Open letter to SI: The Realism or Without Arrows

[Cougar2010]

Thats already been done VMX and option 3 has been decided upon by SI.

I suspect the use of individual instructions gives far more freedom than a "properly" coded arrow ever could.

[Neb]

Sounds spot on mate.

Its nice to have a few people writing sensible posts!

[Swindon69]

Did it really matter if some people developed exploit tactics to beat a computer game - most people didn't.

[Ackter]

Did it really matter if some people developed exploit tactics to beat a computer game - most people didn't.

Yes - the same match engine is used in both FM and FML, and in FML it was an imperitive change which has lead to a much more enjoyable match experience.

[Swindon69]

So is the future of FM to be defined by FML then.

[tanassi]

It just all shows FM is totally over-engineered. Playing ALL the fm's the bone I've seen it slide from a fun game into a complicated mathematical puzzle with a gazillion switches, slides, setting, tick boxes, etc etc that keeps loosing it's touch with football. Please, please make it playable and stop trying to cram everything into it and end up with nothing.

[thebigman1985]

Yes, because I'm known for my lack of tactical thought. Famous for it in fact.

Tactical control has improved. Fundamentally so. The ME plays better. Far, far better. It is absolutely possible to have a dynamic 4-3-3 to 4-5-1 switch within the same tactic.

The arrows were removed because they hurt the ME. Nothing to do with simplifying or dumbing down the game. Simply to make it come more in line with how football is played and looks in the real world.

If you believe for one moment the arrowless ME should factor in to your decision about not buying the game, then you are taking the worries of people who haven't played with the arrowless ME over the massively positive feedback of the majority of users who have played with it for the last 9 months. Hmm, who would I listen to?

exactly, every 4 3 3 can become a 4 5 1 when defending!!

all it takes is for wingers to drop deeper

[Ackter]

So is the future of FM to be defined by FML then.

When it leads to a better match engine, yes.

[Swindon69]

I rather get the feeling that FM will become the 2nd feature as we only pay for it once!

[peter-evo]

It just all shows FM is totally over-engineered. Playing ALL the fm's the bone I've seen it slide from a fun game into a complicated mathematical puzzle with a gazillion switches, slides, setting, tick boxes, etc etc that keeps loosing it's touch with football. Please, please make it playable and stop trying to cram everything into it and end up with nothing.

Every year, Football Manager has took another step closer to a compeletely realistic football management simulation. The aim of the game is for the user to step into the shoes of a Football Manager and experience the highs or lows.

SI are obviously doing something right with how they approach the game as they sell the most, have the most active community and is in general the best loved game of its genre on the market.

Other "fun" games like Fifa Manager and Championship Manager are not as popular as Football Manager so realism is what most customers are looking for and this years release will be no different in that it will take another step towards the perfect football management game

[Ainu]

It just all shows FM is totally over-engineered. Playing ALL the fm's the bone I've seen it slide from a fun game into a complicated mathematical puzzle with a gazillion switches, slides, setting, tick boxes, etc etc that keeps loosing it's touch with football. Please, please make it playable and stop trying to cram everything into it and end up with nothing.

If that's your take on FM's evolution than I think SI agrees with you and you'll find FM 09 more to your liking; at least from what I gathered here. Losing the ambiguous arrows sounds like a stride towards a less complicated puzzle, though less complicated in this case doesn't mean more tactically limited. I too long for a game where transferring your tactical ideas to your players doesn't involve a bunch of unintuitive boxes and sliders, and while said boxes and sliders obviously remain in the game, it at least seems that their function is more clearly defined. Losing the arrows apparantly played some part in this and that should be considered a positive. I, at any rate, have a great feeling about FM 09's ME and tactical input.

[SCIAG]

I rather get the feeling that FM will become the 2nd feature as we only pay for it once!

I doubt that. Nobody has left the SI team to work on FML. In this case however, the FML ME (which has been tested A LOT) is being used with 09, so we'll get a better ME. Arrows or a brilliant ME? Hmm, tough choice.

(as much as I love arrows I think I'd rather have Live's ME)

Arrows clearly do have a place in genuine real life tactics. Do you think SAF says "Ronaldo, when we get the ball, run forwards often and cut inside"? No, he probably draws an arrow for Ronaldo to see where he should be running. A picture paints 1000 words.

[TriAn]

When we originally had the debate about the removal of arrows in FML testing, the only criteria we used were the integrity of the ME and the look of the football. Prior to the test removal, there were a huge number of disagreements about whether they should stay or go, both within SI and the FML forums. Even the tactical mods didn't at first agree, with Rashidi being openly vocal about the need for them to stay whereas I was equally insistent that they should go. That Rashidi and many others didn't just change their mind but came to recognise the FML ME as a major evolution in the development of the engine and became major proponents and defenders of the change should quash many fears.

The accusations of laziness are also unfounded. FML enabled SI to simultaneously test user feedback from GWs with and without the arrowless ME. The feedback from the arrowless GWs was so good compared to the arrowed ones that it swung the balance of opinion heavily towards the arrowless option. Scorelines came down as people could finally defend and the football looked realistic. PaulC has repeatedly stated his vision for the ME is for it to produce as realistic simulation of real life football as possible. Based on extensive feedback from SI employees, mods and general users, plus his own playing experience, he decided to take the arrows out of the game. At no point was it ever a lazy option.

What will happen when the arrowless ME hits FM09? People are going to have to learn to design tactics that work from the ground up. Tactical success is no longer going to be about drawing a plethora of arrows until you find a system the AI can't cope with. In FM08, a quick look at the tactical forum and the Tactical Cup run by the OP and the team at FMFan.ru, illustrates vividly how the majority of people are playing FM. They design multi-arrowed exploitative tactics that rely on artificial holes in the ME to unfairly outwit the AI. As one previous poster put it, it would be like playing a driving game in which your car had a 7-speed gear box whereas the AI only had a 3-speed one. Yes, you'd win, but only because the AI isn't on a level playing field. No fun in that.

For a lot of users, the learning curve is going to be steep and there will be many, many false steps along the way. However, once they scale its peaks, they will suddenly see the ME for what it is, a brilliant piece of programming capable of producing an exceptional simulation of football reality. You can already see this in FM08, which looks a far better engine without user arrows and is, for me, the biggest argument for their removal.

The final point in the defence of the end of arrows is that FWRs (often to none) have been reworked to take their place. You haven't suddenly lost the ability to have your FB overlap and put in a cross from the byline or have your MC drift between the FCs to score. What you have lost is the ability to have them move into that position no matter what. Players will only make FWRs when they are on, not by default, which adds much dynamism to the football. The better the player, the better his runs. This means that the super AMC of old (farrowed to FC) will only be as effective if the player himself is excellent. A world-class AMC will still be hugely effective. An average one, however, will no longer be able to look great simply because he is moving into a hole the AI can't defend.

When we originally had the debate about the removal of Challenge Keeper and Cross 6 Yard Box Instructions in FML testing, the only criteria we used were the integrity of the ME and the look of the football. Prior to the test removal, there were a huge number of disagreements about whether they should stay or go, both within SI and the FML forums. Even the tactical mods didn't at first agree, with Rashidi being openly vocal about the need for them to stay whereas I was equally insistent that they should go. That Rashidi and many others didn't just change their mind but came to recognise the FML ME as a major evolution in the development of the engine and became major proponents and defenders of the change should quash many fears.

wwfan, I changed a little first paragraph of your post. It's very easy to apply similar changes to the other text so everyone should clearly see that it's right decision to remove these instructions.

However, once they scale its peaks, they will suddenly see the ME for what it is, a brilliant piece of programming capable of producing an exceptional simulation of football reality. You can already see this in FM08, which looks a far better engine without user arrows and is, for me, the biggest argument for their removal.

FM08 ME (with or without arrows, not matter) is awful. Speed of transition from defensive stage to attacking and back (one of main factors in modern football) is very slow and many more other things...

Unfortunately, the thread in which the removal of arrows was originally debated got lost in the forum change over, which means it is impossible to refer back to it. From memory, there was a lot of discussion about how arrows could be replaced, some of which seems to have made it into FM09, notably training specific PPMs. The condition argument was made and discussed, but ultimately defeated, because it meant that a team could play extremely exploitative football until the players got tired.

Once again fatigue is not only reason why such massive movement is not effective IRL.

The key argument as to the removal of arrows was that they were an illogical real world translation. They basically told a player to operate in dual positions, and then make runs, rather than operate in one position and make runs into another when possible. People were creating tactics in which every player had two positions. This simply cannot happen in real life. No player will be told to be an MC when defending and an FC when attacking. Rather, they will be told to play in midfield and support the attack when possible.

All that does not contradict laws of physics and rules of football has the right to exist. Any other restrictions are artificial and inevitably limit ME realism.

Even with arrows the ME not quite reflects a reality. But without them it's even less realistic.

[roseboy64]

I doubt that. Nobody has left the SI team to work on FML. In this case however, the FML ME (which has been tested A LOT) is being used with 09, so we'll get a better ME. Arrows or a brilliant ME? Hmm, tough choice.

(as much as I love arrows I think I'd rather have Live's ME)

Arrows clearly do have a place in genuine real life tactics. Do you think SAF says "Ronaldo, when we get the ball, run forwards often and cut inside"? No, he probably draws an arrow for Ronaldo to see where he should be running. A picture paints 1000 words.

Correct. But unlike in FM he doesn't do that every time. I think this re-work allows him to be able to do that when applicable as in real life not to do that regardless of match situation as in FM ATM.

[Hamenaglar]

I do think that arrows were unrealistic. Sarrows weren't doing what I wanted to do, it just made my player play on position when in attack and another when in defense, instead of drifting. Farrows and Barrows also didn't make much sense to me. For instance AI never used 4-4-2 with AMR/AML positions. Also one of the thing I noticed in 4-2-4 that wingers do track back and help defense, it's nothing more than offensive 4-4-2. So when it comes to forward runs arrows were unnecessary and when it comes to lateral movement sarrows were unrealistic. However I do hope that SI will come up with tactical instructions that will allow for better lateral movement of players.

[roseboy64]

[

All that does not contradict laws of physics and rules of football has the right to exist. Any other restrictions are artificial and inevitably limit ME realism.

Even with arrows the ME not quite reflects a reality. But without them it's even less realistic.

And you've played the game to see that it's less realistic?

[Ainu]

wwfan, I changed a little first paragraph of your post. It's very easy to apply similar changes to the other text so everyone should clearly see that it's right decision to remove these instructions.

I see what you're trying here, but it fails. The corner bug is just that, a bug. It's something that doesn't remotely threaten the integrity of the ME as a whole, and as a result it shouldn't be too hard to get it right in the next version. The arrows have a massive effect on the ME, one the ME arguably doesn't even benifit from. They never achieved what they ideally should've achieved and hence the decision by SI to replace them by other mechanism. This isn't just a flat out removal as you and your compatriots so stubbornly call it, it's a work around that produces positive results.

wwfanFM08 ME (with or without arrows, not matter) is awful. Speed of transition from defensive stage to attacking and back (one of main factors in modern football) is very slow and many more other things...

It most certainly isn't awful, nowhere near it. It had its obvious flaws but it was a great evolution nonetheless. If that's your view of it, you might want to consider staying away from FM 09, as it's likely to be a continuation of that evolution.

[TriAn]

And you've played the game to see that it's less realistic?

If it's so important, yes.

Things which are possible IRL and are impossible in FM became more.

[Hamenaglar]

And you've played the game to see that it's less realistic?/QUOTE]

If it's so important, yes.

Things which are possible IRL and are impossible in FM became more.

I disagree, the things wich were possible IRL were not possible with arrows. This is just elimination of confusing and illogical instructions. Arrows were in need for a rehash for a long time coming. I absolutely hated them since FM2007.

[someguy]

Will someone just clear this up, arrows have been removed so how do you instruct players where to move?

[Hamenaglar]

Will someone just clear this up, arrows have been removed so how do you instruct players where to move?

We'll see when play the game/demo.

[wwfan]

Don't get me wrong. I didn't mean to criticize you by any means. I know you as a very constructive and knowledgable poster on here and indeed your answer has actually helped to reassure me a bit.

My issue was that you are the one who has to do that job in here, because there is uncertainty about the tactical options in the game. It has become known that one thing has been taken out and obviously this causes uncertainty about whether and how SI are planning to make up for that? Will we have less options? How else will we be able to create a comparable tactic?

As this issue is so sensible I would expect SI to post a statement about this a bit earlier than at the release of the demo to deal with the many users who have not seen the new engine yet.

Not knowing anything about it, I was/am just afraid that SI might now start to take "features" out of the game just like EA did with so many of its games.

The way it is in FM08 is perfectly fine for me and not using some downloaded super tactic (I'm not even aware whether there is one) but making moderate use of arrows, such change makes me wonder if I get stripped-down in my option because of other people's exploits of flaws in the match engine.

I just want this change to be understandable to me and SI are the guys who should be able to get the message across best and not leave it to eloquent forum regulars (and usually I'm really not one of those 'official statement please' in caps whiners).

That's fair enough and I didn't mean to be overly sharp in my response. To answer your enquiry about why I'm writing so much here, in terms of the reasoning behind the removal or arrows and what it was intended to achieve, the only person at SI who can speak about it on the same level as I do is PaulC. Personally, I'd prefer him to be working on the game rather than answering worries here. As a tactical mod and as someone who was fundamentally involved with the removal of arrows from the very first suggestion until the final decision, I am acutely aware of the arguments and reasons behind their going. From the user base, I'd listen to Rashidi and, if he could be bothered to write more than a one sentence response, Ackter. SuperBladesman and Kriss were also heavily involved with the experimental process and make a lot of sense.

Again, I'd like to reassure everyone that it was people who take the tactical module very seriously and are very knowledgeable about the ME workings that were integral to the decision to remove arrows. If any of these people doubted that the removal would limit or dumb down the tactical module it wouldn't have happened. As has been clear from this thread, the majority of users who have played with the arrowless ME, especially with the full tactical instructions enabled, are overwhelmingly positive. When it was introduced we, as one user stated, 'expected a riot'. However, as the ME was so obviously superior, it never materialised. The tiny minority that did complain were those who had used 7-9 arrows in a crazy pattern and suddenly started losing all their games. They are the only people the removal affected negatively.

When the arrowless ME launches and people play against the AI, I believe there will be an extremely steep learning curve. For many, the game is going to be difficult at first and some fundamental assumptions about past tactics will have to be reconsidered. However, once people begine to work out how to construct holisitic tactics, rather than fragmented ones that are patched by arrows, I sincerely believe that everybody will appreciate the quality of the ME and nobody will miss the arrows in the slightest. I also believe that in the long-term, FM09 will be a far more fun game than FM08, with a large part of that being down the the tactical and ME revisions that are causing so much fuss here.

[wwfan]

Will someone just clear this up, arrows have been removed so how do you instruct players where to move?

You never could. You simply assigned them two positions. One at the back of the arrow (MC) one at the front (AMC). Now you can only assign one. Movement is, and always was, dynamic and related to how they moved once they reached their assigned position.

This is the fundamental misperception of how arrows work summed up in a nutshell.

[Ackter]

Hey, I was in work

[someguy]

You never could. You simply assigned them two positions. One at the back of the arrow (MC) one at the front (AMC). Now you can only assign one. Movement is, and always was, dynamic and related to how they moved once they reached their assigned position.

This is the fundamental misperception of how arrows work summed up in a nutshell.

Yeah I suppose it is.

I never read the book but always assumed it was a rough indication of where you want your player to make runs . Saying that, they're basically the same thing. Anyway, if they have removed this what do you use to indicate positions now?

[Cougar2010]

Yeah I suppose it is.

I never read the book but always assumed it was a rough indication of where you want your player to make runs . Saying that, they're basically the same thing. Anyway, if they have removed this what do you use to indicate positions now?

You pick their position as normal then issue individual instructions based on what you want them to do.

[wwfan]

Hey, I was in work

Thanks for proving my point

@ someguy: You use positions to assign positions, i.e is the player an ML, AML, MCL etc You then use other instructions, notably mentality, FWRs, closing down, creative freedom, free role to decide how quickly and often he leaves that position to defend or attack.

[Ter]

So is the future of FM to be defined by FML then.

Not at all. They are both different games that offer their own unique gaming experience. From time to time the teams will share ideas which will only be good for both games in the long term. It's happened in the past as well with ideas being, ahem, borrowed from our other titles like Eastside Hockey Manager for example.

The only thing that is "shared" between FM and FML is the match engine which could really be defined as a project in it's own right that can be utilised by both games. Exposure of this match engine to thousands of people playing thousands of matches can only be good for identifying potential exploits and flaws and ensuring that it goes from strength to strength.

[someguy]

You pick their position as normal then issue individual instructions based on what you want them to do.

I take it you mean mentality. So unless they have added a couple of options like cut inside etc that does sound like it could be a problem. There should be an option to cut inside, make runs acoss the defence, drop behind the stiker, Et cet era Et cet era......

[Cougar2010]

I take it you mean mentality. So unless they have added a couple of options like cut inside etc that does sound like it could be a problem. There should be an option to cut inside, make runs acoss the defence, drop behind the stiker, Et cet era Et cet era......

These were never possible with arrows, it just happened to look that way.

You presumed this is what was happening when in reality all the ME was doing was moving the player to his new position.

[TriAn]

I see what you're trying here, but it fails. The corner bug is just that, a bug. It's something that doesn't remotely threaten the integrity of the ME as a whole, and as a result it shouldn't be too hard to get it right in the next version. The arrows have a massive effect on the ME, one the ME arguably doesn't even benifit from. They never achieved what they ideally should've achieved and hence the decision by SI to replace them by other mechanism. This isn't just a flat out removal as you and your compatriots so stubbornly call it, it's a work around that produces positive results.

But I haven't noticed any new mechanism. )

It most certainly isn't awful, nowhere near it. It had its obvious flaws but it was a great evolution nonetheless. If that's your view of it, you might want to consider staying away from FM 09, as it's likely to be a continuation of that evolution.

ME without counterattacks as it was in 8.02 definitely isn't awful.

By the way, this is thing which allowed to use strange 235 formations in positional attacks without risk to be caught on counter.

[wwfan]

@ someguy: Most of those should happen anyway, in relation to what is playing out on the pitch. For certain attacks, a winger will cut inside, for others he needs to stay wide, for others still he will make dummy runs across the back line. It is down to the player reading the game as to whether he does the right thing.

Setting up a forward who drops deep has been possible for years and has nothing to do with arrows. A lower mentality, no FWRs and HUB (plus the option of Target Man To Feet) ensures one forward plays in the hole.

[someguy]

These were never possible with arrows, it just happened to look that way.

You presumed this is what was happening when in reality all the ME was doing was moving the player to his new position.

Are you telling me the games been lying to me all this time!!!!!

No but seriously, maybe you could not be that specific but you had the option to tell a player to make runs from striker to attacking midfielder for example. Whether this is instructing a run or a second attacking position, it does not really matter the fact is you had this option and, as far as I'm aware, the players did used to follow this pretty well.

All I'm saying is now this has gone, if you do want to instruct a striker to drop deep now you can only do it with the current individual instructions? Assuming that FM 09 hasn't made big changes to tactics of course.

[TriAn]

I disagree, the things wich were possible IRL were not possible with arrows.

And what? Things which were possible IRL and were not possible with arrows still will not be possible without arrows.

I absolutely hated them since FM2007.

I loved them since cm1. )))

[wwfan]

Are you telling me the games been lying to me all this time!!!!!

No but seriously, maybe you could not be that specific but you had the option to tell a player to make runs from striker to attacking midfielder for example. Whether this is instructing a run or a second attacking position, it does not really matter the fact is you had this option and, as far as I'm aware, the players did used to follow this pretty well.

All I'm saying is now this has gone, if you do want to instruct a striker to drop deep now you can only do it with the current individual instructions? Assuming that FM 09 hasn't made big changes to tactics of course.

Manager's Instructions (no arrows)

I want you to drop deep into the hole: Lower Mentality

I want you to stay there as a link man until play moves ahead of you: No FWRs

If you have the ball I want you to give other players time to move ahead of you: Hold Up Ball

The team will look to feed you at every opportunity: Target Man To Feet

Manager's Instructions (Arrows)

I want you to move between the AMC and FC position depending on whether we have the ball or not: Arrow from FC to AMC

[Ainu]

But I haven't noticed any new mechanism. )

ME without counterattacks as it was in 8.02 definitely isn't awful.

By the way, this is thing which allowed to use strange 235 formations in positional attacks without risk to be caught on counter.

Could you stop acting like you've played the final product please? Whether or not there will be alternate input methods is something neither of us know, but even so it is at least confirmed that the iternal mechanisms are significantly improved.

And the ME isn't awful with or without counter attacks. I'm verry sorry that's how you feel about it, but it isn't the general opinion. 8.00 and 8.01 were rather flawed and 8.02 certainly issn't flawless either, but it's a rock solid ME that plays arguably the most realistic game of virtual football ever.

[someguy]

Manager's Instructions (no arrows)

I want you to drop deep into the hole: Lower Mentality

I want you to stay there as a link man until play moves ahead of you: No FWRs

If you have the ball I want you to give other players time to move ahead of you: Hold Up Ball

The team will look to feed you at every opportunity: Target Man To Feet

Manager's Instructions (Arrows)

I want you to move between the AMC and FC position depending on whether we have the ball or not: Arrow from FC to AMC

Yeah cool, I get that bit.

Look, this is sort of coincides with previous complaints about the current tactics. Personally I've always thought what was avaliable worked fairly well and was pretty clear. Thinking about it though, maybe it is a bit too vague. The slider system etc.

Yes, passing style, metality, closing down and all that seems obvious enough but the whole balance thing with about 2 or 3 sliders to instruct a player to perform one thing is a bit needlessly compliacted and indistinct. If its a case of the ME not coping, thats a different story, but an arrow to instruct a run (like saying, "Walcott, break into the area when we counter attack") is a basic command and the simpilist and most logical way to instruct this.

Some people have raised issues with the sliders before, especially the more novice players, and now the arrows have gone maybe it is time to have a look at the current layout. I'm not saying theye should be stupidly easy, I'm not saying they should be overly specific, but they should be cleaned up and mayed more clear.

Making them more clear and informative would take nothing away from the challenge of making good tatics. Being a good tactition is more about choosing the right clear instructions as opposed to knowing how to balance rather obscure commands.

[shevelevee]

To clarify - an AML with an arrow to FC did NOT make the player cut in with the ball.

All this did was turn him into a striker when in possession.

Manager's Instructions (no arrows)

I want you to drop deep into the hole: Lower Mentality

I want you to stay there as a link man until play moves ahead of you: No FWRs

If you have the ball I want you to give other players time to move ahead of you: Hold Up Ball

The team will look to feed you at every opportunity: Target Man To Feet

Manager's Instructions (Arrows)

I want you to move between the AMC and FC position depending on whether we have the ball or not: Arrow from FC to AMC

Guys, please stop this. You say that arrow don't mean run. But how can player move from one position to another without run?

What about "limited movement"...

But when there is not any possibilty to ask about any movement - this is more realistic?

I am totally disappointed about Ter' words about FML and FM. Last summer Si said: "FML development will not change anything in FM, there are two independent groups, which work with Fm and FML". And what we see now? "We tested match engine in FML during last year and how we see in FML, arrows must be removed from FM". I don't understand, how can two independent team work separately and create similair match engine.

I will not be surprised, if next autumn we'll see similair topic about manager skills. SI will say us:"It's unreal when you start game, and can do everything you want - that's why we add skills development as in FML"

We loved this game not for "nice ME", which look magnificent. We love it for illusion of frredom, we can create our team with our vision of football and tactic. But now...

This is not first time, when Si limit our ability to change tactic. I am 95% confident in fact, that Individual Creative Freedom don't work in 8.02. I can say with 100% confident in fact, that training shedules don't work in 8.01. We've establish this through our tests. And it is not good.

You can say again and again about "cheater arrows", but I will ask again and again - why delete? Why not tune and develop them?

[Ter]

I am totally disappointed about Ter' words about FML and FM. Last summer Si said: "FML development will not change anything in FM, there are two independent groups, which work with Fm and FML". And what we see now? "We tested match engine in FML during last year and how we see in FML, arrows must be removed from FM". I don't understand, how can two independent team work separately and create similair match engine.

I think there are some crossed wires here.

We have the FM team who work on FM and the FML team who work on FML.

Then there is the match engine which is shared by both games.

It's not uncommon for ideas to be shared between the FM and FML teams. That doesn't mean that because something is in one game it is going to appear in the other either. The skill learning stuff isn't likely to be used in FM but works well in a game like FML.

[TriAn]

Could you stop acting like you've played the final product please? Whether or not there will be alternate input methods is something neither of us know, but even so it is at least confirmed that the iternal mechanisms are significantly improved.

Sorry, but it was you who started speaking about things without knowledge of them.

And the ME isn't awful with or without counter attacks. I'm verry sorry that's how you feel about it, but it isn't the general opinion. 8.00 and 8.01 were rather flawed and 8.02 certainly issn't flawless either, but it's a rock solid ME that plays arguably the most realistic game of virtual football ever.

In difference from you I compare FM's ME with real game of football.

[shevelevee]

But arrows were removed during tests on FML, and there aren't arrows in FM09. That's fact.

[Masenyah]

But arrows were removed during tests on FML, and there aren't arrows in FM09. That's fact.

During tests on FML's ME, which is the same as the FM ME, thus, your point is moot.

[shevelevee]

Please, understand us - this is not aggression vs Si and this is not aggression vs FM09. We don't want to call somebody: "Don't buy FM09, because there aren't arrows"

It's hard for us to discuss about this mistake. We've alone do a lot to make Football Manager and FML more popular in Russia - there aren't any advertising except us. And we want to make FM more popular. But we think (and know), that if there will be limited tactic control in FM09, old fans of the game will leave us. Our feelings are too deep for words - and for english words specially, because it isn't our native language. I simply want to say SI about position of all russian community, and I think there are a lot of people, which agreed with us in other countries.

Please, promise us, that you'll do a replace for arrows. That's enough.

[shevelevee]

During tests on FML's ME, which is the same as the FM ME, thus, your point is moot.

I'm sorry, but you don't understand. There are two main directions in tactic developnent - first for online games (every online player work hard to fing ways to exploit another human manager tactics) and for offline game (human manager want to exploit AI tactics). If you play a lot in online games, you can see, that there is much difference between this two phylosophies of tactic design.

That's why Fm and FML aren't the same games. That's why development of ME for FML must be absolutly different.

I can say more, but I havenot enough english words for this, may be somebody explain ny post.

[someguy]

Yeah cool, I get that bit.

Look, this is sort of coincides with previous complaints about the current tactics. Personally I've always thought what was avaliable worked fairly well and was pretty clear. Thinking about it though, maybe it is a bit too vague. The slider system etc.

Yes, passing style, metality, closing down and all that seems obvious enough but the whole balance thing with about 2 or 3 sliders to instruct a player to perform one thing is a bit needlessly compliacted and indistinct. If its a case of the ME not coping, thats a different story, but an arrow to instruct a run (like saying, "Walcott, break into the area when we counter attack") is a basic command and the simpilist and most logical way to instruct this.

Some people have raised issues with the sliders before, especially the more novice players, and now the arrows have gone maybe it is time to have a look at the current layout. I'm not saying theye should be stupidly easy, I'm not saying they should be overly specific, but they should be cleaned up and mayed more clear.

Making them more clear and informative would take nothing away from the challenge of making good tatics. Being a good tactition is more about choosing the right clear instructions as opposed to knowing how to balance rather obscure commands.

anyone agree?

[Alekos]

I think the major problem most people are having with arrows is that they think they are a realistic instruction, when in reality the opposite is true.

Can you imagine telling a player he has to cover two different positions?

Rafa: "Ok, Steve, I need you to play central midfield, control the game and when we get the ball, I need you to run forward and play behind the striker."

Stevie G: "So you want me to get forward at every opportunity to support the attack?" (eg: FWR: Often)

Rafa: "No, I want you to play central midfield when we don't have the ball and then move up behind the striker and make forward runs from there."

Stevie G: "So you want me to play behind the striker but drop deep to defend (that's lower mentality and FWR: Rarely) and to collect the ball (PPM)?"

Rafa: "No, I need you to play both positions."

Stevie G: "Are you high?"

It's illogical. I play fullback and if I got an instruction like "Play as a wide striker when we get the ball" I'd knock my manager out for being a giant douche and not understanding the game. If on the other hand he told me to bomb down the flanks, thats what I'd do, right to the byline if requested and support the attack.

It's completely impossible in real life, but in FM it can exploit weaknesses in the engine. The main problem is that I suspect the AI routines that govern a player differ from position to position.

LOL!Sorry mate but have you ever played football or watched a football game at least??

OF COURSE you can play what the manager asks except crazy things like GK attacking in every opportunity..

When I used to play Defensive Mid in a club in real life the manager was asking from me to cover the RB position when the RB used to make FRs!!Is this weird?

Also when your Full Backs attacking you should be able to give instructions to the RCBs to go cover RB and the LCB to cover LB position and the DM come as DC...Is this so hard to be implemented with arrows?And am not talking about crazy things..All the above are real life examples..

With no arrows you won't be able to do that..

Lot of managers nowadays use players with opposite foot on the flanks(Right-footed plays AML, Left-footed AMR etc) nad they give them instractions to cut inside and shoot with their good foot or pass...

How can I do these without arrows in FM now?

They say that they removed arrows because of exploitation of the ME..

Now when we will randomly put forword runs, creative freedom,free roles etc. we won't find a way to exploit the ME??

And to tell you something, I really don't care if some people wanted to exploit the ME..I never tried to..I only care about how realistic are the tactics..And I want to make a tactic not always a winner tactic but a tactic that enjoys me when i watch the game and when I see my players doing what I have asked from them to do!

And I know that as a manager you can ask from players to do whatever you want...

So wouldn't be better improving the arrows than totally removing them?

For example the length of the RBs' arrow could be till AMR position or CB or DMR not till striker like some people said/used..

Am afraid that because of FML, FM2009 will lose its realism in tactics which is the MOST important in the manager simulation games...

[Alekos]

After reading this I'm somewhat disappointed that SI leave the job of defending the change to users like wwfan.

There ARE formations which irl have different set-ups in offense and defense like a 4-3-3 switching to a 4-5-1 or a 4-2-3-1 switching to 4-3-2-1.

Having neither wibble/wobble nor arrows at my disposal, the new engine deprives me of tactical options! I fail to see in what way this could improve the game or are SI actually going down the FIFA way of removing good options for new versions just to re-include them later for later versions to raise sales? If SI stop creating the best possible at any time for higher rewards, they'll lose their distinction and one of their USPs.

Maybe it just comes down to whether you are happy to sacrifice tactical freedom for realistic results on the match engine or vice versa. However if so, the ME is the problem, not the tactical freedom.

Thank god I haven't pre-ordered yet.

Agree...Even in the feature announcements we heard about female managers etc which is TOTALLY un-important comparing to tactical changes, removal of arrows etc etc since the tactical part is the KEY of those games...

[wwfan]

Shevelevee, I have always respected your and FMfans.ru contribution to the tactical side of things, but in this you are just wrong I'm afraid. The arrows were never intended to represent runs and perceiving them in that manner is where the confusion lies. They were illogical because they determined two points for the player to take up from which he then makes his defensive or attacking runs. The movement between the two points was never part of the runs calculation. Turning arrows into runs, which is what has happened, clears this up.

The only thing you have lost is the illusion of lateral control of runs.

Using the current Beta of FML as a reference point to what can and can't be done is a hugely flawed position. Firstly, most people have tactical restrictions and thus cannot experiment with what does and does not work. Secondly, the FML ME is a starting point for FM09 development and it was always made explicit that better off the ball movement would be a major development focus for post-FML MEs. You will not have lost any tactical control, only the illusion of tactical control. Your statement regarding creative freedom not working reflects this. For me, it is obvious when a player is operating with high CF in the FM08 engine, even more so without arrows. The fact that you suspect it is not working is down to the robotic player movements arrows enforce, whcih absolutely limits the influence of CF. The more arrows, the less it will look like CF influences the game. In believing that arrows are fundamental to the control of a system, you have limited the ability to influence player actions in a different, arguably much more important, area of tactical freedom.

[wwfan]

Agree...Even in the feature announcements we heard about female managers etc which is TOTALLY un-important comparing to tactical changes, removal of arrows etc etc since the tactical part is the KEY of those games...

And, if you listen to those who have played a fully operation version of the arrowless engine, has made it far, far better. Also, if you listen to people fundamentally involved in the decision to remove them, you'll recognise there is no loss of control.

However, if you wish to listen to people who weren't involved in the decision, have never played with the arrowless ME (or at least with full tactical options enabled), and are thus just guessing about what this means, then go ahead. No skin off my nose.

We wouldn't want to let a little knowledge get in the way of uninformed polemic, would we

[shevelevee]

The arrows were never intended to represent runs and perceiving them in that manner is where the confusion lies. They were illogical because they determined two points for the player to take up from which he then makes his defensive or attacking runs. The movement between the two points was never part of the runs calculation. Turning arrows into runs, which is what has happened, clears this up.

Sorry. I can't understand.

Run = to move on foot at a rapid pace so that both feet are off the ground together for part of each stride? If yes, how can player without runs go from position in defence to position in attack?