[Discussion] Do we need more freedom in the tactical section?

[FlorianAlbert9]

in the best of all possible worlds, yes

 

but we must consider the level of the AI that it is possible to reach (or that the SI wants to reach by not raising the system requests too much)then the question becomes: do we want more and more freedom in setting tactics at the expense of an impoverishment of the AI that would not be able to keep up? (as long as that freedom and the various options actually have a real effect)

Personally, I'd rather see my freedoms limited as long as it's a fair challenge against AI

1. First of all:

I would limit the positions available in the field.

I would only use three players’ levels: one for defense (with up to 5 players), one for midfield (with up to 5 players) and one for oattack(with up to 3 or 4 players).

in this way we cut away several redundant roles in the DM positions like external players os some in the central, while the roles that do not have duplicates (like ‘regista’, ‘anchor man’ etc..) could be set as option in the CM position. 

Also the ‘Trequartista’ roles could be Limited as option in the attack line only. (As the raumdeuter).

 

2. Then, i get ride of ‘Mentality’ or at max i would use a 3 level only.
(I’d prefer cancell them ‘cause they don’t work as the decription in game say, so are a bit confusing)

I get ride off ‘be more espressive’ TI ‘cause he could be reach with roles and PI

Maybe i cut off also ‘Dribble less/run at defence’ TI for the same reason. 

 

what do you think? Do you prefer to have (the illusion of) much more freedom of choice even if AI cannot compete adequately?

 

[Johnny Ace]

More freedom by removing roles, mentality & instructions? Make no sense to me 

Are you saying the AI can't compete because there are too many options for them? Since when has the AI not been able to compete? Does every human manager have a 100% win rate? I wouldn't say so from the Tactics boards 

[Impacto]

Ideally for me, I would like the freedom to do whatever I want tactically. I remember in PES 6 you could literally move the players wherever you want on the pitch and then give them roles and directions where to move in attack. In a separate window you can then tell them how aggresively to track back and with that I was able to recreate world famous tactics within minutes. And it was super fun to play. I would love to see this in FM. Before we had roles we had something similar, maybe it's nostalgia talking, idk. 

Now to combat this huge advantage for the human manager, I would like to see the AI improved. Hell, if you can't improve the AI because of PC specs becoming too crazy, just give them some advantages under the hood. As long as the game is fun and challenging and Klopp, Guardiola and etc are beast managers that win a lot and are hard to beat by the human I think it will be fine and realistic. 

[mp_87]

Discussed before many times, and it's very unlikely to happen, but my opinion is that there needs to be a modern version of WIB / WOB at some point - though obviously one that a) isn't just cosmetic, and b) when it does work, doesn't completely obliterate the AI.

That means quite possibly several tactics screens, to cover various parts of the game. I'm not advocating breaking the pitch up into so many squares that you could effectively/apparently tell your players where to stand at all times in the match, like we saw 20 years ago, but for me you need to be able to give instruction/position players in different phases - where to be when you're building up play in your half, what freedom they're allowed in the final third, how you initially press in transition, what shape you fall into when consolidating in your own half, etc. A team could look substantially different in each phase.

Increasing amount of new roles and the recent introduction of the transition phase instructions are the way SI have gone, and it has helped a little I'll admit, but it's not sophisticated enough, allow enough freedom, and I'd argue not that realistic either.

As with it's historical predecessor though, the big question would be about having a stable ME and if it would totally break the AI. I think it's a massive amount of work, and I know really that isn't the route SI will go, but long term I still hope it is eventually the direction of travel.

[sporadicsmiles]

8 hours ago, mp_87 said:

but my opinion is that there needs to be a modern version of WIB / WOB at some poin

Not in a game that professes realism. You are not going to say to players "okay you will have attacking 16 today, no that does not work. 15? 14? 17? Ah perfect! 17!". This is about as far from being realistic as you can go, and it will inevitably lead to people finding ways to exploit the ME. Besides how annoying does that become to actually set up? This will never be back. The system we have no, where you tell players to close down more, pass short, etc. This makes more sense. We know exactly what it does.

8 hours ago, mp_87 said:

That means quite possibly several tactics screens, to cover various parts of the game. I'm not advocating breaking the pitch up into so many squares that you could effectively/apparently tell your players where to stand at all times in the match, like we saw 20 years ago, but for me you need to be able to give instruction/position players in different phases

This is pretty much already there. You already directly control how your team plays in all phases of the game. Formation is already fluid, but you change it using roles and duties rather than rigidly setting it in a separate screen. The current system is actually way more flexible than the one you propose, and more intuitive. I do like the idea of player instructions for different phases of the game. This would mirror what we do with team instructions. This is also something that is controlled by player roles and duties, and with the PIs currently,but it would be nice to split it up and make it more obvious. It can be a little esoteric at times. 

[Footix]

1 hour ago, sporadicsmiles said:

You are not going to say to players "okay you will have attacking 16 today, no that does not work. 15? 14? 17? Ah perfect! 17!"

Are you talking about sliders now? Because I believe "WIB / WOB" is something else. I play a lot of CM 01/02 where "WIB / WOB" is the dominating aspect of tactics. On the tactic overview screen there are two additional views (one for WIth Ball and another for WithOut Ball) where the pitch has been divided into 12 squares. For each square you can position all your players. As in "when the ball is here I want the team to look like this". And I think it makes perfect sense really. As a coach I would definitively have taken such an approach with my players; "Look Johnny, when the we approach the final third and we reach this point, I want you to be about here" (and look to play through balls: player instruction! ) It sure is a lot easier than assigning a role, a duty and hoping it will turn out about right in conjunction with mentality and team/player instructions and whatnot. 

The problem with CM 01/02 is that the match engine is not sophisticated enough to deal with all sorts of wacky user input, so it's easy to exploit. But it's been 20 years. I'm sure the newer FM games would be able to sort this, if "WIB / WOB" were to return.

[HUNT3R]

I can't see any way wib-wob, as it was with complete freedom to place players anywhere, making a return.

I can see a future where something similar can be implemented but not quite as free as the original. Maybe dividing the pitch into something like 12 squares and letting us set PIs for all our players when the ball is in that square.

So the system as we have it will remain, but we have more flexibility w.r.t. movement and pressing especially.

[ferrarinseb]

A Double Role for With out the ball and With the ball would be ideal along with Formations of With and With out ball would help us. 

@HUNT3R That's a good way of letting us with 12 squares and Able to give PI's in terms of how much he can move/ press etc would help along way. 

[mp_87]

@sporadicsmiles - Think we have our wires crossed. What you describe is the old slider system(?). Absolutely not advocating that. I was talking about a modern version of what @Footix describes from the old CM games. Though as I said, I don't think I'd go as far as what that did (claimed to do...) and broke the pitch up into a dozen or so squares and basically enabled you to tell your player where to stand at all moments in the match. So not advocating that either @HUNT3R

But roles, duties and instructions, though improving and adding further choice and possibility with each edition, only go so far. There are still sizeable areas of the play, and which are increasingly incorporated by modern football managers (and have been for several years now), that you cant replicate in FM. Particularly differences in what you're doing depending on the phase of play or where you have the ball on the pitch.

EG's (spoilered the pics):

Say we have the ball deep and want to play our way up the pitch, I might want my fullbacks to 'invert' to central positions - something we are seeing more and more of.

[spoiler][/spoiler]

 

 

But then in the final third I want my Left winger to move in to the centre forward position. And my left back now moves on to the overlap.

[spoiler][/spoiler]

 

 

Or I want to play a 3-4-3. Maybe I want to attack like this:

[spoiler][/spoiler]

 

But defend like this:

[spoiler][/spoiler]

 

 

And I could go further with the examples, but won't, with stuff like how you initially press high vs. your shape when then falling back and consolidating behind the ball in your half, etc.

I don't think this is unrealistic - it's the sort of stuff done when they train on 'shape work' etc and establishing your style of play. So I'm not telling them where to stand at every moment depending on what blade of grass the ball is on, but putting down a template as to how you want your team to play during various phases.

This might all be possible by splitting the instructions and introducing many more possibilities in future - and in tandem with this I wouldn't be against that - but then I could see that just having lists of instructions for people to click would lead to people forgetting what they've done or making it hard to follow. Some sort of pitch/graphical representation is in my opinion easier to follow.

As I said in my first post, absolutely recognise that the problem is making this stable and not something that will destroy the AI. And that SI are unlikely to go down this route after the first dabble at WIB/WOB. But whatever the direction of travel in the future, tactically there must be a further break down in aspects/phases of play and many more possibilities and complexities for the user.

 

Edit: Big spoiler fail, apologies 

Edited October 29, 2020 by mp_87

[karanhsingh]

Would love to see more options and flexibility for pressing as it's such a huge part of the modern game. They have definitely been moving in this direction on FM too. 

 

Just watched this video on Tifo and as far as I know most of this is not possible on FM. 

[Artin]

they should copy PES.

one formation for attack and one for defense. you might say "well that's already possible in the game with a few clever adjustments!"

nope.

for example, tell me a formation or player/team instructions where i can instruct my left back to play as a defender on the left side when defending and have him move to the right wing when attacking. i know, it's an extreme example but you get the idea. having two different formations or tactical screens in attack and defense opens up a ton of awesome possibilities!

Edited October 29, 2020 by Artin

[yolixeya]

22 hours ago, Artin said:

for example, tell me a formation or player/team instructions where i can instruct my left back to play as a defender on the left side when defending and have him move to the right wing when attacking.

Is there a example in real life someone playing like that? It seams rather inefficient.

[Johnny Ace]

In & out of possession would be useful. I play a 4-2-3-1 which defends like 4-1-4-1 so some sort of visual to show that would be handy & could help people see their defensive short comings 

[RBKalle]

Before we (and SI) even entertain the idea of more freedom in tactics creation, maybe we'd advocate for a more consistent and CLEAR I/O.

All the fancy roles, the new ideas and the (long overdue) WB/WOB scenario are still kinda useless, or even counterproductive, if we still have narrow formations yielding a ridiculous amount of crosses and wide play, direct styles and instructions still generating way too much dwelling on the ball and backtracking, possession-based strategies still creating awful hoofball and so on.

I'd rather have 2 roles per position and 5 general playing styles BUT those working a charm than having 350 options and thousands of combinations only to end up with most teams (human and AI) playing the same kind of football because the ME tends to gravitate toward it. Frankly the difference between completely different styles isn't as noticeable as it should and it greatly affect the game's variety, not to mention most human players will prioritize results over tedious and rather pointless experimenting. If 4-2-3-1 Gegenpress is the Tactics of the Year, why bother trying to make a 3-4-3 Direct work, when it won't look like anything you had in mind AND it'll take months of fruitless tinkering and poor results?

We are thinking about putting some fancy tiles in our bathroom while we still have to figure out how the plumbing system works and sometimes when we open the tap, the toilet flushes instead...

[JohanCruyff#14]

On 28/10/2020 at 06:51, Impacto said:

Ideally for me, I would like the freedom to do whatever I want tactically. I remember in PES 6 you could literally move the players wherever you want on the pitch and then give them roles and directions where to move in attack. In a separate window you can then tell them how aggresively to track back and with that I was able to recreate world famous tactics within minutes. And it was super fun to play. I would love to see this in FM. Before we had roles we had something similar, maybe it's nostalgia talking, idk. 

Now to combat this huge advantage for the human manager, I would like to see the AI improved. Hell, if you can't improve the AI because of PC specs becoming too crazy, just give them some advantages under the hood. As long as the game is fun and challenging and Klopp, Guardiola and etc are beast managers that win a lot and are hard to beat by the human I think it will be fine and realistic. 

I want this too, surely this would allow us to be more tactically innovative, or at least allow any defensive, midfield or attacker role to be placed in any defensive, midfield or attacker position. For example, I've always wanted to place a defensive midfielder in AMC spot to see if they could potential break up play higher up the pitch.

[shirajzl]

36 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

All the fancy roles, the new ideas and the (long overdue) WB/WOB scenario are still kinda useless, or even counterproductive, if we still have narrow formations yielding a ridiculous amount of crosses and wide play, direct styles and instructions still generating way too much dwelling on the ball and backtracking, possession-based strategies still creating awful hoofball and so on.

 

That's always been a huge problem from general gaming point of view. You see clearly labeled options on the screen, you click them and the output you get is something entirely different. You're immediately baffled and don't know where to even begin to figure out how and why. 

Frankly, if something like that is present in other complicated games like PDX grand strategies, it would be considered bugs and broken features. The label says A, you click it expecting A to happen, but B happens instead. Now, experienced FM players know that there are C,D,E and F aspects to consider, but the game never says so, it never presents to you any of it.

[Dagenham_Dave]

It's almost as if people aren't aware there is an entire analysis system built into the game with heat maps, average positions with and without the ball, key passes, movement, passing shapes etc etc all entirely visible. 

[zyfon5]

6 hours ago, JohanCruyff#14 said:

I want this too, surely this would allow us to be more tactically innovative, or at least allow any defensive, midfield or attacker role to be placed in any defensive, midfield or attacker position. For example, I've always wanted to place a defensive midfielder in AMC spot to see if they could potential break up play higher up the pitch.

Attacking midfielder (support) and central midfielder (attack)says hello

Edited October 31, 2020 by zyfon5

[zyfon5]

Just now, zyfon5 said:

Attacking midfielder (support) says hello

 

6 hours ago, shirajzl said:

That's always been a huge problem from general gaming point of view. You see clearly labeled options on the screen, you click them and the output you get is something entirely different. You're immediately baffled and don't know where to even begin to figure out how and why. 

Frankly, if something like that is present in other complicated games like PDX grand strategies, it would be considered bugs and broken features. The label says A, you click it expecting A to happen, but B happens instead. Now, experienced FM players know that there are C,D,E and F aspects to consider, but the game never says so, it never presents to you any of it.

For example like? 

[zyfon5]

6 hours ago, RBKalle said:

Before we (and SI) even entertain the idea of more freedom in tactics creation, maybe we'd advocate for a more consistent and CLEAR I/O.

All the fancy roles, the new ideas and the (long overdue) WB/WOB scenario are still kinda useless, or even counterproductive, if we still have narrow formations yielding a ridiculous amount of crosses and wide play, direct styles and instructions still generating way too much dwelling on the ball and backtracking, possession-based strategies still creating awful hoofball and so on.

I'd rather have 2 roles per position and 5 general playing styles BUT those working a charm than having 350 options and thousands of combinations only to end up with most teams (human and AI) playing the same kind of football because the ME tends to gravitate toward it. Frankly the difference between completely different styles isn't as noticeable as it should and it greatly affect the game's variety, not to mention most human players will prioritize results over tedious and rather pointless experimenting. If 4-2-3-1 Gegenpress is the Tactics of the Year, why bother trying to make a 3-4-3 Direct work, when it won't look like anything you had in mind AND it'll take months of fruitless tinkering and poor results?

We are thinking about putting some fancy tiles in our bathroom while we still have to figure out how the plumbing system works and sometimes when we open the tap, the toilet flushes instead...

Apart from really narrow systems, I have managed to make every system that you can think of work in FM 2020. Sure there is always a meta in any game but any well thought out tactic can work and let you overachieve.

[zyfon5]

On 30/10/2020 at 19:54, yolixeya said:

Is there a example in real life someone playing like that? It seams rather inefficient.

It's downright ridiculous really. Imagine the team loses the ball and the player has to run halfway across the field to defend lol. But he states that it is an extreme example so I give him a pass on that. But I do agree the current tactic designer could use some revamp.

[FlorianAlbert9]

7 ore fa, RBKalle ha scritto:

Before we (and SI) even entertain the idea of more freedom in tactics creation, maybe we'd advocate for a more consistent and CLEAR I/O.

All the fancy roles, the new ideas and the (long overdue) WB/WOB scenario are still kinda useless, or even counterproductive, if we still have narrow formations yielding a ridiculous amount of crosses and wide play, direct styles and instructions still generating way too much dwelling on the ball and backtracking, possession-based strategies still creating awful hoofball and so on.

I'd rather have 2 roles per position and 5 general playing styles BUT those working a charm than having 350 options and thousands of combinations only to end up with most teams (human and AI) playing the same kind of football because the ME tends to gravitate toward it. Frankly the difference between completely different styles isn't as noticeable as it should and it greatly affect the game's variety, not to mention most human players will prioritize results over tedious and rather pointless experimenting. If 4-2-3-1 Gegenpress is the Tactics of the Year, why bother trying to make a 3-4-3 Direct work, when it won't look like anything you had in mind AND it'll take months of fruitless tinkering and poor results?

We are thinking about putting some fancy tiles in our bathroom while we still have to figure out how the plumbing system works and sometimes when we open the tap, the toilet flushes instead...

Perfectly. 

I don't know if i was not clear in OP but what Is the sense (now) to have more and more options if the ME cannot replicate them and AI cannot use them properly?

Maybe one day with stronger Me an Ai I will be for the more freedom, but now i'd prefer to have less choice, but a more solid ME and a changelling AI

 

[yolixeya]

2 hours ago, zyfon5 said:

It's downright ridiculous really. Imagine the team loses the ball and the player has to run halfway across the field to defend lol. But he states that it is an extreme example so I give him a pass on that. But I do agree the current tactic designer could use some revamp.

Tactic creator was revamped for FM19 with out of possession and in transition instructions, and also templates were added in that version I think. Not saying it can not be improved but I wouldn't expect  big changes soon.

[bielsadidnothingwrong]

It's pathetic you can't play a 3 central defenders without it being a 5 defender system or that the wide centerbacks in a 3atb system can't be bothered to cover wide players so I really hope they at least bother to fix that aspect of the tactics creator.

[bielsadidnothingwrong]

also why can't the game manage to understand 4-3-3 and 4-1-4-1 are different formations???

[zyfon5]

4 hours ago, bielsadidnothingwrong said:

It's pathetic you can't play a 3 central defenders without it being a 5 defender system or that the wide centerbacks in a 3atb system can't be bothered to cover wide players so I really hope they at least bother to fix that aspect of the tactics creator.

My wide centre backs does plenty of defending in wide areas during transition so not sure what your tactic is about.

[RBKalle]

8 ore fa, zyfon5 ha scritto:

Apart from really narrow systems, I have managed to make every system that you can think of work in FM 2020. Sure there is always a meta in any game but any well thought out tactic can work and let you overachieve.

I don't care one bit about overachieving!

That can be done by simply setting up the Overpowered System of the Year. Or by downloading any of the 624512 versions of said system available here or on Steam. Or just by waiting AI teams to self-destruct and by scooping up top-level free-agents and winning by brute force from Season 3 onwards.

I want to lose if necessary, but by playing whatever ill-conceived system I had in mind, whether it's playing 4-5-1 hoofball with Barça or getting a bunch of San Marino amateurs playing Eggen/Zeman's 4-3-3 and being exhausted by the hour mark.

Instead the ME will almost inevitably gravitate toward its "favourite" set pieces almost ignoring whatever set of TI you have set up.

[bielsadidnothingwrong]

32 minutes ago, zyfon5 said:

My wide centre backs does plenty of defending in wide areas during transition so not sure what your tactic is about.

would love to see your tactic because they do not defend in wide areas and retreat to central areas of the pitch any setup I've used.

[zyfon5]

4 hours ago, RBKalle said:

I don't care one bit about overachieving!

That can be done by simply setting up the Overpowered System of the Year. Or by downloading any of the 624512 versions of said system available here or on Steam. Or just by waiting AI teams to self-destruct and by scooping up top-level free-agents and winning by brute force from Season 3 onwards.

I want to lose if necessary, but by playing whatever ill-conceived system I had in mind, whether it's playing 4-5-1 hoofball with Barça or getting a bunch of San Marino amateurs playing Eggen/Zeman's 4-3-3 and being exhausted by the hour mark.

Instead the ME will almost inevitably gravitate toward its "favourite" set pieces almost ignoring whatever set of TI you have set up.

As i said earlier, I have played very different systems using very different set ups and they yield different results. I have used tactics that top the possession charts and is at the bottom of the possession charts. Both tactics play out like what i want them to and is successful at the same time so not sure what your complaint is about.

[zyfon5]

4 hours ago, bielsadidnothingwrong said:

would love to see your tactic because they do not defend in wide areas and retreat to central areas of the pitch any setup I've used.

refer to my tactic in season 2. the players you have is also important. even if giving up space at the wide areas, with 3atb in a correct set up you shouldn't have any problems.

Edited November 1, 2020 by zyfon5

[Luke Hume]

Reviewed so locked.