Did FM became too elitist tactic-wise?

[Rashidi]

2 hours ago, Svenc said:

Traditionally this is advantage to the human player, as he's always always the only one who is aware of them. And always will be.

While that’s true I do disagree that 3 strikers are OP and that the engine can’t handle it. When I face 3 striker systems I revel in them because I choose the right combination of instructions. I go normal to deep, I lock down the weaker flank, and I make sure he has support, I also use a different role in defence to strike back. If the AI plays with WBs I actually gleefully make these changes.  

I don’t think the AI does that against me. It has the same tools but what the Ai doesn’t do is use these same tools in a dynamic fashion. It operates off its own template of instructions. It has a boilerplate of operations. Things like seeing  fullback track opposing players across the face of a defensive line only happens when I want it to, otherwise my fullbacks either tuck in or they support the central defenders.

When I look at how the AI is lined up I know exactly which roles will go mental across a defensive line, that is why the only time I look at Scout reports is for a YT show. 

 

[MBarbaric]

22 minuti fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

When I face 3 striker systems I revel in them because I choose the right combination of instructions. I go normal to deep, I lock down the weaker flank, and I make sure he has support,

it isn't problem for the human player to deal with it, it is though for the AI. Out of interest, how do you lock down the weaker flank and who do you make sure has the support?

 

38 minuti fa, Svenc ha scritto:

The way those arrows worked was like this. If we win the ball, you, left back, will immediately become a CM, sprint into that position, disregard any play around you.

isn't that what an inverted full back does?  

seriously though, I think the FM (tactics wise) has come to a brick wall and something needs to be done. Wibble/wobble seems like one of possible solutions. It would also allow for pre created tactics for AI managers. It would need an update on off the ball movement, passing styles, tempo... but ME needs that already.

@BMNJohn didn't get what you mean, could you elaborate? you mean Cavani doesn't make that run? looks like FM then

[Rashidi]

42 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

Out of interest, how do you lock down the weaker flank and who do you make sure has the support?

Basically two ways: 

1. His role is very important you don’t want him aggressively going all over the place so you choose a suitable role to do that.

2. The role in front of him should be a more aggressive one or has close down more. This role is expected to do the first press. The only time when this does not happen is during a turnover and the opposing team is targeting that flank following an overload on the opposite flank. I hope that makes sense.

Basically say the opposition had managed to overload the right flank and the flank you want to lock down is the left, and the AI does a sudden shift to the left then in this case the midfield screen could be out of position struggling to come back. During this phase I expect the fullback to be forced out of his tucked in position because say a winger has received the ball wide and there is no one else to provide cover. 

Thats how I lock down a flank. Choose the right role and duty for both players who are responsible for the flank.  

There is a show with the Kingstonian Diaries that I have just edited where I will show what I mean for my defence. I lock down one flank and then I look at how my 2 central mids and central defenders form a box around their lone striker isolating him, and how we us instructions to switch attack emphasis. I will update this thread when that episode is on, probably the 2nd of March or I could be a father again and I will be missing from the forums  :-)

[Cal585]

46 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

it isn't problem for the human player to deal with it, it is though for the AI.

Out of interest, I've only seen (in my league) a team play 3 strikers consistently in a narrow 433. That was Leeds who ended up getting relegated (2nd season into game), so it didn't seem to do much for them and they never caused me many problems playing against them. Which was a massive surprise because I keep hearing about how OP the formation is.

[MBarbaric]

19 minuti fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

Basically say the opposition had managed to overload the right flank and the flank you want to lock down is the left, and the AI does a sudden shift to the left then in this case the midfield screen could be out of position struggling to come back. During this phase I expect the fullback to be forced out of his tucked in position because say a winger has received the ball wide and there is no one else to provide cover. 

ah, that makes it clear thanks. congrats btw.

 

5 minuti fa, Cal585 ha scritto:

Out of interest, I've only seen (in my league) a team play 3 strikers consistently in a narrow 433. That was Leeds who ended up getting relegated (2nd season into game), so it didn't seem to do much for them and they never caused me many problems playing against them. Which was a massive surprise because I keep hearing about how OP the formation is.

1

it is more of a problem when a human player uses narrow 4-3-3 as the AI can't react properly. Then it depends on the team and the opposition of course. I guess it is mainly down to pressing/positioning/formation issues where the team on the ball has always a passing option available.

[themadsheep2001]

3 hours ago, RBKalle said:

I quoted only the beginning because to me it's part of the problem. The ME and TC are based on very specialistic (and not the freshest, I may add) football theories that aren't part of common football knowledge.
Which, in itself, wouldn't even be a problem had everything been "under the hood", but the moment you need to write 5 or 6 paragraphs to explain what FM means with Fluid, Structured and Rigid, it becomes an issue and underlines the growing rift between FM-speak and football-speak.

 

 

But, as @Svenc and @el_payaso (and other, shall we say, "less diplomatic" users) have been pointing out already, the current system has created confusion and has plenty of hidden pitfalls, while still failing to recreate basic football situations, couldn't be worth changing the basics, doing away with the apparently very restricting "Mentality" thing?

 

Formation, Role and Duty should dictate the core shape/compactness, then there already are TI that can act as modifiers to that. Width, Closing Down, Defensive Line etc can easily make an already compact formation even tighter, or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, can stretch a compact formation in both width and length.

I've just explained why formation roles and duties aren't enough. Swapping one flawed system for another is not the way forward. And it's not just about the user. It has to work for the AI too. Arguably more so

[themadsheep2001]

3 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

This is true. However, if implemented, it would only reveal how poor the offensive phase in the ME is. The ME needs this defending as off the ball movement present in the ME would never be able to break down a sound defensive shape. Both phases in the game live off of each other and feed themselves to produce a believable stats/results. This is the reason, I think, we haven't seen any major development in tactics in recent years. It is only tinkering with ME trying to plug wide issue, central issue... But it can't really work as the whole ME isn't playing according to football but according to ME/FM. It won't be resolved anytime soon if they don't start a complete rework of the ME.

Somebody previously asked how managers do the tactics. Very short answer is wibble/wobble (well, at least for those managers who want to have a complete control of their team, Bielsa i.e.). You basically divide the pitch in, i.e. 3 horizontal zones (defensive, middle, attacking thirds) and three vertical zones (left, central, right channel). Then you drill the players to occupy the exact position in relation to where the ball/teammates are. Lots of manager use wibble wobble explicitly (that board with magnetic players) while others use it less but essentially do the same thing when creating offensive drills.

Now, anyone knows which was the last FM that had wibble/wobble? As I remember, that was taken out as the human user was able to exploit the game too easily. Never liked that argument as in single player game if one wants to exploit he can do it as much as he wants as far as I am concerned. However, if the defensive phase would indeed be able to employ sacchi style defence, then it would be a real challenge to break down the AI even if you had wibble wobble. Or even, better, allow wibble/wobble in defensive phase as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The defensive side of the game needs to be brutal. Only then can you expand the attacking side. Whether that needs a new reworked me or not... It would be nice to hear once the final patch is out, what the longer term plan might be. They might not be in a position to answer for nda reasons mind 

[BMNJohn]

3 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

@BMNJohn didn't get what you mean, could you elaborate? you mean Cavani doesn't make that run? looks like FM then

Correct. It's a French analysis of the first leg between Real and PSG. As you might notice, Neymar had... personal treatment during that match and often focused the attention of three players. Neither Cavani nor M'Bappé made those runs despite having the space to do so; nevermind Rabiot or Verratti. I suspect it was an instruction from Emery to stick to positions since it's so egregious, but still...

Other than that, there are a few players who never make a run into space and stick to the axis of the pitch come hell or high water, like Mariano Díaz. I'm sad to say his game off the ball (like deliberately making runs to open space for his other partners) is absolutely non-existent. But hey, it's pretty much his first season at top level football so who knows what may happen.

So you see, FM is realistic in a way. Even if that means screaming at your TV screen due to how egregious it is. All in jest, of course.

[Rashidi]

52 minutes ago, BMNJohn said:

So you see, FM is realistic in a way. Even if that means screaming at your TV screen due to how egregious it is

Just saw Willian take a shot in the Chelsea vs United game that was heading to the corner, and  misplaced control of a ball that ended up being a pass to an opposing player.

[RBKalle]

2 ore fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

I've just explained why formation roles and duties aren't enough. Swapping one flawed system for another is not the way forward. And it's not just about the user. It has to work for the AI too. Arguably more so

 

I don't see why a couple of extra (new? retooled?) TI can't solve that problem.

A 4-2-3-1 can be very compact or very "long", depending on what Roles/Duties I assign to the 2 CMs (or DMs even) and to the 4 attacking players. I can leave my backfour to fend for themselves while the other 6 players are in the opponent's final third, or it can be very compact, almost like and old-school 4-5-1 with the lone striker as a holding target man.

THEN, if I need it to be more compact or more narrow, there are or there can be specific TI to tweak that.

Of course for that to work, players and lines of players should behave more like a unit instead of the current "headless chickens" mode, especially defenders.

Who says it's a "flawed" system though? At least it's a different concept (and I'd argue it's not a far-fetched one either), while so far we've been treated to rewrites and tinkering of the same basic idea that was maybe fine 10 years ago but has already shown its age by now and it's fair to assume it has gone as far as it could. (and not even with aweseome results, judging by the recent iterations providing WORSE and less realistic behaviour).

 

[themadsheep2001]

20 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

 

I don't see why a couple of extra (new? retooled?) TI can't solve that problem.

A 4-2-3-1 can be very compact or very "long", depending on what Roles/Duties I assign to the 2 CMs (or DMs even) and to the 4 attacking players. I can leave my backfour to fend for themselves while the other 6 players are in the opponent's final third, or it can be very compact, almost like and old-school 4-5-1 with the lone striker as a holding target man.

THEN, if I need it to be more compact or more narrow, there are or there can be specific TI to tweak that.

Of course for that to work, players and lines of players should behave more like a unit instead of the current "headless chickens" mode, especially defenders.

Who says it's a "flawed" system though? At least it's a different concept (and I'd argue it's not a far-fetched one either), while so far we've been treated to rewrites and tinkering of the same basic idea that was maybe fine 10 years ago but has already shown its age by now and it's fair to assume it has gone as far as it could. (and not even with aweseome results, judging by the recent iterations providing WORSE and less realistic behaviour).

 

This is a bit of a circular discussion, because I've already explained why it doesn't work out that well namely building a framework that the AI can use). And different isn't the same as better. Anyway, those are my last thoughts on that particular subject 

[MBarbaric]

1 ora fa, BMNJohn ha scritto:

Correct. It's a French analysis of the first leg between Real and PSG. As you might notice, Neymar had... personal treatment during that match and often focused the attention of three players. Neither Cavani nor M'Bappé made those runs despite having the space to do so; nevermind Rabiot or Verratti. I suspect it was an instruction from Emery to stick to positions since it's so egregious, but still...

indeed difficult to tell without seeing the analysis. it is quite possible they were instructed not to make these runs but there should be a reason for that. 

 

3 ore fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

The defensive side of the game needs to be brutal. Only then can you expand the attacking side. Whether that needs a new reworked me or not... It would be nice to hear once the final patch is out, what the longer term plan might be. They might not be in a position to answer for nda reasons mind 

2

agree there, however, i don't understand why defending couldn't be hard coded? just take what sacchi did as a basis since zonal marking is the basis for defensive organization for last 30 years. Above that, add instructions so you can deviate from zone/team mate/opposition (sacchi style) and towards player (man oriented zonal marking), add width and depth (to accomodate for those people who want to lose hard ), add pressing triggers, and you have miles better system than what we have. 

 

[BMNJohn]

59 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Just saw Willian take a shot in the Chelsea vs United game that was heading to the corner, and  misplaced control of a ball that ended up being a pass to an opposing player.

Well I'm not talking about mistakes which is something I'm fine with, or having a stinker of a game. It's more about a general and consistent lack of, well, footballing intelligence or awareness throughout a match or a season. Fair I suppose, but infuriating nonetheless. EDIT: I'm less worried by a display like this one:

Than failing to notice obvious space in the back of the defenders or midfielders. Especially since making such runs is Cavani's best strength, which is why I suppose it was an instruction from the manager. And much like Cavani I can't say Emery had a good match that evening!

18 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

indeed difficult to tell without seeing the analysis. it is quite possible they were instructed not to make these runs but there should be a reason for that.

The lack of runs are the first two video examples. It's in French, but the schematics work well as far as the video examples go. http://www.chroniquestactiques.fr/ligue-champions-huitieme-finale-aller-real-madrid-psg-zidane-coaching-emery-neymar-mbappe-19642/

The lack of movement from Mariano is in the third video. Mind you, it's not the lone issue OL has in its offensive game this season. Mariano isn't a striker who makes disinterested runs off the ball to stretch a defence: he stays in the axis and only runs when he wants the ball.

http://www.chroniquestactiques.fr/ligue1-olympique-lyonnais-problemes-offensives-mauvaise-serie-janvier-2018-tactique-jeu-positionnement-structure-mouvements-appels-mariano-fekir-genesio-19603/

[VonBlade]

On 02/12/2017 at 12:53, Mitja said:

plug and play tactics will prove uneffective very soon

I haven't played FM since the horrible sidebar UI revamp, but it makes me smile that this claim is still being made years later. It was a claim about FM05, and yet here we are.

Never change, SI Forums, never change.

[Rashidi]

1 hour ago, RBKalle said:

players and lines of players should behave more like a unit instead of the current "headless chickens" mode, especially defenders

This is currently the theme I see being raised in the thread and in other threads about poor defending. All it takes is one person in SI to be playing the game and if he picks the correct roles and duties for and it does not happen then it won't be considered an issue. The "headless chicken" mode will then simply be a case of bad role/duty selection within a specific mentality and shape setting.  What they may end up having to do is improve the AI manager so that its top teams don't have that issue.\

I am not saying that you are causing this to happen mind you, cos this could very well be happening to some of the AI managers, what I am trying to say is that it only takes one person in SI to get the combination right to say : " sweet this will be the settings for the toughest managers in the game". I can only hope that this is really the case.

[themadsheep2001]

1 minute ago, Rashidi said:

This is currently the theme I see being raised in the thread and in other threads about poor defending. All it takes is one person in SI to be playing the game and if he picks the correct roles and duties for and it does not happen then it won't be considered an issue. The "headless chicken" mode will then simply be a case of bad role/duty selection within a specific mentality and shape setting.  What they may end up having to do is improve the AI manager so that its top teams don't have that issue.\

I am not saying that you are causing this to happen mind you, cos this could very well be happening to some of the AI managers, what I am trying to say is that it only takes one person in SI to get the combination right to say : " sweet this will be the settings for the toughest managers in the game". I can only hope that this is really the case.

You had it a couple of years. They should have stuck with it then and been forced into developing the attacking side to cope.

[MBarbaric]

44 minuti fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

what I am trying to say is that it only takes one person in SI to get the combination right to say : " sweet this will be the settings for the toughest managers in the game". I can only hope that this is really the case.

that's what is wrong with this game. football isn't a recipe book where you need to find (stumble upon) the right combination of roles but a system that you decide to use. how well you can coach it and how good are the players determines if it works or not. 

[Rashidi]

46 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

that's what is wrong with this game. football isn't a recipe book where you need to find (stumble upon) the right combination of roles but a system that you decide to use. how well you can coach it and how good are the players determines if it works or not. 

Well some of the best coaches in the game, absorbed different theories and then tried these out over the course of their careers to find out their perfect recipe. I am not suggesting that this should be some random exercise of hitting the right role/duty/shape/PI sugar and butter combination. Instead at some level, to become an overachiever at this game, you should have spent some time finding out the more elusive things, that the game should reward you for being creative at combining different kinds of ideas into the game. To do that, the game should:
 

1. Make documentation easier, ie. user more accurate terms to reflect intricacies inherent in the game. For example, Counter mentality does not equal counter attacking play
2. That shape and its relationship to decision making should be explained a bit more clearly
3. That there should be some kind of visual indication or clue in the game what your defensive and offensive "shape" of your team should be through the 3 main transitions of the game. ( This is probably the hardest, because its still relative to the formation you play against)

4. Make it easier for users to select different kinds of pressing triggers. Or perhaps introduce, pressing triggers, including the false press.
5. Continue to improve physics engine, and along with that include more animations that reflect frustrations by players when they don't pull off something well, and to have other animations including jostling, harrying, tugging, loss of balance etc.
6. Improve the in game match commentary to include, jostling, harrying tugging, poor control etc.

 

[Rashidi]

1 hour ago, themadsheep2001 said:

You had it a couple of years. They should have stuck with it then and been forced into developing the attacking side to cope.

We've had this before, when the defensive side of the game was so good that people would often complain that it was too hard to score, and only a handful of users like me were saying that it was best match engine to date. That didn't last long as the game was made easier for the masses to play.  Ultimately SI did not swing in the direction of the "elitistjerks". 

[Svenc]

8 hours ago, Rashidi said:

While that’s true I do disagree that 3 strikers are OP and that the engine can’t handle it. When I face 3 striker systems I revel in them because I choose the right combination of instructions. I go normal to deep, I lock down the weaker flank, and I make sure he has support, I also use a different role in defence to strike back. If the AI plays with WBs I actually gleefully make these changes. 

I've been watching this ever since it was introduced and took counter measures, e.g. FM 2015ish. I was forced to. I swear I had a save where after a couple of AI club job switcheroos every second AI manager I faced switched to 3 central forwards when trying to get back into the game.   I still don't think it's aynthing like football. And that's where the long-term aim should be. Everything else is just "FM".

In tendency there is always a way to defend (almost) anything though -- at least passably. Which is also why it is this futile to make "exploit super tactics" -- even those report back with weird stuff, when the AI defends it by chance -- take last years narrow exploits (targeted because of the wide midfielders). When AI plugged that hole by wholly chance (e.g. a prefered formation with multiple DMs and a back three, say, edited into the db, plus playing defensive with a load of defend duties), the user was mostly forced tio weak shots, as it should have been all along. This is called the 60 shots and zero goals syndrome. Nothing but a load of crapshots.  You have to see these matches to believe them, I reported a few of them to SI last year -- no reply. Teams attacking narrow like that, everybody would just plug the middle of the park -- every single time -- and force them out of the danger zone.

That is a dynamic that is nothing like football at all. a) What team in the world would leave three forwards sitting up top? b) what opposition wouldn't automatically adapt to it rather than sending massses of players forwards? And, to a lesser extent -- why aren't players for the attacking team intelligent enough to notice what is happening? That's three players basically not much defending.  An intelligent ME plays a bit like football. It can't be just "too hard to score" -- depending on the quality of players a manager may have, the players may be able to create space for themselves to score unless terribly misused -- to a reasonable extent of course. All of this, is to me, just "playing the ME", to various extents. It's not the Match engine tweaks making the game harder or easier --- it is the balance between players available, their intelligence and player input. Such a balance goes two ways: A couple prior editions had less issues with AI teams underperforming imo -- which is oft caused by tweaks made to what class players really are able to do (e.g. the aforementioned top dribblers on some releases running circles around defenses). And tactics alone can only do this much to stop them.

[Rashidi]

31 minutes ago, Svenc said:

I've been watching this ever since it was introduced and took counter measures, e.g. FM 2015ish. I was forced to. I swear I had a save where after a couple of AI club job switcheroos every second AI manager I faced switched to 3 central forwards when trying to get back into the game.   I still don't think it's aynthing like football. And that's where the long-term aim should be. Everything else is just "FM".

In tendency there is always a way to defend (almost) anything though -- at least passably. Which is also why it is this futile to make "exploit super tactics" -- even those report back with weird stuff, when the AI defends it by chance -- take last years narrow exploits (targeted because of the wide midfielders). When AI plugged that hole by wholly chance (e.g. a prefered formation with multiple DMs and a back three, say, edited into the db, plus playing defensive with a load of defend duties), the user was mostly forced tio weak shots, as it should have been all along. This is called the 60 shots and zero goals syndrome. Nothing but a load of crapshots.  You have to see these matches to believe them, I reported a few of them to SI last year -- no reply. Teams attacking narrow like that, everybody would just plug the middle of the park -- every single time -- and force them out of the danger zone.

That is a dynamic that is nothing like football at all. a) What team in the world would leave three forwards sitting up top? b) what opposition wouldn't automatically adapt to it rather than sending massses of players forwards? And, to a lesser extent -- why aren't players for the attacking team intelligent enough to notice what is happening? That's three players basically not much defending.  An intelligent ME plays a bit like football. It can't be just "too hard to score" -- depending on the quality of players a manager may have, the players may be able to create space for themselves to score unless terribly misused -- to a reasonable extent of course. All of this, is to me, just "playing the ME", to various extents. It's not the Match engine tweaks making the game harder or easier --- it is the balance between players available, their intelligence and player input. Such a balance goes two ways: A couple prior editions had less issues with AI teams underperforming imo -- which is oft caused by tweaks made to what class players really are able to do (e.g. the aforementioned top dribblers on some releases running circles around defenses). And tactics alone can only do this much to stop them.

Personally for me, it boils down to the AI and its choice of tactical instructions under different circumstances.

[Svenc]

2 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Personally for me, it boils down to the AI and its choice of tactical instructions under different circumstances.

Unless SI are able to invent Skynet, I don't see how the AI would be ever able to react to such things. They would be needed to do what it is impossible. Spotting the "holes" the ME in tendency always has. Unless they are taken out, the dynamicisn in football and in the match engine on this route can only be some different though, and the balance will never be fully football, where tactics are, and will forever be, tertiary to player quality, squads and their development. That applies to the overachieving end, and underachieving end alike. For years we hear the complaints that the game had become too much about tactics (justified or not), but the same can and does impact AI performance likwise.

If that were ever brought to such a level though where tacitcs truly WOULD be just tertiary to players and their development, you may find it much harder to take Torino et all to the top first couple seasons, as outside a lucky run you just won't compete with fully developed Ai squads such as Juventus and Napoli, so I compeltely understand your position, mind. You could do all you wanted to most of the time, they'd still ship their goals past you. AI limitations are one thing -- that the AI has to deal with stuff that a) it won't be ever be able to "spot" unless SI are able invent Skynet and b) that aren't much like football won't help the cause either way. I also think that this is nothing that a human player may have to worry about too. But let's see where they make take this.

[Rashidi]

7 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Unless SI are able to invent Skynet, I don't see how the AI would be ever able to react to such things. They would be needed to do what it is impossible. Spotting the "holes" the ME in tendency always has. Unless they are taken out, the dynamicisn in football and in the match engine on this route can only be some different though, and the balance will never be fully football, where tactics are, and will forever be, tertiary to player quality, squads and their development. That applies to the overachieving end, and underachieving end alike. For years we hear the complaints that the game had become too much about tactics (justified or not), but the same can and does impact AI performance likwise.

If that were ever brought to such a level though where tacitcs truly WOULD be just tertiary to players and their development, you may find it much harder to take Torino et all to the top first couple seasons, as outside a lucky run you just won't compete with fully developed Ai squads such as Juventus and Napoli, so I compeltely understand your position, mind. You could do all you wanted to most of the time, they'd still ship their goals past you. AI limitations are one thing -- that the AI has to deal with stuff that a) it won't be ever be able to "spot" unless SI are able invent Skynet and b) that aren't much like football won't help the cause either way. I also think that this is nothing that a human player may have to worry about too. But let's see where they make take this.

For now I think, more to improving the tactical choices it makes, like if User is using a 433, then it can either drop defensive line or change duties on its fullbacks. If user is playing with a pushed up defensive line, change a role to a DCB in the backline. These are all simple tactical choices that it should be able to make. At the end of the day we dont want Skynet, no one wants to fail to live out their fantasies. I am still waiting for the animations of female physios in the game.

[Svenc]

9 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

For now I think, more to improving the tactical choices it makes, like if User is using a 433, then it can either drop defensive line or change duties on its fullbacks. If user is playing with a pushed up defensive line, change a role to a DCB in the backline. These are all simple tactical choices that it should be able to make.

This is useful for as long as it is in. Any such stuff has been always temporary though (from my experience). For instance, up until at least FM 2013, the more defensive forwards would hang back all itself. As MBarbaric argues, it seems SI are trying to fill the defensive gaps in their own match engine, which in tendency creats new gaps. FM16 the flanks were vulnerable (and had to be specifically managed, also by AI). As a reply to that, SI coded the wide midfielders for FM 17 to watch the flanks, isolating the central midfielders when defending in the process.

As a consequence, you had matches between two AI sides likewise where a third division team ran rings around a first division one, enjoying a 3 vs 2 training match in the centre of the pitch, purely by the pick in formation. Meanwhile, you now have the three forwards. Again, AI could not logically react to each of this, and would have needed a completely different counter measure coded for each of those.  As this all needs to be hard coded (I just don't see game AI ever becoming this intelligent), this seems side stepping the core issue to me. Every release may open up another such "hole". That said, as long as you have central forwards just sitting up top, AI reacting to that the way you describe would do (could happen right with the next patch).

 

[Rashidi]

I won't deny that you guys have a point.

[RBKalle]

4 ore fa, themadsheep2001 ha scritto:

This is a bit of a circular discussion, because I've already explained why it doesn't work out that well namely building a framework that the AI can use). And different isn't the same as better. Anyway, those are my last thoughts on that particular subject 

 

Quite frankly, I don't quite get your explaination besides "it doesn't work like that because the current TC/ME needs the "Mentality" instructions to handle team shape. Which is like a parent saying to his kid: "you can't do that because I say so".

The discussion is as circular as the current ME patching... It's like a poor game of chess between two average players who are running out of pieces and keep on repeating the same pattern of moves... Player A moves the rook and exposes his King. Player B goes for check, but in turns he exposes his King too, so Player A can regain his advantage... Patch, rinse and repeat.

How many iterations and patches can SI get out of the current ME/TC before it's finally retired because it's based on a concept that hasn't really worked as intended AND has contributed to create this monster of FM-language?
Not only it's not rewarding for the casuals, but it's even more frustrating for the intermediate and even for the advanced players.

The former group can overachieve and not even understand why, while still thinking they're doing something wrong because the whole thing is a convoluted chaos. The latter groups notice some flaws and realize many "basic" football dynamics can't be properly replicated almost no matter what. And let's not even touch the AI v AI part, which is, admittedly, so "advanced" only the most dedicated analysts will pay attention to. But it's still a good indicator of the ME's fundamental flaws (again: no human input = no "it's your tactic" excuse).

So, while my idea may as well be unfeasible, incomplete and insufficient... hasn't the current "vision" been enough of a letdown to warrant for a brave change of the in-game basics?

[themadsheep2001]

2 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Well some of the best coaches in the game, absorbed different theories and then tried these out over the course of their careers to find out their perfect recipe. I am not suggesting that this should be some random exercise of hitting the right role/duty/shape/PI sugar and butter combination. Instead at some level, to become an overachiever at this game, you should have spent some time finding out the more elusive things, that the game should reward you for being creative at combining different kinds of ideas into the game. To do that, the game should:
 

1. Make documentation easier, ie. user more accurate terms to reflect intricacies inherent in the game. For example, Counter mentality does not equal counter attacking play
2. That shape and its relationship to decision making should be explained a bit more clearly
3. That there should be some kind of visual indication or clue in the game what your defensive and offensive "shape" of your team should be through the 3 main transitions of the game. ( This is probably the hardest, because its still relative to the formation you play against)

4. Make it easier for users to select different kinds of pressing triggers. Or perhaps introduce, pressing triggers, including the false press.
5. Continue to improve physics engine, and along with that include more animations that reflect frustrations by players when they don't pull off something well, and to have other animations including jostling, harrying, tugging, loss of balance etc.
6. Improve the in game match commentary to include, jostling, harrying tugging, poor control etc.

 

Really interested to see how much if the above appears in the near future. God knows we've talked about it enough times in the past 

[Svenc]

9 hours ago, Rashidi said:

I won't deny that you guys have a point.

You have a really good one too though, thinking it through. Both directly and indirectly. FM, at the bottom of it, is a game. It's a power fantasy of you being a football manager -- the guy who apparently pulls most of the important strings and always makes the most of the media spotlight. From that end, your proposal of fixing primarily AI is totally justified. After all, if we can defend things, why can't AI? It's also logical. Any game, inherently, develops its own rules. FM has those too. I've even argued similar before when encountering such an "issue". Let's take a look at it.

FM: A purely power fantasy or football simulation game?

As you know, we can have more influence/direct control of both the ebbs and flow of a match, as well as the direct results that transpire, than a real manager may arguably ever have. That can feel great. That can feel hugely empowering. A couple releases ago I started to develop simple, yet scarily effective strategies of seeing out games. It was basically like this: When they don't have the ball, they cannot score. And where is it easier to have the ball? Deep on the pitch. Put into action, things would roughly look like this from that point, whenever I tried to hold onto a lead. On FM 16 I had a run of months of in-game time where one of my sides didn't concede a goal past the 75th minutes mark. One of the highlights being matches such as this: Take the early lead, they wouldn't stand a fighting chance.  This worked with every side, not only the bigger ones. The fans weren't amused, but it worked, and it felt "empowering". It's not something quite as grand on that scale of wonder results. But I'm sure you have felt similar on that prior release when you went hundreds of matches unbeaten --  even beating random chance in the form of bad luck in the process. Only a game engine that can be manipulated to follow suit allows such. Football can't.

Clearly what I was doing was not only a) directly carried out on the pitch to the letter. b) Whereas football can be quite random, it brought results you'd expect in sequence. So much so that when FM17 was due, the first thing I tried was how long I could go spamming 0-0s in sequence. That was basically the first attempt, no reloads. Doubt Wenger could replicate that even if he tried. I did not overly object at that point, because, hey it's still a game. And also, I felt in the driver's suit of my fortunes. I had cautiously raised that I would like AI to react better if a side would be doing this, but that's it. Then it occured to me: Is it all realistic to expect an AI that both is able to spot what's "going on" on a grand "match strategy scale" of an oppont? Would it be ever able to determine what an opponent specifically is up to? Even if so: Would it be at all able to target the areas and men that carried that strategy -- in this case, all the players deeper on the pitch so easily recycling the ball? My answer is: No, I don't think so. No matter what you do, you would always have the upper hand over AI in some form.

It's not about AI -- it's ME inherent.

The core issue, here too, isn't actually the AI. It is that: Whilst it may be true that deeper areas on the pitch in football typically see lesser pressure for the ball carrier -- the pressing and defending on FM in tendency always allows there to be area(s) on the pitch with comparably low pressure on the ball carriers. Be it the central zones even further weakened on FM17 by the wide midfielders covering out wide -- or the three central forwards not naturally "adopted" to by say the captain going: Full back, are you mad? Help covering these guys just staying upfield as they're running rings around us on each interception.

But this is an "elitist" thread -- where do the "casuals" fit into this?

An intelligent ME that doesn't allow for such obvious holes goes two ways. It affects the balance in such a way that AI a) may be more competitive by not being forced to cover aforementioned "holes". But it also means that b) human players too don't specifically need to watch for them too. There'd be a certain kind of common sense decision making, and more naturally match dynamics. No longer would sides be allowed to endlessly sit on the ball without getting pushed (unless, perhaps, you had encouraged them to). No longer would a simple switch in formation turn matches upside down (4-3-3- narrow FM18, any central midfielder advantage formation FM17). In other words, matches on FM may play out more like football matches. Not sure whether SI see it that way, but that's it from my end.

 

 

[Rashidi]

2 hours ago, Svenc said:

But this is an "elitist" thread -- where do the "casuals" fit into this?

The problem at the moment is = too much overcomplicating.

Look at some of the popular downloaded tactics - they have every PI and TI conceivable, and there is a caveat to all these tactics, "get the right players" which is almost a qualification, and a way out for the creator if the tactic fails. It's almost natural for most new players to go and download these tactics. I still remember my first FM game 20 years ago, I downloaded my first tactic and got fired by Liverpool a month into the campaign. I smashed the monitor and then worked on playing the game over and over again till I understood it. Back then the sliders, notches and sheer amount of customisability was immense. Yet, we had commentary mode, so you couldn't really tell if the tactic was crap.

Today I play the game so differently, just to point out my last game with Kingstonian, we didn't really need to win, but I wanted to. And this is where I end up answering a boat load of questions from viewers..."How do you decide what shape to play on, do you watch the AI and then because its playing X you go Y?". I was stunned. Do people think like that?

My response was to play your own game. Understand what the mentality and shape does. AI was playing counter fluid, 442, with two central defenders. So I surmised at the start that we didn't have to worry about balls over the top. This allowed me to depart from my low block slightly. We played a normal defensive line. Since I wasn't sure how they would play I thought we'd just go standard fluid and retain possession. Cos that made sense. Why toss the ball away, just suss em out.  20 mins later I checked my instructions and knew that the majority of players were told not to play risky passes, except for 3 key players. So we go to control structured and I hit pass into space. Magically we score. But it made sense in my head.

If the AI was going to commit so players in defence, why don't I take a bit more risk, but keep my defence a bit more rock solid, and knowing that only 3 players were supposed to play risky passes, the pass was threaded into space for our opening goal. We returned to our suss It out stance, scored another and then wound the clock down on standard fluid retain possession. We never once looked like we weren't in control.

To me this felt like a real football game, as we played patient probing football, without needlessly giving the ball away. But if you see a large number of these downloaded tactics that noobs may use, they seem to suggest you need to use every TI and PI in the game.  There are no big secrets in this game anymore, just a lot of nomenclature that needs to be explained.

[XaW]

Reading through this thread, I realize a lot of users have very different approaches to FM than I have. When I first started playing CM way back when, I just picked a reasonable formation (usually a 4-4-2 since I was a young kid and not very tactical) and then tried to find the best players I could and win win win. As CM got better and eventually turned into FM tactics got a bigger role in how I play the game. I enjoy tactical tinkering and trying to find what works best under certain circumstances. For others, I know this is not the case.

Still, I maintain this game is a football management game. A big part of this is tactical knowledge, and while pretty much everyone can have reasonable success with a basic 4-4-2 without any instructions, users with real life knowledge of tactical aspects will have an advantage. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of what advantages (and disadvantages) 3 central defenders will have on a match, then of course it will be difficult to have any major success with the game. This goes for most other simulation type games, you can do well with basic concepts, but if you want to really overachieve then some knowledge is needed. Learning how tactics work in FM is, for me at least, the same as reading up on strats in CS or DOTA or other games where some form of strategy is needed. Even Pac-man and Tetris have strats you can use to get better.

For me, the issue here is that many think of the game as a very complicated mess of tactical instructions that the players don't even follow unless you have made a specific combo, while others wants more detailed control over how the players are supposed to function. While I tilt towards the latter group, I still think most have forgotten that from a tactical perspective football is a very advanced game of paper, rock, scissors. Simplified down to what is strong against this, is weak to that. But that's mostly down to equal skilled players. That rock aren't going to do much to my new titanium scissors with extra rock protection.

For me, tactics are a way of swinging the odds in your favor, but at the end of the day, tactics can only change so much. Player quality and squad management are much more important. If you don't believe this, then try transferring Man City to the lowest tier and set up a poor tactic (not idiotic without goalkeepers or anything, just a poorly balanced one) and see them steamroll through anyway.

[Svenc]

4 hours ago, Rashidi said:

The problem at the moment is = too much overcomplicating.

Look at some of the popular downloaded tactics - they have every PI and TI conceivable, and there is a caveat to all these tactics, "get the right players" which is almost a qualification, and a way out for the creator if the tactic fails.

 

The most popular tactics (here too) don't require you to have any players. The most popular downloads never required such on any release. The score exclusively through exploits, which makes pretty much any player redundant. You could as well edit, which I'd personally actually put as a disclaimer in the sections, but that's me. They defend via exploits also typically, which makes you getting "FM'd" increasingly more likely at the worst moment (a CL final, say). I'd argue it's the creators who don't understand their own tactics though. You see evidence for this all the time. That's the reason you see a bucket load of PIs and TIs, btw. It's a trial and error job for the most part. Those tactics are put through testing leagues getting checked whether they long-term perform or don't. I generally agree with your observation though. There is a perception that if you wouldn'T put a hundred instructions in place, a tactic can't be any "good". As in: SI sure can't it make that easy, can they? Only, they do... depends on what you are trying to play. The question is then where that perception is coming from. However, the UI in general is still not half as intuitive as you and a couple long-term players may perceive it to be. A couple of seemingly straight forward instructions aren'T much explained. Where for instance does it say that work ball into box specifically discourages players from crossing and taking low percentage shots outside of the box?

It's like the thing is always getting tuned for long-term players who may know it all. Which brings me back to the observation that it seems largely those players giving the input in the last couple of years. Have SI ever picked up a couple of random football fans from the streets, sat them into their office, tied them onto a chair, put a PC running FM in front of their nose and checked how they would get out of that situation alive? After all, that is their target audience. 

[Lawlore]

1 hour ago, XaW said:

...from a tactical perspective football is a very advanced game of paper, rock, scissors. Simplified down to what is strong against this, is weak to that.

The problem being that many think they are picking "rock" from what they're inputting, when actually the game reads their tactics as "rock-shaped lump of wax"- something that doesn't make much sense and won't break scissors- or if it does, not in the way or for the reasons that the manager intended.

[Svenc]

Btw, tactically football imo isn't much like rock paper scissors at all. Tactical decisions each have their trade-offs, which is a difference. Defend in flat banks of four, you may be some vulnerable in between those lines (doesn't mean you will lose against any side that has players roaming in that space). Have somebody running up and down the flanks, he may be getting exposed for being caught out of positioin by somebody. Don't do that however, and you may lack options in the final third. This is about shifting probabilites a few, not definitely losing/winning because you made a particularly decision. In fact, you can win matches in sequence in spite of any tactics, and vice versa. And that's not even taking the dynamics caused by different players and their traits into account.

I think overall, the game replicates that rather well, and always has. The only thing that is remotely anything like a rock paper scissor thing is the exploit tactics. Only that the AI only ever pulls scissors when you have your stone, and it loses, as it simply cannot defend the exploit. And only on the random occurance, it may spring a paper. Like when your exploit is found out for what it is -- a job that primarily succeeds via scoring exploits, and only defends because the AI cannot "Spot" how you say, may be pushing every single player forward. However, with some of the possibly AI approaches in the game, it may happen that you are punished for such. Still not a guaranteed loss, but a felt 80% + likelyhood that you may ship a couple of very very soft goals on your end in the save at the possibly worst moments.

I personally think that humans in general are bad at dealing with such ambiguity though, and it's proven to be that the human brain in general is also bad at roughly dealing in such probabilities, rather than absolutes. Which is another reason, I think that exploiting the engine has been one of the more common ways of playing. There's just no 100% guarantee for anything in the game -- only if you get the AI to the point that it needs to defend attacks it simply mostly can't (no matter the players), does that all disappear. Even then you're still not at 100% -- but on a good season, it can be some close. It's like FM's unintentionally safety blanket mode of play. Typically games are beatable. Like the boss AI in a shoot em up -- work out the patterns by which it moves, and you can get past the boss after a while not being hit a single time. FM isn't set up that way. And likely won't ever be, as it's trying to model football some. The last paragraph from XaW nails it.

 

[forameuss]

35 minutes ago, Svenc said:

 

I'd argue it's the creators who don't understand their own tactics though

I don't think you'd need to argue particularly strongly for that one.

It's like any game, really.  You have a system, and some people are going to want to go in and rinse that system for all its worth.  Either because they want to find the winning formula, or purely because they want to understand.  It's a brute force attempt, and a particularly profitable (although I guess not in a monetary sense, unless people are starting to expect money) one.  Spend enough time banging on the door and you're eventually going to find a way through it.  I expect anyone could on a long enough time-frame, with very little understanding of what you're using as input.  All you need is patience.

[XaW]

47 minutes ago, Lawlore said:

The problem being that many think they are picking "rock" from what they're inputting, when actually the game reads their tactics as "rock-shaped lump of wax"- something that doesn't make much sense and won't break scissors- or if it does, not in the way or for the reasons that the manager intended.

 

41 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Btw, tactically football imo isn't much like rock paper scissors at all. Tactical decisions each have their trade-offs, which is a difference. Defend in flat banks of four, you may be some vulnerable in between those lines (doesn't mean you will lose against any side that has players roaming in that space). Have somebody running up and down the flanks, he may be getting exposed for being caught out of positioin by somebody. Don't do that however, and you may lack options in the final third. This is about shifting probabilites a few, not definitely losing/winning because you made a particularly decision. In fact, you can win matches in sequence in spite of any tactics, and vice versa. And that's not even taking the dynamics caused by different players and their traits into account.

I think overall, the game replicates that rather well, and always has. The only thing that is remotely anything like a rock paper scissor thing is the exploit tactics. Only that the AI only ever pulls scissors when you have your stone, and it loses, as it simply cannot defend the exploit. And only on the random occurance, it may spring a paper. Like when your exploit is found out for what it is -- a job that primarily succeeds via scoring exploits, and only defends because the AI cannot "Spot" how you say, may be pushing every single player forward. However, with some of the possibly AI approaches in the game, it may happen that you are punished for such. Still not a guaranteed loss, but a felt 80% + likelyhood that you may ship a couple of very very soft goals on your end in the save at the possibly worst moments.

I personally think that humans in general are bad at dealing with such ambiguity though, and it's proven to be that the human brain in general is also bad at roughly dealing in such probabilities, rather than absolutes. Which is another reason, I think that exploiting the engine has been one of the more common ways of playing. There's just no 100% guarantee for anything in the game -- only if you get the AI to the point that it needs to defend attacks it simply mostly can't (no matter the players), does that all disappear. Even then you're still not at 100% -- but on a good season, it can be some close. It's like FM's unintentionally safety blanket mode of play. Typically games are beatable. Like the boss AI in a shoot em up -- work out the patterns by which it moves, and you can get past the boss after a while not being hit a single time. FM isn't set up that way. And likely won't ever be, as it's trying to model football some. The last paragraph from XaW nails it.

I already regret the analogy with rock, paper, scissors, but it was ment to show that tactics in football is often a play/counterplay type of game. Chess might be a better analogy, but please don't start comparing starting with white is an advantage or anything. Still, the general idea is the same; any action creates a reaction. The job of a manager is to try to sway the odds of that action (or reaction to it) into something beneficiant for his team.

[pw75]

I can only go on my experience but probably since the last 2 versions of the game I now upload tactics and don't bother creating them myself.  Mainly this is due to time constraints as before I always used my own tactics and didn't have to put an awful amount of time into them for them to work reasonably well but now it seems you need to be awfully dedicated and precise to win games.

For me the balance between 'gameability' and 'realism' is getting a bit lost in the series as I want realism but not to the degree that I have to have a vast amount of tactical knowledge to play the game and get reasonable results.  Everything in moderation would be the way I would go with making tactics important just not imperative.

[Svenc]

10 minutes ago, pw75 said:

now it seems you need to be awfully dedicated and precise to win games.

To win games you simply need to have good players and a reasonable base core. The fundamentals haven't actually changed an iota in a decade plus running, in fact SI oft go on record that they have enver made the game deliberately harder, which is oft where the disconnect is. If for some reasons you prior didn't go through that "learning process/ curve", the experience can vastly vary from release to release. It doesn't much though. Because, even in cases where the prowess of players is getting toned (class dribblers winning additional points for their sides almost alone simply by fielding them, to exaggerate) -- the same applies to AI opponents too. Depending on which download you are now on, you won't ever replicate those gloriees, as it may exceed through exploits.

Telltale signsn for this:

- consistently getting mediocre/worse sides competing for top spots
- consistently getting mediocre/worse forwards making the top of the scoring charts
- consistently breaking all kinds of scoring records completely out of reach for any AI opposition

No matter how hard you try from that moment on yourself, you will never, ever replicate anything near this. As it's an exploit. If I were running this place, I'd do that as a sticky -- you could as well just edit the database for similar effects, rather than waiting every year for somebody then providing you those tactics so that you can perform to such levels. Even Rashidi more recent has acknowledged how reasonable the ingame assistants can be when taking over match management entirelly. That said, all styles of play are viable from my end.

[Rashidi]

1 hour ago, forameuss said:

I don't think you'd need to argue particularly strongly for that one.

It's like any game, really.  You have a system, and some people are going to want to go in and rinse that system for all its worth.  Either because they want to find the winning formula, or purely because they want to understand.  It's a brute force attempt, and a particularly profitable (although I guess not in a monetary sense, unless people are starting to expect money) one.  Spend enough time banging on the door and you're eventually going to find a way through it.  I expect anyone could on a long enough time-frame, with very little understanding of what you'reusing as input.  All you need is patience.

 Best advice I can give people, if you can't manage the side yourself, get a good ass man and learn from him

[Rashidi]

33 minutes ago, pw75 said:

I can only go on my experience but probably since the last 2 versions of the game I now upload tactics and don't bother creating them myself.  Mainly this is due to time constraints as before I always used my own tactics and didn't have to put an awful amount of time into them for them to work reasonably well but now it seems you need to be awfully dedicated and precise to win games.

For me the balance between 'gameability' and 'realism' is getting a bit lost in the series as I want realism but not to the degree that I have to have a vast amount of tactical knowledge to play the game and get reasonable results.  Everything in moderation would be the way I would go with making tactics important just not imperative.

To win games, pick the right kind of side to manage. If you think you are good at the game, then pick a decent side. Pick good players, if you aren't sure just go with finding the right 5 star players for the roles, make a "reasonable tactic" even a basic 442 can win you a lot of games nowadays. Then play the game. If you want to take on difficult challenges to overachieve then be prepared to invest time into the game. If you want to download tactics, thats easy to, as long as you pick the right players its easy. EVEN the ASS man can holiday mode the game for you. Naturally the assman has to have some tactical acumen and ability to judge a players current ability.

 

And if you want to see which downloadable tactics are good, check if they ran a holiday mode test.

[hoppo1982]

5 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

 Best advice I can give people, if you can't manage the side yourself, get a good ass man and learn from him

Also true in real life...some one please explain this to Sol Campbell 

[Boing_Dan]

I have only just returned to Football Manager (2018) after several years away from the game. I grew up playing the CM series, then FM when it first started. With the exception of the odd demo I haven't played any FM since 2010 so it's been a while. When I have played demos I've always found it to be a bit too complex compared to how simple the older games were and probably tried too much in terms of tactics, instructions, etc.

Anyway now I'm married with kids, my social life has taken a bit of a nose dive so I've found myself with a bit more time on evenings and a few weeks ago decided to download the demo and have since purchased the full version. At first, I didn't think I'd get into it, and would maybe prefer the Touch version but having put some hours in to it, I've fallen back in love with the game.

From a tactical point of view, I've stopped trying to do too much and followed someone's advice (I think on another forum) about choosing a base formation and then tweaking it depending on what happens during a game. I have and always will be someone who watches on key highlights only so I can get through games quicker but have started looking a little at the analysis to learn more, and am enjoying the game more for it rather than going at it from a CM type perspective of just picking a formation and starting XI and expecting to compete.

With the demo took Sunderland and Fulham into the automatic promotion places of the Championship (at Christmas) and also enjoyed games with my beloved West Brom.
Since buying the full game I've continued with an Everton save which with just a few games to go, I am second and in the semi-final of the Europa League.

I think just because all these options and buttons are there, it's easy to get carried away changing things and trying too much. If you only use them when needed (I don't have any team instructions and just a few individual ones) then you can do well without too much faffing around, and concentrate on team selection, transfers and playing matches which for me is what I enjoy the most!

 

[Rashidi]

10 minutes ago, Boing_Dan said:

think just because all these options and buttons are there, it's easy to get carried away changing things and trying too much. If you only use them when needed (I don't have any team instructions and just a few individual ones) then you can do well without too much faffing around, and concentrate on team selection, transfers and playing matches which for me is what I enjoy the most!

Somebody after my own heart, with all the buttons and options, sometimes I think this is candy meant to distract you.

[Kuchiki]

52 minutes ago, Svenc said:

To win games you simply need to have good players and a reasonable base core. The fundamentals haven't actually changed an iota in a decade plus running, in fact SI oft go on record that they have enver made the game deliberately harder, which is oft where the disconnect is. If for some reasons you prior didn't go through that "learning process/ curve", the experience can vastly vary from release to release. It doesn't much though. Because, even in cases where the prowess of players is getting toned (class dribblers winning additional points for their sides almost alone simply by fielding them, to exaggerate) -- the same applies to AI opponents too. Depending on which download you are now on, you won't ever replicate those gloriees, as it may exceed through exploits.

Telltale signsn for this:

- consistently getting mediocre/worse sides competing for top spots
- consistently getting mediocre/worse forwards making the top of the scoring charts
- consistently breaking all kinds of scoring records completely out of reach for any AI opposition

No matter how hard you try from that moment on yourself, you will never, ever replicate anything near this. As it's an exploit. If I were running this place, I'd do that as a sticky -- you could as well just edit the database for similar effects, rather than waiting every year for somebody then providing you those tactics so that you can perform to such levels. Even Rashidi more recent has acknowledged how reasonable the ingame assistants can be when taking over match management entirelly. That said, all styles of play are viable from my end.

This in itself kind of limits how new users( or users who aren't good at the game) are able to play the game, if someone is from Chippenham and they fancied managing that side they immediately would have a difficult time of it because it is really hard to get a decent standard of player compared to the rest of the league. From my own experience the game has become a lot harder to attract and find good players who are interested in coming to your team meaning that the user has to become more proficient at creating tactics to achieve some sort of success. I don't agree that users who aren't very good at the game should just pick the top teams to manage because they have great players, this doesn't reflect real life - there is no way to know someone would have an easier time of managing Liverpool over Forest Green because both have different expectations. Every user should have the freedom to manage whomever they choose and shouldn't have to really struggle to meet reasonable expectations IMO. 

I think it was back in FM15 I took over from a side that had just been predicted relegation I managed to keep them up without signing anyone even though I could have signed some great players, instead I integrated a few youth players who weren't that great and I played a low risk defensive game and achieved reasonable success in avoiding relegation. Moving onto FM18 there's no way I could repeat a similar feat - the game has become a lot harder for me to play and even though it strives me on to spend more hours learning more about tactics I'm still struggling to repeat those accomplishments I once had. 

[Svenc]

42 minutes ago, Kuchiki said:

 Every user should have the freedom to manage whomever they choose and shouldn't have to really struggle to meet reasonable expectations IMO.

At Chippenham you're likely expected to avoid getting relegated to non non non league standards. At Liverpool they may expect you to qualify for the Champions League. I've also never agreed though on SI's stance that suggar daddy bolstered "top clubs" are sort of "easy mode". Just look how easy it is to get a daft season even at Real Madrid, where for months your world footballer and your second best forward suddenly start converting their chances at abysmal rates, and everybody suffering from a severe case of hindsight bias starts telling you: "Told ya so you'd needed to bolster the squad in Summer, Zizou, totally saw this happening."  May well be that it's indeed gotten harder to attract new players though. Still doesn't change much about what's been rewarded on the purely tactical end, imo. Which is the topic of this thread. May stil be a good point, as player quality is some paramount. Plus scouting and several more have indeed been made less accurate / harder in the past. Same as it's not as easy to just harvest and bunker the top talent from all over the countries anymore. So, naturally, this can impact performances.

However, I also don't agree that lower league management is necessarily much harder as such. It depends a bit on the ressources you have. But in generally, you don't face that much competition, as the leagues just aren't as grossly unbalanced as they are at the very top, where Champions League money, lopsided TV deals and more have created a footballing climate where a fistful of clubs have been effectively ruling over Europe / their respective countries, whilst the "poor" can pick up all the rest. Hence on lower league levels, every team tends to be just as poor as the next one. Depending on the release and season, in the EPL you could lose as little as two matches and still come like 3rd placed...

[RBKalle]

3 ore fa, Svenc ha scritto:

There is a perception that if you wouldn't put a hundred instructions in place, a tactic can't be any "good". As in: SI sure can't it make that easy, can they? Only, they do... depends on what you are trying to play. The question is then where that perception is coming from.

It's the Chekhov's Gun principle at work...

If there are 100 options, all 100 MUST be important to some extent or at least they must "do something".

Moreso in a game where the wording of the very basic concepts of a football tactic ranges from "ok" to "WTF does that mean?!" and where the ME's representation of the game isn't always completely accurate or consistent with your (alleged) choices, it's not surprising many players tend to throw in TIs and PIs hoping to get what they wanted to achieve.

Because...

3 ore fa, Svenc ha scritto:

However, the UI in general is still not half as intuitive as you and a couple long-term players may perceive it to be. A couple of seemingly straight forward instructions aren'T much explained. Where for instance does it say that work ball into box specifically discourages players from crossing and taking low percentage shots outside of the box?

Exactly...

So if I'm trying to play a patient possession game in the final third, and my players are still shooting, hoofing long balls and crosses as if it still is Italia 1990, I may be tempted to overcomplicate things with more instructions, oblivious to the fact the issue lies elesewhere (probably I'm playing Control, thinking it means "keep control of the ball upfield" or some other misunderstanding due to FM "false friends").

Then again, if a newbie decides to look for help on the net, he will either download a bunch of tactics til he stumbles across an exploiting one (thus learning nothing useful, but will win plenty of silverware) or will start to read some of those "tactical guides" that will reinforce his idea that MORE IS MORE, exacerbating his original problems with understanding basic tactics.

 

3 ore fa, Svenc ha scritto:

It's like the thing is always getting tuned for long-term players who may know it all. Which brings me back to the observation that it seems largely those players giving the input in the last couple of years. Have SI ever picked up a couple of random football fans from the streets, sat them into their office, tied them onto a chair, put a PC running FM in front of their nose and checked how they would get out of that situation alive? After all, that is their target audience. 

That's akin to a teacher not understanding how students keep on struggling with "easy" stuff...

FM has become a self-referential universe where insiders and experts know their way around things, but newbies and casuals will be overwhelmed and misled by the sheer amount of options, of confusing feedback and "help".

BTW, are casuals still SI's target audience? Or has the game become a bit of a closed niche already?

[masno]

I still think that @MBarbaric idea is excellent,straight-forward and the more important, have football language instead of FM language.

FM have a lot of buttons,and some of them don't actually have the right description of everything it does,and that is a problem for the newbies and casuals that don't want to read 5-7 paragraphs of content just to understand the TC screen. The idea that him proposed get to the point every manager in RL gets when choose his tactics, he question himself and go straigh to the point he needs. I think that when you talk with football language with football fans, they can understand better than FM language. A new TC in that path  would be great, we could have a defensive/offensive formations, we could have questions about our play style (possession based,or send to the strikers) and many other options,like a real manager have when he is building his tactics.

[Rashidi]

3 hours ago, RBKalle said:

FM has become a self-referential universe where insiders and experts know their way around things, but newbies and casuals will be overwhelmed and misled by the sheer amount of options, of confusing feedback and "help".

BTW, are casuals still SI's target audience? Or has the game become a bit of a closed niche already?

I am sorry but all games have a multitude of options, some games have so many you need to go out and buy 15 button mouses and gamepads just to play them at the highest difficulty, not forgetting key binding macros and actions onto the gamepads. These aren't things that the developer will suggest you do. They give you all the tools. It should be the gamers job to find out whats necessary and what isn't, what's key and what's candy.

Games are made easy for the casual to play, but not to master. Information should be there, but the key information should be easy to understand.  Give the user 100 buttons to choose from, let the good ones figure out what the best priority list should be. And these are the guys who end up writing guides, or creating programs to run simulated fights. Its like trying to play a warrior in World of Warcraft, anyone can play it. Not anyone can play it well enough to be on a world first team. Ultimately this is a game, which tests users knowledge of football in what's meant to be a realistic simulation. Unfortunately some of the nomenclature needs to be more effectively explained, but overachieving should be hard, otherwise, let's stop calling it a simulation and just start calling this Fantasy Football Manager.

 

[MBarbaric]

31 minuti fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

I am sorry but all games have a multitude of options, some games have so many you need to go out and buy 15 button mouses and gamepads just to play them at the highest difficulty, not forgetting key binding macros and actions onto the gamepads. These aren't things that the developer will suggest you do. They give you all the tools. It should be the gamers job to find out whats necessary and what isn't, what's key and what's candy.

Games are made easy for the casual to play, but not to master. Information should be there, but the key information should be easy to understand.  Give the user 100 buttons to choose from, let the good ones figure out what the best priority list should be. And these are the guys who end up writing guides, or creating programs to run simulated fights. Its like trying to play a warrior in World of Warcraft, anyone can play it. Not anyone can play it well enough to be on a world first team. Ultimately this is a game, which tests users knowledge of football in what's meant to be a realistic simulation. Unfortunately some of the nomenclature needs to be more effectively explained, but overachieving should be hard, otherwise, let's stop calling it a simulation and just start calling this Fantasy Football Manager.

 

5

 what we have at the moment is missing too much of how football works to be considered a simulation (tactics-wise). Considering how many people overachieve, I think we can immediately stop kidding ourselves that this is anything more than a Fantasy Football Manager. Otherwise, this community has more world class managers than top 20 world leagues combined.

If SI ever wants to progress with it and make the game really a part of the football world (tactics-wise), then they should aim to:
- code proper football behaviour in the ME, off the ball movement/defensive principles (FLUID)
- get together few coaches and ask them how they create tactics and devise some interface that, when real coach opens the TC, he can immediately relate to instructions
- educate the playerbase in some fundamental concepts of offensive/defensive phase

[Svenc]

11 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

Considering how many people overachieve, ...

I think Rashidi and you may have a different view of what you consider for yourselves as "overachieving", both viable ones. My general observation is too that there aren't that many players actually full time struggling for any results, not results in isolation. On that front, the "cries for help" are more often based on the perception that the player feels he should do better than he currently does -- which oft can be solved by the game highlighting to the player how he was doing in much more intrusive ways. Some already struggle to generally find out if their chance conversion is any good or whether it's as good/bad as they perceive it to be -- within the context of the game either way, say. And tbf, some additional research into such has always required unncessary additionally numbers crunshing on your part that the game does not provide.

However, there's naturally a bit more to the game than purely results. There is more than just results in football, or some teams, managers and players would have been long forgotten.  There is also more than just results in a football game as it feels far more rewarding to know why the results you get may be transpiring, at least roughly. For some that never fully crosses over. Some of that can be attributed to the UI not having fully crossed over. Some of it can be attributed to misperceptions/wrong expectations. However, some of this will always exist for as long as the match engine goes through a match kick by kick, 90 minutes -- and at best a handful of them typically making the final scoreline. For as long as FM targets "general football fans", SI may consider though that it may need to ease in players into the entire thing. Be that in the form of optionally tutorials/management quizzes, assistant managers actually going step by step through a few things, and more. There's oft a whole lot of issues raised, but not a whole lot of suggestions. If whoever struggles cannot express what he specifically wants, it's tough.

That's nought to do with intelligence in the bloody slightest. It's all to do that you can appreciate any sport in a multitiude of ways. You don't need to "understand" any sports better than from a purely emotional level to find it enjoyable. And there's precisely zero wrong with that. I've read my shair fair of Inverting The Pyramid, but I've never been a hardcore tactics buff. To some degree the game made me some interested in that in the first place. But what the game generally rewards has been mostly team sport basics 101. As its most simplistic, who doesn't "get" that a player rushing forward is somebody who may be required to hunt all back whenever the attack breaks down (which in football, happens like 99% of the time as most attacks end not in a point scored, but the ball with the opposition again)? And vice versa? The alternative would be naturally to just keep on doing what they've been doing. For as long as it's working.... From SI's end, these threads may appear as regular as clockwork, after all.

 

 

[forameuss]

6 minutes ago, Svenc said:

It's all to do that you can appreciate any sport in a multitiude of ways. You don't need to "understand" any sports better than from a purely emotional level to find it enjoyable.

This is a very good point.  I don't particularly care to understand tactics in any great detail, either in FM or real-life football.  I enjoy watching larger-profile Rugby Union games like the Six Nations despite knowing only the basic rules.  I really enjoy going to the Ice Hockey once in a while because it's a great night out (far better than going to Firhill a lot of the time) despite a lot of the time you can barely even follow where the puck is, let alone the ins-and-outs of the sport.