with no idea about how it works (because, to me the sliders were gobble-dee-gook anyway) - when you don't understand the system or the concept and you're just bludgeon you're way through the game for so long, it shouldn't be a surprise that people are still grasping at a more 'cleaner' system as the roles and duties. Obviously the lack of information has been touched on earlier, I'm sidestepping that, hopefully my point makes sense as I can't quite explain it properly, but if you don't know what to look out for and rectify in the first place it's going to bring a world of pain in the new system.

I honestly think the new tactics system will be a LOT more clearer and easier to understand, I expect in about five years time it should be accessible to the majority of gamers. However, I'll qualify this with two issues; 1) It needs clearer explanations of roles/duties /mentality and fluidity (I still don't really understand fluidity or mentality according to these forums) and 2) The match engine and commentary NEEDS to be clearer in what it is showing - this is some people's hang up of the game;

I'll give an example; over on Gamefaqs, I told someone if they want to understand where they're going wrong they should watch the match to see the positioning etc. I was practically flamed off the topic and told to shut up for speaking such nonsense that it was even conceivable that the 3D engine would even show anything worthwhile to learn from or to demonstrate incidents in a game. (This touches my last post's point, outside of these forums people don't have the information accessible to them, they are wilfully ignorant or otherwise. The game needs to stress some of those points; if the match was easier to decipher things from, maybe they'd be more receptive to such suggestions?)

Good post. The bolded part is key for me. I'll hold my hand up and say that this is pretty much exactly how I play. I understand tactics in football, and have an idea of how I want a team to play, but I struggle to put it into practice in FM, and I'm then guilty of throwing far too much at the problem so that it's a small wonder that my players even want to play for me anymore.

I do think in these cases though, that it's far too easy to just blame the game. Whose fault is it that I manage the way I do? It's about 10-20% the game, due to it sometimes not being clear as to what is changing and what affects what, but the rest is all me. You see people having amazing amounts of success, so it's clearly possible, I'm just doing things wrong.

[TheBlade1]

I spend 20 matches a season with my head in my hands

Sounds like normal football to me :-)

[kiwitown01]

Sounds like normal football to me :-)

I can't get a job to have all these issues?

[jase19]

That was a great post. Almost like the OP read my mind...

I understand there have been people who have found ways to make it work and have free scoring attackers and solid defenses... But not all of us can devote all this time to FM... Our tactics that we make actually do work up until the last touch when our players just decide to rocket the ball into the atmosphere... And then whomever we're playing takes their 2nd or 3rd shot and wins 1-0...

Fully aware it happens in real life... But it happens far more in FM.

I'm still a fan. I still keep coming back. I've been around since CM 98 I think it was? But it just seems lately the game takes a step forward in one area to take a step back in another.

I say that, as I load up to play... Because I miss it after taking a week off.

[YKW]

In terms of the tactics I really think it would be good if people would relax a little bit when it came to talking about sliders. I find it almost impossible to bring them up without it causing an argument. So please know, that I do not want sliders to return and I do not think they are better than the current system.

I think most people agree that FM should remain (or become, depending on your perspective) a simulation game. What that means to me is that my experience playing the game should be as true to life as possible. Along these lines, the 'perfect' FM game would be one that was indistinguishable from real life, probably played through some kind of Matrix-like interface.

However, until this point in time the realism of the game, in my opinion, will be limited by technology. For example, currently AI is not very advanced. Therefore the AI in Football Manager will not be very advanced. Therefore the game will be less realistic than when AI improves.

So for me the major point is how to make the game as realistic as possible within the scope of what technology allows you to do.

So here are two statements about sliders.

1. "Sliders gave the user a level of control which was unrealistic." - FALSE. The nature of language (and gestures) existing means that in real life I would have an infinite number of sliders with an infinite number of notches available to me. I suppose you could say the statement is true, but due to the user having too little control, NOT too much.

2. "Sliders gave the user a level of control which the AI could not compete with." - TRUE. AI is not advanced enough to innovate using the tools in the way a human can. This can potentially make the game too easy, especially considering that the rules of the ME are much more exploitable than the rules of real life. Also a technological issue.

I think these two factors need to be weighed up against each other when assessing how suitable the system is and how it could be improved. What is desirable is the most realistic system that is also possible in terms of the quality of the AI.

The current tactical system, for me, fails hugely in the realism department. Obviously, in terms of there being arguably more people struggling this year, the system provides a better match for the AI, which I think is good. The control sliders offered was closer to realism but the AI was too easy to beat and exploits were too easy. But I feel that the balance has swung too far in the opposite direction.

Runs, passing, tackling etc should NOT be grouped together. I can understand this from a useability standpoint, but in the pursuit of realism this is not a good choice. In whatever form it takes, I should have discrete control over each players passing length, direction, movement, tackling, etc. Because that is what tactics are. They are not a mosaic of grouped instructions, the intricacies of which are obscured behind highly subjective terminology. Yes, the descriptions need updating and there needs to be more feedback etc, but I firmly believe that more people are struggling because the system is flawed, because it has virtually nothing to do with real football management. I am happy to accept that it can be learned, and that therefore it works, but personally it makes very little sense to me.

I have spent minimal hours on 13 and 14, but my initial impression of 13 demo (and one of the things that I signed up to say) was that I was too removed from my instructions, which acted as a multiplier on my frustrations when things were not working. I quickly learned that my formation was in fact the defensive shape of my team, which although made out to be obvious, is never mentioned in the game and also flew right in the face of my natural tendency to think of attack when outlining a formation. How many millions of players are still doing this? Wouldn't it would help if I could simply view my teams attacking and defensive shape separately? As another example, I also quickly learned to always put a defend duty in midfield. This is obvious, but in the context of the TC it is not obvious. If I want a guy to playmake and a guy to win the ball then I might choose an advanced playmaker and ball winning midfielder. But that's wrong. If I could switch my tactics pitch from showing the players positions to showing their movement, it would have been obvious to see the space I was leaving in midfield. I think that those two examples are evidence of the system not making sense to begin with, and then having no real indicators of what I am choosing (apart from in a match, where there are just too many factors to be certain of much.)

The idea I have hinted at (one which would keep the roles) is that the tactics pitch should animate to relay to the user what they are choosing. This already happens in the form of the three arrows that show passing length, and the height of the d-line with offside flags, etc. Evolve this. When I have the defensive tab open showing my defensive shape, allow me to see what my closing down looks like, for example at the two extremes they would either back away and maintain their shape, or hassle aggressively, losing their shape. If I have the attacking tab open showing my attacking shape then I could see what my runs looked like ie did a player hold his position or advance forward early? In my head I am literally just picturing the current tactics pitch with some simple animation added to it. This would allow me to feel like I have actually created something, rather than just bludgeoning my way through the game until I stumble upon something which doesn't fail, which isn't that rewarding.

So in short, I think that the problem is the terminology. Not just that it isn't sufficiently explained, but mainly that it isn't realistic terminology. It is grounded in opinion, and would take a great deal of effort to effectively explain. Unlike "Through balls (a through ball is defined as a pass which releases a teammate behind an opposition player) Rarely/Mixed/Often. Very simple. Ideally I would ditch all of this DLP, LCB stuff and get back to what ACTUAL football tactics are defined by. That being position, movement, passing, tackling, closing down etc. Don't hide them, or group them together. Anything else, I feel, will fail for being needlessly convoluted.

But, to keep the roles, I would introduce a visual element to tactic creation like I mentioned above.

[crouchaldinho]

That is a really great post YKW. I totally agree with your thoughts on the way that tactics are currently implemented in the game.

[CityAndColour]

I think it was Cleon or wwfan who said recently they would like to be able to see tactics played out on the training pitch, which would make an enormous amount of sense.

[jase19]

I think it was Cleon or wwfan who said recently they would like to be able to see tactics played out on the training pitch, which would make an enormous amount of sense.

What would be useful is some sort of advice from our assman that is telling us actual things we might be missing in our tactics. I'm always told to cross the ball more because we're winning headers.... except that is my central defenders winning THEIR crosses. The guys we'd be crossing to have no jumping or heading skill that would dominate in the air.

Or maybe faint line traces where the players are coming from should we choose to have them on certain players... things like that.

[THOG]

The main reason for the increase in difficulty in FM14 are improvements to the ME and match day AI. I don't recall any known exploits that were prevented by the changes to the TC.

[Lyssien]

YKW, great post! It is the post I would like to have written but couldn't.

The main reason for the increase in difficulty in FM14 are improvements to the ME and match day AI. I don't recall any known exploits that were prevented by the changes to the TC.

Why are there so many options missing then? Specifically:

- Why don't we have more options for the depth of the defensive line?

- Why can't we choose expressiveness (Be more expressive!) on a player by player basis?

- Why can't we have a playmaker at -say- the MR position?

- Maybe I have missed it, but I was looking for an MC role to hold up ball and could not find one.

- etc-etc the point being that so many realistic options were thrown out of the game.

I could be wrong, but the only logical explanation I can think of for all the TC omissions is that the AI cannot cope with them yet.

So yes, there are less exploits now, but I feel it is only because I got my hands tied behind my back. My real worry is that SI may make a habit of cutting down on our options instead of attacking the problem.

Having said all this, I totally respect the difficulty in building a good ME. I don't even know how SI got this far. But I am not sure I like the way they are heading right now.

[Dagenham_Dave]

- Why don't we have more options for the depth of the defensive line?

.

How many more options do you want? You already have four options in the team instructions (five if you don't choose any of them), plus your starting mentality (defensive, control etc) influences how far up (or down) the field your defensive line starts. Then there's the player instructions which can be tweaked to help it too.

And in terms of not having a 'playmaker' at the MR position? Define what a playmaker is. I'm quite sure there's a combination of player instructions which will allow the player in that position to do playmaking duties when required.

Also, the ability to 'hold up the ball' is a basic requirement of most defensively minded midfield players, there's no need to have a specific role for it.

[markantony]

Not posting at all is not an option. You can post in GD more often now.

I'll have a go at the questions to get us started. Hope I understood them well enough though.

People complain about have to read 50 pages on a forum. Hyperbole, obviously, but I assume they've had to sift through a lot of threads to find the information they need and information that better their understanding of FM. That can be off-putting. FM can introduce more information in the right areas, preventing users from going through that trouble in the first place. It doesn't even need to be 50 pages worth. A paragraph of explanation here and there, especially on the tactical side, could make a world of difference.

I agree. I try to stop mis-information spreading too and I know you have an issue with it spreading as well. As you say, it may get you results in the short-term but when the next update rolls out the forums get flooded with "the update broke my tactics!".

It's an expectation issue. When I manage a small team, I live for the unexpected victories. They're down to my brilliance as a manager, even I didn't expect a win. I see a lot of people managing say, Crystal Palace, and expecting to compete for European Qualification in the 1st/2nd season when it's highly improbable. Lose 2/3 in a row? ME is broken, obviously. With lower expectations, you'd realise that you're managing a team predicted to finish last so even if you finish 18th, you've over-achieved!

Managing the bigger teams, I expect to win every game. By miles too. This causes a world of frustration, because I don't always win and things don't always go my way. Opposition might steal a goal on the counter or catch my team sleeping at a corner and then I really have to work to get back in the game. It may not have been my tactics, but I know these things happen from time to time so I try to get back into the game rather than just rage-quitting and giving up on FM.

I don't venture into the Tactics Forum much, so I'm not really up to date with the latest developments. I wouldn't say they're inaccurate though. It just needs updating and FM15 would be the perfect time to do it. If anything, FM14 has highlighted the need for a good update on that front. Things like Mentality and Fluidity could remain, but we need better terms and/or descriptions to go with it. I wonder how many people could really describe what mentality and especially fluidity is and what it does?

The sliders weren't more accessible. You're correct, of course, that very few people could explain the sliders properly. Very few could explain just the mentality slider properly. What the sliders offered, was a basic visual set out of your tactic and what the team and players would do. That's missing this year. It's not as easy to know how much a regista will close down compared to the rest of the team, as an example. The description doesn't mention how he will behave defensively. If the sliders were there, we could see what he's been instructed to do. This is where FM15 could improve as well, either by improving the existing UI (making it clearer which options are on/off/unavailable and perhaps why) as is or adding something visual to compliment the instructions.

Maybe a numerical value attached to the positions for basics things such as "defending, attacking and creativity?"

[Pangaea]

This thread has developed into an ME/TC discussion, and that's fine I guess, plenty of issues there, but let's also keep in mind that another key aspect of the OP is the AI's longterm planning, like squad building. I remember very long and detailed posts about these issues during testing for FM08, FM09 and FM10, and probably later too. Yet the same problems are still intact. I've only played FM14 a little bit lately, basically not playing since FM10, and find it amazing what I see too often, "Wow, four years, and the same bugs are still there." For instance, a typical Man Utd and such move: buy a fantastically rated 15-17 year old for 3-5m.... then never play him. Even after so little time with the game, I see the same patterns as before with the plaything clubs too: blow silly amounts of money on excellent players, then do the same the next year again. No proper planning really, and then half a team of great players are rotting away. Rinse and repeat. (Yes, some of this goes on IRL too, hello Real Madrid and Chelsea, but not to this extent, not even close).

In terms of the ME/TC, it's frustrating trying to create a tactic that plays a certain style of football, because it's so bloody hard to get what you want to play out. After watching lots of full matches I've now got it functioning, but most people won't have the time or patience for that kind of "study". And even so, it's amazing that they still act like plebs so often. For example, when they've just won the ball back from a tackle, and then proceed to whack the ball away as a player is technically close by (albeit on his arse). Then defenders trying to play it out from the back, but if the opposition is pushing upwards so there is no easy pass out, they'll easily panic and hoof the ball in a random direction, instead of a 30-ish meter ball over their heads to an available winger or midfielder (I've seen this sooooo many times). It's as if they only "see" a small area around them, and if there is nothing on... HOOF. Even more idiotic when this happens after just winning or intercepting the ball in defence, and then they go on to hoof it out to a corner, when they're under no real pressure. And so on. I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about. Watching full matches really shows you how much idiotic happens on that pitch.

That was more about the gritty details than the bird's view perspective, but it's important as well, and it tears me right out of immersion mode when I see these things. Things have certainly improved in many ways in four years, but it's disappointing to see many of the same issues, both inside and outside of the match engine, present in the game after all this time, and I know after lots and LOTS of constructive criticism in the appropriate channels.

[HUNT3R]

Why are there so many options missing then? Specifically:

- Why don't we have more options for the depth of the defensive line?

- Why can't we choose expressiveness (Be more expressive!) on a player by player basis?

- Why can't we have a playmaker at -say- the MR position?

- Maybe I have missed it, but I was looking for an MC role to hold up ball and could not find one.

- etc-etc the point being that so many realistic options were thrown out of the game.

I could be wrong, but the only logical explanation I can think of for all the TC omissions is that the AI cannot cope with them yet.

- Why do you want more options for the depth? We have 5 per strategy now. Why isn't that enough?

- You can. Give him a role with a lot of freedom, like an advanced playmaker role over a central midfielder role, as an example.

- What's wrong with using a wide midfielder?

- There, the tactical forum guys could answer, but at a guess (which I shouldn't have to) the midfielder's hold up ball instructions are tied to their roles. They may even have the instruction enabled for all the central midfield roles, not sure.

[Lyssien]

How many more options do you want? You already have four options in the team instructions (five if you don't choose any of them), plus your starting mentality (defensive, control etc) influences how far up (or down) the field your defensive line starts. Then there's the player instructions which can be tweaked to help it too.

And in terms of not having a 'playmaker' at the MR position? Define what a playmaker is. I'm quite sure there's a combination of player instructions which will allow the player in that position to do playmaking duties when required.

Also, the ability to 'hold up the ball' is a basic requirement of most defensively minded midfield players, there's no need to have a specific role for it.

- Why do you want more options for the depth? We have 5 per strategy now. Why isn't that enough?

- You can. Give him a role with a lot of freedom, like an advanced playmaker role over a central midfielder role, as an example.

- What's wrong with using a wide midfielder?

- There, the tactical forum guys could answer, but at a guess (which I shouldn't have to) the midfielder's hold up ball instructions are tied to their roles. They may even have the instruction enabled for all the central midfield roles, not sure.

Dave & Hunt3r,

- Eventually, I would like to have as many different defensive lines as IRL. That's (quasi-)infinite. Is that the direction we are moving? Anyway, maybe this was not a good example; I am not too unhappy with the number of defensive lines, just with their illustration.

- But the missing playmaker option at the side-midfielder position is a really good example I think!

When I say "playmaker", I mean:

a) a player who my other players will look to feed the ball to in order to start the attack,

b) they will also look to feed him the ball when the first wave of attack reaches a dead end,

c) when the playmaker gets the ball, he tries to be fancy, because it's his job to be creative, and

d) when the playmaker gets the ball, the other players move to a more attacking position/attitude because they know that the playmaker will try to get fancy.

This works quite well with the existing playmaker roles, but these roles are strangely not available in all positions.

I have tried to simulate the playmaker role at side midfielder by changing the roles of all players around him. I have failed and I am not sure it is possible. Furthermore, I shouldn't have to change the other roles! That is artificial/unrealistic complexity that should not be there!

I actually have a theory on why there is no playmaker role at side midfielder. Some AI formations would not be able to cope with him. Take for example 4-1DM-2-2-1 (also known as 4-3-3). Their fullbacks are too far away from my side midfielder and their inside forwards don't really defend. If my side midfielder could be a playmaker, he would absolutely destroy 4-1DM-2-2-1. So maybe we were not given the option because of this.

My theory could be wrong in this specific case, but the point remains. There are realistic options we were not given; there is frustrating complexity (like elaborately trying to get the side midfielder to act as a playmaker!) that should not be there; and there are realistic situations that the ME cannot handle (even if you don't like my side midfielder example, I am sure you can think of other examples yourselves). It then makes sense to me that we were not given some options exactly because the ME cannot handle them.

- On CMs not having the option to hold up ball: The PI option is greyed out as "unavailable" for all of them, as far as I have seen. Very weird, isn't it? Anyway, the ME effect of holding up the ball can easily be seen when you choose the "exploit the flanks" TI. In this case, the CMs automatically hold up the ball while the wingers move forward and aggressively look to exploit space. Why isn't there an option to have this effect for specific central midfield players without "exploit the flanks"? Is it because the ME cannot handle it and could be badly exploited? Or is it just bad TC descriptions? I don't know, but in either case this just adds to the frustrations we are talking about.

EDT: Now, the question is: Is SI trying to rectify such problems? Or will they just keep cutting down on our options? Generally, when I see options cut down, I automatically become pessimistic. Too much bad experience with governments. Hopefully, SI will prove to me that they are better than that.

[Cougar2010]

- On CMs not having the option to hold up ball: The PI option is greyed out as "unavailable" for all of them, as far as I have seen. Very weird, isn't it? Anyway, the ME effect of holding up the ball can easily be seen when you choose the "exploit the flanks" TI. In this case, the CMs automatically hold up the ball while the wingers move forward and aggressively look to exploit space. Why isn't there an option to have this effect for specific central midfield players without "exploit the flanks"? Is it because the ME cannot handle it and could be badly exploited? Or is it just bad TC descriptions? I don't know, but in either case this just adds to the frustrations we are talking about.

As I understand it it could also be greyed out because it is a key part of the role selected and can't be turned off.

For your wide PM comments I would be happy to have more roles in the TC but how many teams have ever used a wide PM? any examples spring to mind?

EDIT

You do get a wide PM role option if the player is positioned at AML/AMR its just ML & MR where you don't which seems fair to me.

[RTHerringbone]

EDT: Now, the question is: Is SI trying to rectify such problems? Or will they just keep cutting down on our options? Generally, when I see options cut down, I automatically become pessimistic. Too much bad experience with governments. Hopefully, SI will prove to me that they are better than that.

SI are open minded, and this game and its many facets are always subject to change.

The best way to instigate change? If you feel strongly about the current inability to select a playmaker Role in a certain slot, or challenge the notion that not all MCs can Hold Up the ball, then add it to the wishlist thread, articulating why you think it is wrong, and what you think it should be.

The challenge is that you earlier stated:

I have tried to simulate the playmaker role at side midfielder by changing the roles of all players around him. I have failed and I am not sure it is possible. Furthermore, I shouldn't have to change the other roles! That is artificial/unrealistic complexity that should not be there!

So, on one hand, you are asking for more instructions to be available for more Roles, but on the other you are stating that you shouldn't need to change Roles at all.

As the TC stands now, certain instructions were locked in or out of Roles, in order to preserve the essence of that Role. This should certainly remain the case for distinct Roles like Wingers or Inside Forwards. There is a legitimate argument that more generic Roles like Central Midfielder or Wide Midfielder should perhaps have more of their locked instructions made available. There does need to be some form of restriction though, as players are built around Roles and Duties now, and an open-ended set of instructions for all Roles would conflict with that strategic direction.