Open letter to SI: The Realism or Without Arrows

[shevelevee]

Answer 5 questions.

Why arrows unbalanced ME natch stats?

Whats ways was seeing to improve this balance except deleting arrows?

Why they were mispercieved and misused by the user base?

Why they were totally illogical?

Why moving of players as in real life, which I can add in my tactics using arrows now deleted?

#4 and #5 from your list = nothing for me, that's only words.

[shevelevee]

As a basic question, given that arrows were only intended to define a defensive and attacking position for individual players, how would you make them better?

Read first post, there are some ideas, how we can limit negative effect from arrows.

Also let players decide - to run or not to run basing on ICF, PPM, Mental Attributes, Condition and other.

Or let Positional Screen come back - 12 squares, with ball or without ball positions.

Add passing arrow - where will be all passes from this player focused.

Or multiple arrow - where to go in defence, where to go in attack (and let the player decide to run or not to run basing on ICF, PPM, Mental Attributes, Condition and other)

[wwfan]

1: Too many ways to cover. However, the predominance of tactics that generated the 25 to 1 shot scenarios were arrow heavy. Look at your Tactical Cup for examples.

2: Deleting arrows was seen as the best solution, as it made FWRs the single instruction for movement and formation position as the single instruction detailing starting position. Other options were debated and rejected.

3: Because everybody, including yourself, believed they were runs. They weren't.

4: Because they told a player to operate in two positions simultaneously.

5: It isn't. It has just become more dynamic and related to on pitch action.

If four and five on my list meant nothing, then we have a fundamental problem. The ME is supposed to properly represent football. If it doesn't, then the game is broken. With arrows, it didn't. Without, it does. Hence, it is a major factor driving decisions.

[wwfan]

Read first post, there are some ideas, how we can limit negative effect from arrows.

Also let players decide - to run or not to run basing on ICF, PPM, Mental Attributes, Condition and other.

Or let Positional Screen come back - 12 squares, with ball or without ball positions.

Add passing arrow - where will be all passes from this player focused.

Or multiple arrow - where to go in defence, where to go in attack (and let the player decide to run or not to run basing on ICF, PPM, Mental Attributes, Condition and other)

You are basing this all on arrows being runs. They aren't and never have been. A player will still make runs into the positions you want him to, but only when they are on. Which is exactly what you want.

You are trying to turn the dynamism of sport into a cause and effect, deterministic, limited and positivist activity. It simply cannot be simulated in that manner.

[Ediocy]

To be honest wwfan, your explanations have been crystalline. If the original poster still insists on flogging this dead horse, I might even consider it a subtle form of trolling.

From wikipedia:

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

If he is not guilty of such an act and is genuinely still addled about Arrows, then I am beginning to fear of just how many similar lost souls might there be out there amongst the FM fanbase and what their reactions will be when they install the latest edition of the game and make the revelation that Arrows are missing.

Perhaps as a suggestion, the official game manual packaged with the game should (though I would not be surprised if this has already been taken care of) expound on the reason why SI have departed from Arrows and give no uncertain assurance that doing so will not detract from the match experience fans have continually enjoyed with this series.

[shevelevee]

1: Too many ways to cover. However, the predominance of tactics that generated the 25 to 1 shot scenarios were arrow heavy. Look at your Tactical Cup for examples.

2: Deleting arrows was seen as the best solution, as it made FWRs the single instruction for movement and formation position as the single instruction detailing starting position. Other options were debated and rejected.

3: Because everybody, including yourself, believed they were runs. They weren't.

4: Because they told a player to operate in two positions simultaneously.

5: It isn't. It has just become more dynamic and related to on pitch action.

If four and five on my list meant nothing, then we have a fundamental problem. The ME is supposed to properly represent football. If it doesn't, then the game is broken. With arrows, it didn't. Without, it does. Hence, it is a major factor driving decisions.

1. I see this in our Tactical Cup first time during last 5 years. It is not strange?

2. I don't see any other options

It seems like

Me. Why?

You. Because it was the best decision

Me. But why not this or this decision?

You. Because you don't understand, and it was the best decision

[shevelevee]

To be honest wwfan, your explanations have been crystalline. If the original poster still insists on flogging this dead horse, I might even consider it a subtle form of trolling.

From wikipedia:

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

If he is not guilty of such an act and is genuinely still addled about Arrows, then I am beginning to fear of just how many similar lost souls might there be out there amongst the FM fanbase and what their reactions will be when they install the latest edition of the game and make the revelation that Arrows are missing.

Perhaps as a suggestion, the official game manual packaged with the game should (though I would not be surprised if this has already been taken care of) expound on the reason why SI have departed from Arrows and give no uncertain assurance that doing so will not detract from the match experience fans have continually enjoyed with this series.

You think that i'm troll - ok. But there will be a lot of "trolls",w hen much more people will understand, that their ability to control tactic limited in FM09.

Ok, let's say we all are "trolls" and good luck to all.

[Rickooko]

I think it is easy to understand why SI have to delete the arrows for FML, as that is a MUST in order to prevent unbalance and unrealistic crazy arrows tactic which exploit the ME, hence provide a fair game for PvP competitions.

However, i am not sure if it is necessary to remove the arrows for FM. It is up to the gamer if he want to exploit the ME with crazy arrows, similar to if he want to use any third party program or the like. (So fair game/cheating or not, is not really the issue here)

Since i have not played FML i dont know how exactly does the non-arrow tactic works. But by reading this threads i find the non-arrow system "sounds" very complicated, and i have to do heaps of brain storming in order to work out a simple tactical/position move for my player, which a simply arrow can finished the job from the past.

At the moment i still feel arrow is much easy to use and understand. Rather use them for exploiting the ME or cheat is down to the preference of the gamer.

[Ediocy]

You think that i'm troll - ok. But there will be a lot of "trolls",w hen much more people will understand, that their ability to control tactic limited in FM09.

Ok, let's say we all are "trolls" and good luck to all.

Last two paragraphs in my last post that you quoted might help you out mate, and I apologise if your intentions are not to troll.

However, I believe I hit the nail on the head when I say you are flogging a dead horse.

I mentioned a couple of posts back, please do just "get the demo when it is released and then decide once you have actually played it."

Instead of raising issues with the removal of Arrows right this moment when I can only assume it is highly unlikely for SI to have the time to take heed of your suggestions and incorporate them into FM 2009 before retail, give the game a go and then make your observations about the Arrow-less match engine over the course of a few months. If you, and the vast majority of the FM fanbase, do indeed observe during that time-frame that the removal of Arrows brought about detriment to the quality of the match engine, I am sure SI will keep that in mind for the development and release of FM 2010.

In the meantime, I implore you to give it a rest.

[Rickooko]

Imagine you are the coach and going to explain your tactic to your players with a blackboard and chalk. The easiest and normal way to tell your players, lets say asking C.Ronaldo move from MR into AMC while attacking is drawing an arrow on the blackboard. (and i believe that was how arrow in FM come from)

Surely, you can ask him to do the same thing without the blackboard and chalk (so it become the case of non-arrow FM now). But i believe it will be relatively harder. (i think it can refer to "full" tactical options here iirc)

Removing the arrow = taking away the blackboard and chalk from the coach imo. So now you have to explain everything to your player verbally (full tactical options), instead of drawing a diagram to show him.

[shevelevee]

First of all this topic was adressed to SI. They saw new ME, and know what I'm talking about. If they don't want to take part in discussion - it's very bad.

[shevelevee]

Imagine you are the coach and going to explain your tactic to your players with a blackboard and chalk. The easiest and normal way to tell your players, lets say asking C.Ronaldo move from MR into AMC while attacking is drawing an arrow on the blackboard. (and i believe that was how arrow in FM come from)

Surely, you can ask him to do the same thing without the blackboard and chalk (so it become the case of non-arrow FM now). But i believe it will be relatively harder. (i think it can refer to "full" tactical options here iirc)

Removing the arrow = taking away the blackboard and chalk from the coach imo. So now you have to explain everything to your player verbally (full tactical options), instead of drawing a diagram to show him.

I'm so sorry, but there aren't nothing new in tactic screen FM09. Nothing. That's why I start this topic.

[Rickooko]

I'm so sorry, but there aren't nothing new in tactic screen FM09. Nothing. That's why I start this topic.

I have followed this thread so i know what is going on.

I am on the side to give heavy condition penalty for excessive arrow usage instead of removing them, as i believe using arrow is the most simple and easiest, and natural way to instruct what i want my player to do/run. (Although it might not be the healthiest in concern of the ME)

However, I have to agree unless we play the demo, we get little point or way too early to argue for this issue.

[Ediocy]

First of all this topic was adressed to SI. They saw new ME, and know what I'm talking about. If they don't want to take part in discussion - it's very bad.

Like I said, I can only imagine that they at SI are currently extremely busy in preparation for the release of the game. And by the by, I am not affiliated with SI in any manner except being a fan of the series, just like you are.

That is why I have been trying to help you understand that you are not going to be successful in bringing about any changes in time for the release of FM 2009. What you are doing now is merely showing us a petulant and stubborn side of you. Providing SI your feedback a few weeks or months after the release of 2009 would seem a much better idea to me.

And I believe this is my last post in this thread, as I do not want to contribute to this cul-de-sac of a discussion any longer than appropriate. I sincerely hope you will find peace with the direction SI wants to take their series to, as I truly believe they know what the vast majority of us want and will not seek to sabotage their beautiful game in any way.

Cheers!

[Ranbir]

The tactics is the single most important aspect of a Football Management game, I believe. If this is being simplified or limited then all that is left is buying the highest attributes on a player.

Now, arrows or not, the tactical screen needs to have more options, abilities for greater refinement and freedom to have a team behave exactly how you want it.

On the issue of arrows though and having two formations in one game...

Doesn't that happen in real life? Ever? One defensive shape and a unique attacking one?

[Äktsjon Männ]

On the issue of arrows though and having two formations in one game...

Doesn't that happen in real life? Ever? One defensive shape and a unique attacking one?

Of course it does and that's what baffles me the most about all this. Players position themselves differently when their team is in possession as opposed to when they're not. There are more than two shapes a team can hold within a single formation. We're now being dispossessed of the tools that help us control that movement.

I've previously had arguments over the importance of tactics vs decision making by the players. I've always been of the opinion that tactics in FM were overpowered and the player movement too robotic. I've also always argued that the current tactics system is unintuitive and unrealistic. Now, while I still think all that applies, dumbing down tactical control by removing off the ball/on the ball movement control completely isn't a positive step in my opinion. I'm glad decision making has been improved. I'm glad PPM's are getting more of a role. But all that should have been done anyway, I don't see how that could warrant limiting us to a rigid formation without arrows. As I've said previously, I use flat 4-4-2/4-1-4-1 in FM08 without arrows so it's not like I'm sitting here worried about whether I could succeed in future versions where arrows will be gone. I'd just like the option to be there, it's part of tactical freedom to be able to use imagination when setting up your system, trying things that differ from the norm so to say. I don't like being forced into a stricter tactical framework that represents what a certain group of people think results in more 'realistic' football.

[digsy11]

Of course it does and that's what baffles me the most about all this. Players position themselves differently when their team is in possession as opposed to when they're not. There are more than two shapes a team can hold within a single formation. We're now being dispossessed of the tools that help us control that movement.

I've previously had arguments over the importance of tactics vs decision making by the players. I've always been of the opinion that tactics in FM were overpowered and the player movement too robotic. I've also always argued that the current tactics system is unintuitive and unrealistic. Now' date=' while I still think all that applies, dumbing down tactical control by removing off the ball/on the ball movement control completely isn't a positive step in my opinion. I'm glad decision making has been improved. I'm glad PPM's are getting more of a role. But all that should have been done anyway, I don't see how that could warrant limiting us to a rigid formation without arrows. As I've said previously, I use flat 4-4-2/4-1-4-1 in FM08 without arrows so it's not like I'm sitting here worried about whether I could succeed in future versions where arrows will be gone. I'd just like the option to be there, it's part of tactical freedom to be able to use imagination when setting up your system, trying things that differ from the norm so to say. I don't like being forced into a stricter tactical framework that represents what a certain group of people think results in more 'realistic' football.[/quote']

The ''certain group of people'' you refer to are the same people who have religiously tested the ME thousands of times an come to the conclusion it's a more organic ME without the arrows.Considering most of us have not tested the new ME i can't see why you are dismissing this out of hand.I myself don't use arrows but i certainly trust SI and the tactic team to improve the ME from its current state.And if you have read what WWFAN said we are not losing any tactic fluidity as the arrows gave a false indication of what they represented.Alot of people have ,either not grasped this, or failed to read it correctly.

[Äktsjon Männ]

The ''certain group of people'' you refer to are the same people who have religiously tested the ME thousands of times an come to the conclusion it's a more organic ME without the arrows.Considering most of us have not tested the new ME i can't see why you are dismissing this out of hand.I myself don't use arrows but i certainly trust SI and the tactic team to improve the ME from its current state.

I'm sorry, but my grasp of English is too poor to understand what you mean by 'more organic'. What I'm saying though, is that FM is not primarily about match engine. Whatever way it plays out, it's still only a part of the game and if more realistic match simulation affects our control over tactics then it's not a win-win situation. I too don't use arrows in my current tactics as I said but that does not mean I agree with the decision to remove them. I am not dismissing it 'out of hand', I'm just saying I don't agree with the reasons given for removing off the ball/on the ball positioning control from FM. Whether the ME looks more realistic or not bears no relevance to the points I'm making.

[Neb]

As far as I'm aware arrows are in FM09..... when you ask a player to run forwards often he has an arrow to illustrate that he runs forward.

That makes sense to me. If you'd like the player to run forward and into the centre of the pitch, then its not as obvious. something that SI have flagged up as a potential issue. It can be managed through player/team instructions but isn't ideal and it seems SI are working on it.

What more do you need?

A proper solution would be an individual width slider, to opt in or out of the team width for each player. Telling a winger to cut inside, or a full back to stay wide. this would then be added to the illustrated arrow on the formation screen.

Stay wide + forward runs = diagonal arrow forwards to the wing

Stay wide + no forward runs = Sarrow

Cut inside + forward runs = diagonal arrow forwards to behind the strikers.

If you could drag the arrows like the arrows of old to change the runs it might give people exactly what they seem to want, without actually changing the ME, as the arrows would only change the individual instructions.

It might have been easier to leave the old arrows in but make them cosmetic only.... I'd wonder if the people that used them would ever notice! They didn't seem to notice what they did in the past......

[jayahr]

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

However we sould definitely have this kind of instruction for users how to make use of the existing options (and maybe changes in their effect caused by or designed because of the removal of the arrows).

When you say that users will have to learn how to create a holistic tactic, I like that prospect for myself as I guess this is what I have done so far as well (okay, after reading many of your posts in TTF), but I'm afraid that this will frustrate a lot of casual users or those who are not football nerds and never surfing on here.

[Cougar2010]

On the issue of arrows though and having two formations in one game...

Doesn't that happen in real life? Ever? One defensive shape and a unique attacking one?

Yes but the arrows do not do a good job of representing the way the shape changes from one to the other when you are attacking in RL.

Leaving out the arrows and using instructions reflect the change better and as others have said improve the match engine.

[shevelevee]

a more organic ME

Why do you talk about ME - if I'll remove all instructions and play only with default formations, ME will be pretty, but will you enjoy this game without any tactic control? We talk about tactic control!

what WWFAN said we are not losing any tactic fluidity as the arrows gave a false indication of what they represented.

I can say that wwfan wrong. He want to say that

1. it's unreal if player have one position, when the team is without ball, and another position when team have possesion.

2. And he said us, that arrows - it isn't moves, but can't explain, how can player run from one position to another without "runs".

3. Also he said that removing arrows will give us more flexible tactic design

My answer:

1/ That's wrong, because movement and adaptability of players, their ability to play on differnet positions depend on current situation on field is the basic rule of today tactic's theory IRL.

2. That's wrong, because when player change their position, he run.

3. That's wrong, because nobody can tell me how can I ask my right MC in 4-2-2-2 to move on right flang in attack, with left MC will go to DMC position when all team go in attack? Also I want one of my ST go to right flang, other ST go to AMC position, one of AMC go to FC position, another AMC go to MC position, and all team focus their pass on AMC, who goes to MC, and he usually use direct pass on right flang?

[Äktsjon Männ]

When you say that users will have to learn how to create a holistic tactic, I like that prospect for myself as I guess this is what I have done so far as well (okay, after reading many of your posts in TTF), but I'm afraid that this will frustrate a lot of casual users or those who are not football nerds and never surfing on here.

That's the thing with the tactical sliders, they're too ambiguous (I'm using someone else's word here as I can't come up with a better one) and unintuitive at times. There's pages of discussion in the tactics forums on every instruction with opinions ranging from one extreme to the other. Which in itself is probably fine, football after all is about opinions, but when a simple instruction that in real life can be given out in a few sentences (drift inside for example) takes pages of discussion to figure out properly then the system is failing somewhere. Tactics should be about applying an approach, a vision of yours on the pitch and seeing if it works, not figuring about how to implement your approach into a combination of slider positions.

[wwfan]

There are a lot of people I really respect in this thread that are being obtuse. Based on the fact that I played an major part in the original suggestion to remove arrows, fed back on the engine during testing and followed the process until the final decision, I like to think my words carry some weight in this matter. As I stated previously, arguably only PaulC from the SI staff can comment on this matter to the same extent as I have. That is unlikely to happen due to time constraints, so you will have to put up with me.

Once more, I'd like to make the following perfectly clear:

1: The removal of arrows has not restricted tactical freedom. In fact, it has increased it. At the same time, it has made the tactical module far more realistic and the football it produces far, far better. What has changed is the translation of sliders. It was understood that arrows were supposedly one of the simplest things to understand which was one major argument for keeping them. It was only once we discussed removing them that the common misperception of their function was recognised. From that point on, it became clear they had to go.

2: It is 100% possible to have fluid formations. The difference is that the positions a player moves into are determined by mentality and forward runs, not arrows, and are thus dynamic not static. I have already designed a 4-4-2 that morphs into a 3-2-2-3 when attacking, and that was before the movement changes post-FML.

3: Arrows were never runs. The assumption that they decided player running direction is entirely false. They just shuffled him from one position to another, regardless of the rest of the move. They disabled a players ability to repsond to the action on the pitch.

4: The control people thought they gave is illusional and part of the above misperception. They harmed the possibility of creating holistic and realistic tactics by making people focus on engine busting passing and positional moves. Once you work past this you will see that nothing has been lost and much has been gained.

5: Arrowless formations are not rigid. They are far more fluid than anything you have yet seen in FM.

6: Everyone I know that is both interested in tactics and played FML over any length of time has nothing but praise for the ME. The general opinion is it is the best ME yet by a significant margin. If the FM09 ME improves even further it will blow you away.

7: There will undoubtedly be help of some kind to smooth the transition to the arrowless ME. This should reduce frustration and give poeple more idea of how the sliders combine to do what people originally thought the arrows did.

8: The arrowless ME has been tested to within an inch of its life. It is more solid and flexible than ever before. Likewise, the chances of it having any major bugs are reduced. This will allow massive tactical flexibility.

9: All those behind the arrow removal decison were a big part of the tactical scene. They are not going to approve anything that limits tactical freedom. They are only interested in the quality of the playing experience.

10: Arrows will not be coming back, no matter how hard you argue. I suggest you read the above, take it on board and wait for the Demo and play it for a week to see if you agree with me. If you still think the removal of arrows has destroyed the game, then we can discuss it on a level playing field. As it stands, we are going nowhere.

[someguy]

Thats what I've been saying. If it is getting to a point when you have to balance 2-3 sliders to get a player to act out a simple command, its a bit strange. Why not make it as simple as possible. To be fair though until the demo comes out we can't really comment on the new tactics so....

If the demos out in 2 weeks surely tactic information/additions will be revealved soon. A lot of people have been waiting to hear these announcements, and still nothing.

[Richard76]

I glanced at this thread when it was started a few days back.

Can't beleive the bad feeling about lack of arrows.

Every formation I've ever used on a FM game has included farrows or barrows so I was very concerned when I heard they'd gone.

Having said that can't we just wait for the demo/game to come out before slating something we haven't ever seen before.

I can't wait to try it out.

[someguy]

who thinks that Si have made some big changes in tactics for fm 09?

[Cougar2010]

First of all this topic was adressed to SI. They saw new ME, and know what I'm talking about. If they don't want to take part in discussion - it's very bad.

Personally I prefer SI to concentrate on finishing the game given its 30 days until it hits the shops and I'm sure most users feel the same/understand the lack of responses.

[someguy]

Blogs start today?

[shevelevee]

10: Arrows will not be coming back, no matter how hard you argue. I suggest you read the above, take it on board and wait for the Demo and play it for a week to see if you agree with me. If you still think the removal of arrows has destroyed the game, then we can discuss it on a level playing field. As it stands, we are going nowhere.

We will not discuss anything, because there aren't any sense in this. You don't herd me, don't want to listen any points of view except one - "the arrows must be deleted"

I am totally disappointed. When we told in this topic about training shedules, and everybody can see, that training shedules don't work (!) - you can put sliders in any positions, but this have not any influence on what group of skills will develop faster - nobody say: "Let's remove trainings from FM, because they don't work properly, they are illusory" and other

But when somebody talk something strange about arrows - somebody decide to delete them. That's strange for me. I can't believe.

[wwfan]

Why do you talk about ME - if I'll remove all instructions and play only with default formations, ME will be pretty, but will you enjoy this game without any tactic control? We talk about tactic control!

I can say that wwfan wrong. He want to say that

1. it's unreal if player have one position, when the team is without ball, and another position when team have possesion.

2. And he said us, that arrows - it isn't moves, but can't explain, how can player run from one position to another without "runs".

3. Also he said that removing arrows will give us more flexible tactic design

My answer:

1/ That's wrong, because movement and adaptability of players, their ability to play on differnet positions depend on current situation on field is the basic rule of today tactic's theory IRL.

2. That's wrong, because when player change their position, he run.

3. That's wrong, because nobody can tell me how can I ask my right MC in 4-2-2-2 to move on right flang in attack, with left MC will go to DMC position when all team go in attack? Also I want one of my ST go to right flang, other ST go to AMC position, one of AMC go to FC position, another AMC go to MC position, and all team focus their pass on AMC, who goes to MC, and he usually use direct pass on right flang?

I've gone over this so many times now, but you don't seem to be getting it. I realsie English is a second language, but you just seem to be ignoring me.

1: What you are asking for is what happens with forward runs and mentality. Players fluidly move into advanced positions when the ball travels up the pitch, thus enabling a 4-2-2-2 to morph into a different shape.

2: Arrows were never runs. Runs were runs. That's why they were called 'Forward Runs'. Arrows just indicated two positions. A place to go when your team had the ball and a place to go when they didn't. How a player got between the two positions was entirely incidental. In general, as they travelled from A to B, they were not part of play. They were just programmed robots following a linear instruction.

3:

Left MC: No FWRs, low mentality

Right SC. High CF, right footed, Cross Ball Often, Wide formation

Left FC: No FWRs, low mentality, TB Often

AMC: High mentality, FWRs Often

AMC: Low mentality, FWRS rarely

Focus passing down right flank or have Right SC as TM

[Äktsjon Männ]

We will not discuss anything, because there aren't any sense in this. You don't herd me, don't want to listen any points of view except one - "the arrows must be deleted"

That's not fair at all, you can't expect him to not defend the decision from his point of view. While I think my points in this thread, along with many of yours do carry weight, we should all take the advice and wait until the demo because I agree that this here is going nowhere. I'll certainly just leave it as it is for now and carry on in a few weeks.

[shevelevee]

Left MC: No FWRs, low mentality

Right SC. High CF, right footed, Cross Ball Often, Wide formation

Left FC: No FWRs, low mentality, TB Often

AMC: High mentality, FWRs Often

AMC: Low mentality, FWRS rarely

Focus passing down right flank or have Right SC as TM

I said you that this variant is very, very poor.

I have no right-footed player MC for Right MC position, and what now? All flexible and nice tactical control fail?

In general, as they travelled from A to B, they were not part of play. They were just programmed robots following a linear instruction.

OMG! Do you see any football matches in real life?!! Player moves without ball from one point to another is about 90% of match time. And now you say, that this simply travel, not part of the game??? I read freate number of books about football theory, and every author after 80's year said - the movement is the basis of the game. Lobanovsky saud, that the movement, ability to change position, ability of forwards to go in defence and play in defending formation when team have no possesion - it is the basis of the win. Nobody can't win without this.

But now we see wwfan, who said, that movemet from one position to another isn't the part of the game! I can't believe...

[Guest Vilosophe]

I've gone over this so many times now, but you don't seem to be getting it. I realsie English is a second language, but you just seem to be ignoring me.

1: What you are asking for is what happens with forward runs and mentality. Players fluidly move into advanced positions when the ball travels up the pitch, thus enabling a 4-2-2-2 to morph into a different shape.

2: Arrows were never runs. Runs were runs. That's why they were called 'Forward Runs'. Arrows just indicated two positions. A place to go when your team had the ball and a place to go when they didn't. How a player got between the two positions was entirely incidental. In general, as they travelled from A to B, they were not part of play. They were just programmed robots following a linear instruction.

3:

Left MC: No FWRs, low mentality

Right SC. High CF, right footed, Cross Ball Often, Wide formation

Left FC: No FWRs, low mentality, TB Often

AMC: High mentality, FWRs Often

AMC: Low mentality, FWRS rarely

Focus passing down right flank or have Right SC as TM

No.

a) You can't use the mentality, because it's an option that is linked with other player's mentality: so if your all players have the lowest mentality, how can you set what did you write for the player ?

b) AI's team use often arrows so, it's no only a player's cheating

c) How about 'FREE ROLE' : this option is the same that the arrows, the difference is that with 'FREE ROLE', the player decides and not the manager: so why SI doesn't delete it ?

d) The arrows set a 'WHERE', while mentality and slide set 'HOW MUCH', 'HOW OFTEN', so they cannot have the same effects. Whit Forward Run i cannot tell my player WHERE he must go.

[Cougar2010]

I can say that wwfan wrong. He want to say that

1. it's unreal if player have one position, when the team is without ball, and another position when team have possesion.

2. And he said us, that arrows - it isn't moves, but can't explain, how can player run from one position to another without "runs".

3. Also he said that removing arrows will give us more flexible tactic design

My answer:

1/ That's wrong, because movement and adaptability of players, their ability to play on differnet positions depend on current situation on field is the basic rule of today tactic's theory IRL.

2. That's wrong, because when player change their position, he run.

3. That's wrong, because nobody can tell me how can I ask my right MC in 4-2-2-2 to move on right flang in attack, with left MC will go to DMC position when all team go in attack? Also I want one of my ST go to right flang, other ST go to AMC position, one of AMC go to FC position, another AMC go to MC position, and all team focus their pass on AMC, who goes to MC, and he usually use direct pass on right flang?

1) Players don't play different positions in RL, they play one position and then adapt depending on the situation on the pitch and the managers instructions.

2) The match engine did not treat the arrow movement as a run and thats whats important.

3) Probably because they are sick of you complaining given you haven't even played the demo. But these are possible with instructions just more complicated. I trust SI will look to improve and simplify these where possible as we progress although maybe not in FM09.

For the record though as a starting point:

how can I ask my right MC in 4-2-2-2 to move on right flang in attack - Not easy but possible, as has been said we need a slider for horizontal movement which will hopefully appear at some stage.

with left MC will go to DMC position when all team go in attack? - Defensive mentality, rarely forward runs.

I want one of my ST go to right flang - Again we need horizontal movement but cross often maybe helps?

other ST go to AMC position - defensive mentality, rarely forward runs.

one of AMC go to FC position - Attacking mentality, often forward runs.

another AMC go to MC position - defensive mentality, rarely forward runs.

all team focus their pass on AMC, who goes to MC, and he usually use direct pass on right flang? - Put him as the playmaker and set his passing to direct passing + focus right flank on passing.

I know the above are not totally concise but you get the basic idea.

[shevelevee]

everything is possible. I can try hard and change all mentality settings by other settings, but if I have mentality slider, why do I need this hard way?

Crossinf Offer - are you sure, that I need crossing from my striker? Are you sure, that striker will run on right, not left flang?

[bRAzIL]

Good thread mate.

[Guest Vilosophe]

For the record though as a starting point:

how can I ask my right MC in 4-2-2-2 to move on right flang in attack - Not easy but possible, as has been said we need a slider for horizontal movement which will hopefully appear at some stage.

with left MC will go to DMC position when all team go in attack? - Defensive mentality, rarely forward runs.

I want one of my ST go to right flang - Again we need horizontal movement but cross often maybe helps?

other ST go to AMC position - defensive mentality, rarely forward runs.

one of AMC go to FC position - Attacking mentality, often forward runs.

another AMC go to MC position - defensive mentality, rarely forward runs.

No. Mentality is an absolute instruction: he DOESN'T depends on different play phase: so the ST with defense mentality has ALWAYS this mentality and not only in defence/attacking phase.

[jayahr]

anyone agree?

I guess my last post was some kind of agreement with what you were saying

[jayahr]

To get your midfielders drifting wide in a wingerless formation.

1. Give your team width.

2. Give your midfielders free roles.

3. Tell your fullbacks to be a little cautious going forward.

4. A left footed midfielder is more likely to go out left and a right footed midfielder is more likely to go out right, so choose your midfielders carefully.

5. Choose players with suitable PPMs (or in FM09, train them to gain the PPMs needed to make them do this more often)

Then it's all about the mentalities and general instructions.

But they will not go there if there isn't space.

Ackter in multi-line post shocker!

[Cougar2010]

However we sould definitely have this kind of instruction for users how to make use of the existing options (and maybe changes in their effect caused by or designed because of the removal of the arrows).

When you say that users will have to learn how to create a holistic tactic, I like that prospect for myself as I guess this is what I have done so far as well (okay, after reading many of your posts in TTF), but I'm afraid that this will frustrate a lot of casual users or those who are not football nerds and never surfing on here.

Tactics should be about applying an approach, a vision of yours on the pitch and seeing if it works, not figuring about how to implement your approach into a combination of slider positions.

Aside from the arrow discussion I feel this is important.

I've played CM/FM for over 15 years like many others and have seen it develop over time.

For years users have asked for more tactical options and now we find ourselves with a complex simulation rather than an easy to grasp game. As is pointed out above this alienates many users who want to "pick up and play" the game.

Yes, we want tactical options but we need to simplify and be able to understand the available choices.

The game should be about using your tactics not understanding how to implement them.

Finally to WWfan for continuing to keep his cool and trying to explain to the many users who are concerned.

[Wakers]

Trust me guys, once you've played it without the arrows, you won't want them back.

[Cougar2010]

No. Mentality is an absolute instruction: he DOESN'T depends on different play phase: so the ST with defense mentality has ALWAYS this mentality and not only in defence/attacking phase.

Yes, like lateral movement this is an instruction that should be improved and explained better.

Not sure what you understand defensive mentality to mean but it doesn't mean that he won't try to score.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

Tactics should be about applying an approach, a vision of yours on the pitch and seeing if it works, not figuring about how to implement your approach into a combination of slider positions.

Aside from the arrow discussion I feel this is important.

I've played CM/FM for over 15 years like many others and have seen it develop over time.

For years users have asked for more tactical options and now we find ourselves with a complex simulation rather than an easy to grasp game. As is pointed out above this alienates many users who want to "pick up and play" the game.

Yes, we want tactical options but we need to simplify and be able to understand the available choices.

The game should be about using your tactics not understanding how to implement them.

Yes, I agree 100% and think this is key.

WWFan, I completely understand everything you have said about the arrows, and appreciate how they didn't actually represent what we - the great unwashed - might have naively expected them to, and that the Match Engine is improved as a result of removing them completely. That's fine - I get all that.

However, like others who have posted here, I am a little concerned that these improvements and increased "realism" have come at the detriment of how we interact with the game and define our tactics, how we get our wishes and instructions across. No I haven't played it yet, but that doesn't stop me from worrying that from a usability perspective for the average user (one who probably doesn't even know these forums exist, let alone read through all the threads on T&TT to decipher what the sliders and tick-boxes actually mean) this could be considered a step backwards perhaps?

Here's a post from WWFan earlier in the thread:

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

Now sure, you've demonstrated how it's possible to achieve the same results using both arrows and player instructions. But from a casual game-player point of view, I know which one I'd prefer to use. (Drag an arrow out from FC to AMC in case you were wondering! )

So yes, while I completely understand all your reasonings for why arrows in their existing implementation were a bad thing, I also sympathise with the people who are questioning why they weren't just made better and made to do what we would expect them to do, rather than just removed completely. I know they conflict with FWR and mentality sliders, but in a hypothetical ideal world I would probably have prefered those to be removed instead. Going forwards, FM2010 and beyond, I would prefer to see the sliders and check-boxes phased out in favour of more visual and "human-like" methods of getting your tactics across to your players.

[jayahr]

Why do you talk about ME - if I'll remove all instructions and play only with default formations, ME will be pretty, but will you enjoy this game without any tactic control? We talk about tactic control!

I can say that wwfan wrong. He want to say that

1. it's unreal if player have one position, when the team is without ball, and another position when team have possesion.

2. And he said us, that arrows - it isn't moves, but can't explain, how can player run from one position to another without "runs".

3. Also he said that removing arrows will give us more flexible tactic design

My answer:

1/ That's wrong, because movement and adaptability of players, their ability to play on differnet positions depend on current situation on field is the basic rule of today tactic's theory IRL.

2. That's wrong, because when player change their position, he run.

3. That's wrong, because nobody can tell me how can I ask my right MC in 4-2-2-2 to move on right flang in attack, with left MC will go to DMC position when all team go in attack? Also I want one of my ST go to right flang, other ST go to AMC position, one of AMC go to FC position, another AMC go to MC position, and all team focus their pass on AMC, who goes to MC, and he usually use direct pass on right flang?

I've gone over this so many times now, but you don't seem to be getting it. I realsie English is a second language, but you just seem to be ignoring me.

1: What you are asking for is what happens with forward runs and mentality. Players fluidly move into advanced positions when the ball travels up the pitch, thus enabling a 4-2-2-2 to morph into a different shape.

2: Arrows were never runs. Runs were runs. That's why they were called 'Forward Runs'. Arrows just indicated two positions. A place to go when your team had the ball and a place to go when they didn't. How a player got between the two positions was entirely incidental. In general, as they travelled from A to B, they were not part of play. They were just programmed robots following a linear instruction.

3:

Left MC: No FWRs, low mentality

Right SC. High CF, right footed, Cross Ball Often, Wide formation

Left FC: No FWRs, low mentality, TB Often

AMC: High mentality, FWRs Often

AMC: Low mentality, FWRS rarely

Focus passing down right flank or have Right SC as TM

Maybe I also give it a try to clear things up as I'm partly 'enlightened' now as well but also still have some questions which others appear to have as well.

1. The issue is that with the arrows we can tell players exactly where to when we have the ball or when we don't have it. Naturally the lesser degree of exactness will give many people a bad feeling, because they feel they have less control because now it depends much more on the situation on the pitch, on the player's footballing intelligence and the translation of your settings by the match engine how a player moves. This might indeed be true. At the same time this might however just be utterly realistic (though I will always sacrifice realism for fun).

2. This misunderstanding has some comic traits here Yes, if moving from one position to the other, a player will run. A run as meant in the tactical instructions however is not a way on the pitch which is made every time a team has the ball or not, but a likelihood of a player to move forward or backwards if the game situation allows for it or creates that need.

While to that point it seems purely semantic, it shows at the same time that the tactical instructions are ambiguous a either need to be reworked or extensively explained in the manual (as most users of the game don't come here for explanation).

Also, I can understand the perception of arrows and runs being pretty much the same thing as when playing a classic 442 with the wingers arrowed to the byline, it should according to wwfan be a plain 424 in attack. However when attacking I mostly see my wingers in AMR/L positions and not up there at the byline with the strikers. This is a much more visible and intuitive way to create a flat 4 midfield in defense that has more offensive wingers (not additional wide strikers) in attack as far as I see the matches I'm playing in FM08.

3. Okay wwfan, so while it may be possible to achieve the desired tactical behaviour, it is far from being intuitive to achieve the result by these settings. You just feel you have less control. Again, utterly realistic you may argue, but to many users these will be two severely important issues which have to be properly resolved by appropriate explanation. In my books this explanation will have to surpass the current explanation given by a huge margin and I doubt it really will. Mind, TTF doesn't count as only a minority of users goes there.

Yet there are also still some settings, which are not possible in the way I want to have them, just by looking at your examples.

e.g., I want my defense to be tight but play a diamond midfield and want the MCs and SCs to go to the flanks regularly. Should I set my formation to wide or to narrow now? This will only work properly if I can set the width of my formation individually and not just for the whole team as it is now!

I wonder if it doesn't just get too complicated and too vage to be understandable to the average user. It just seems so much easier to tell a MC that in defense DMC is is standard position from which out he shall act as told via the other tactical settings.

But I'll give it a try. Those who use the newer engine already indeed seems to be all-out enthusiastic...

[Raniel3]

While all explanations sound well, I am still worried about the effect of the individual mentality slider.

So I have a player, who I want while whe have the ball to be an active part in front of the goal, but when we are defending I want him to be the man in front of the defense line.

So I put him to DMC position, set his mentality to "attacking" and FWR to "often". He will now join the attack every time, fine. BUT when defending his mentality will make him attack the opposite player more earlier, more often, more aggressive and he will leave his position more (regardless of "closing down" settings), because his mentality is more "offensive", right?

Maybe I'm completely wrong, but people seem to be forgetting that mentality is not only "positional mentality" and neither does it only count in the attacking phase of the game.

Correct me if I'm wrong

[Mitja]

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...

i agree that transition was bad. imho, mostly becouse the pace of ball is much too slow. so you actaually have a situation when players and ball are equally pacey which is very weird at least! i've been telling this for long time, even did some tests but nobody was interested in that. what a shame, the basic physics don't work like it should.

[Jimbokav1971]

Hopefully I have not grabbed said end of the stick as well, but if I am not mistaken, the original poster has indeed acknowledged that Arrows in their current form create unrealistic ingame match plays, however he wishes for SI to work on improving the realism of the match engine without removing the Arrows. This is because without Arrows, he believes that there will be a loss in the complexity of tactics whereby one can encourage players to drift from their normal positions to other positions through the course of a match.

What some posters have suggested is that the lack of Arrows will not hinder such positional instructions, merely making the tactics more realistic by eliminating those outlandish and impractical instructions that have no place in the real world. Practical instructions have been preserved through the use of individual instruction sliders and will not be impaired by the removal of Arrows.

However it seems to me that the original poster is adamant about clinging onto his Arrows. At least that is what I perceive.

Thanks for that:thup:.

Yeah, that's what I gathered, but I wonder what he is basing his opinion on?

If it is that he has been testing FML, and has been assured that the version he is testing/playing, (I don't even know if it's out yet), will be the final ME that is released then I would suggest that is it just for a minute within the realms of possibilty, that although he cannot achieve more control with the new system, that others can in fact achieve more control than has ever been possible in the past?

That's the most polite way of saying the "It's your thingamyjiggy!". The reason that I ask this is because as the beginning of playing with FM08 I had a bit of an issue with the positioning of my full-backs, and their apparrant inability to carry out my instructions to show the winger onto his inside foot. I tried and tried and tried and tried and gave up a couple of times and then tried again and again and eventually sorted it after a month of pretty damn hard work.

Of course some people worked this sort of thing out pretty quickly and the majority of others simply read in the tactics forum or elsewhere how others achieved it. I solved, (what was to me at least), quite a significant tactical connundrum.

Now if I'm quite an intelligent bloke, (and obviously modest with it), who has significant time to spend playing this game and experimenting with tactics, (at least I used to), and I find something pretty basic quite challenging, then isn't it a bit presumptious of you for you declare that because you struggle with a certain aspect of the game then everyone else must also be struggling?

I really am trying to be as polite as possible here so apologies if that still comes across as rude. It realy wasn't intended to be.

One point however that I will not mix my words or dilute my comment on however is your proposed re-introduction of, (tries to think what the initials used to be), the syestem where you tell the ME where exactly you would want each player to be on the pitch given a certain situation. That idea is an abomination and would take the gam back into the darlk ages as far as I'm concerned, (although I would like something similar for set-pieces). The way that the tactical instructions have developed over the years has been both revolutionary and forward-thinking and I am sure that it will continue to be so. Please please please don't anyone thing that a return to the dark old days of CM tactical insstructions is in any way a good thing. It would be an abomination.

ps. I see that wwfan has commented in this thread. I should have saved my breath. I am about to read his posts but I can guess that he was far more articulate and made far more sense and in a far more polite way than my longwinded effot, while coming to a pretty similar contribution.

pps. Well after going back and reading a little more of the other comments that have been made to the original post, it appears that I have wasted my time and should have done nothing more than link you to this post.

[Mitja]

Do you know, what will happens in FM2009?

october revoulution?

[Mitja]

I have repeadetly said, that if I can't ask players to do wha i want - this is not Football Manager. That's TV Show, where somebody (not me) decide, what my players must do.

How can I ask my right MC in 4-2-2-2 to move on right flang in attack, with left MC will go to DMC position when all team go in attack? Also I want one of my ST go to right flang, other ST go to AMC position, one of AMC go to FC position, another AMC go to MC position, and all team focus their pass on AMC, who goes to MC, and he mane direct pass on right flang?

Can I do this in new ME? NO! I can't! that's All only for best look of ME? I don't need to only look at match, I want to make changes in my team play during the match! (btw I can do this in Championship Manager 2008. May be all, who want tactics, must go to CM2008, and use free positions, arrows of move, and arrows of focusing passes, and all who want to see nice match must stay with limited tatic control in Fm2009?)

basicly all you ask is to be able to cheat. AI can't response to such crazy arrow formation no metter how realistic you think they are. and they are not, you can't ask of your player to play 2 different positions. only to move somewhere.

your only argument is that you could be able to do that IRE. and you're probably right (but i wouldn't like you as my coach ). but this is computor game reallity not real life reallity. think about it.

you've posted this example 10 times and we answered 30 times that we'll still be able to play winger as some sort of striker or MC as winger....

please read what people say and try to imagine it. you're just repeating yourself.