Step Up More / Drop Off More - do they work?

[phnompenhandy]

Max of Evidence Based Football Manager has made his first FM23 analysis video on this topic. Conclusion: they do nothing.

 

What do we make of that??!!

 

Step Up More / Drop Off More - do they work?

[Marinho]

I think he misunderstood the instructions. I haven't used them yet but what he's measuring is not what i think it does. He's assuming it means generally positioning higher or lower when i'd say it means sth similar to the old offside trap: if a through ball is imminent, do they more likely step up and try to get the offside call or more likely drop back (with default a mix).

I would also guess that when watching matches (on extensive at least), visually, it gets more noticeable when combined with a line height adjustment. Very high line + drop off more or low line and step up more.

Edited November 14, 2022 by Marinho

[Lesterfan_Cambiasso]

Im sceptical of what they do.

Ive used "drop off" and my interpretation of this would be, if the initial press is beaten, what do your defenders do?

But when "dropping off" I dont see the defenders cutting out the through balls any more than I do when they arent dropping off.

In fact, the best strategy to defend the through ball is STILL a sweeper keeper with good rushing out and one on ones for me.

Also, if you can tell your defence to push up and drop off, why do we still have the stopper and cover roles?

[Marinho]

4 hours ago, Lesterfan_Cambiasso said:

Also, if you can tell your defence to push up and drop off, why do we still have the stopper and cover roles?

Same as with all other similar case i would say: Individual instructions (via roles or added) overwrite general tactical instructions. This would be an instruiction for your entire back 4 (or 3 or 5) whereas the individual roles are for that player. You can also tell your team to look for overlaps but tell your Fullback(s) to be inverted wingbacks afterall.

And again: I can't really comment on how it actually works as i have rarely used it and also never really used the offside instruction of years past ;)

[HighFlyingDwarf]

Max only ever does excellent work.

The positional and heat maps are a bit of a smoking gun here on this. The same as when he highlighted issues with marking in FM22.

[Rashidi]

I stopped watching when he started comparing average positions. GIGO

[Siven]

Just another case of SI not explaining things properly imo.

[knap]

 

[(sic)]

36 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

I stopped watching when he started comparing average positions. GIGO

I found he does this a lot, where he gathers some completely irrelevant data, and then concludes that something doesn't work. 

 

Example: He concluded WCBs and BPDs aren't different at all, and that they do the same thing, and perform the same, based on certain stats per 90 or w/e metrics he deemed to be relevant.
I think it was a similar thing with some CM roles as well.

If he had just watched games, he would've noticed a difference in movement, positioning, etc.  

So I'd just take most of the stuff from that guy with a pinch of salt, as it is often incorrect info.

[herne79]

8 hours ago, phnompenhandy said:

What do we make of that??!!

This type of "analysis" does the community no good at all - in fact it actually harms the community because this is exactly how myths are born which quickly turn into "fact".  Analysis is undertaken which gets backed up by fancy looking spreadsheets and sets of data which appear to confirm the conclusions which are drawn.  Their viewers then see this, agree, confirmation bias kicks in and hey presto a new myth is born.

Now I'm all for users stress testing the game.  But what would be much better to see would be the data being given to SI with a comment along the lines of "this seems odd, please look into it", without conclusions being drawn.  Perhaps with a follow up video once SI have looked into things.  But then feedback which debunks their videos don't tend to sit well with these youtubers .

Best thing to do is ignore them but unfortunately people get suckered in - and that's the real issue here.

[phnompenhandy]

1 minute ago, herne79 said:

This type of "analysis" does the community no good at all - in fact it actually harms the community because this is exactly how myths are born which quickly turn into "fact".  Analysis is undertaken which gets backed up by fancy looking spreadsheets and sets of data which appear to confirm the conclusions which are drawn.  Their viewers then see this, agree, confirmation bias kicks in and hey presto a new myth is born.

Now I'm all for users stress testing the game.  But what would be much better to see would be the data being given to SI with a comment along the lines of "this seems odd, please look into it", without conclusions being drawn.  Perhaps with a follow up video once SI have looked into things.  But then feedback which debunks their videos don't tend to sit well with these youtubers .

Best thing to do is ignore them but unfortunately people get suckered in - and that's the real issue here.

I do agree with you; however, in this case I believe Max repeatedly gave his evidence to SI over the course of FM22 and little seems to have been done with it. I don't know whether SI have looked at his stuff or not, but they neither say they accept nor refute his findings, so it's not surprising if people are drawn to his conclusions.

[Jack Joyce]

The Step up/drop off instructions are intended to instruct your team on how to react to close-call situations where it's a tight call between needing to drop off or hold your line.

All defences will drop off in certain situations depending on how much time/space the ball carrier has and if there's any opposition players attacking the backline. In obvious situations, all defences will drop off or step up where its a straightforward decision to do so.

Where this instruction comes in is in the grey areas, the close-call situations where you can 'probably' get away with holding your line, but your defender's aren't 100% sure since it's tight:

• Step up - Team will be more reluctant to retreat - unless its an obvious dangerous situation where any team would. In tight-call situations they'll hold their line, and they'll be more risky/aggressive at looking for opportunities to step back up.
• Drop off - Team will be more risk-averse - if there's a tight call they'll err on the side of caution and drop off. This protects more against through balls, but does mean that at times your defenders will drop off when they didn't need to, conceding terriority.

The instructions aren't designed to be overwhelmingly strong, since most defensive lines will react to situations in a similar way, however there is an effect and we have debug that shows us exactly how many times the instruction triggered the defence to drop during a match.

Average positions/heatmaps I'm not sure are a good way to gauge this, since the majority of the time your team will be positioned based on your defensive line height, and them dropping off or stepping up won't make a drastic effect on the average positions over the period of 90 minutes, but can be the difference between you conceding or not in the grand scheme of things.

[phnompenhandy]

15 minutes ago, Jack Joyce said:

The Step up/drop off instructions are intended to instruct your team on how to react to close-call situations where it's a tight call between needing to drop off or hold your line.

All defences will drop off in certain situations depending on how much time/space the ball carrier has and if there's any opposition players attacking the backline. In obvious situations, all defences will drop off or step up where its a straightforward decision to do so.

Where this instruction comes in is in the grey areas, the close-call situations where you can 'probably' get away with holding your line, but your defender's aren't 100% sure since it's tight:

• Step up - Team will be more reluctant to retreat - unless its an obvious dangerous situation where any team would. In tight-call situations they'll hold their line, and they'll be more risky/aggressive at looking for opportunities to step back up.
• Drop off - Team will be more risk-averse - if there's a tight call they'll err on the side of caution and drop off. This protects more against through balls, but does mean that at times your defenders will drop off when they didn't need to, conceding terriority.

The instructions aren't designed to be overwhelmingly strong, since most defensive lines will react to situations in a similar way, however there is an effect and we have debug that shows us exactly how many times the instruction triggered the defence to drop during a match.

Average positions/heatmaps I'm not sure are a good way to gauge this, since the majority of the time your team will be positioned based on your defensive line height, and them dropping off or stepping up won't make a drastic effect on the average positions over the period of 90 minutes, but can be the difference between you conceding or not in the grand scheme of things.

That's clear enough Jack, thanks.

[Egecann]

Where tackles made or attempted would be the correct information in the video. 

 

Step up more plus two stopper duties would be interesting

Edited November 14, 2022 by Egecann

[Yoyo Savage]

EBFM said:

"Step Up More - "ask the defenders to press typically higher up the pitch"

Drop Off More - "ask the defenders to typically defend closer to their own goal"

My reading is that these instructions are more to do with the level of defensive line employed by the defenders rather than whether they play offside traps. In any case, users should not have to rely on external media sources - the in-game descriptions should provide accurate descriptions of game mechanics."

[VeniVV]

I call the "Drop off more" the lose button. The ME favors high pressures. Has been like this years. Will always be like this, unfortunately. Never make a tactic that yields territory or pressure. It is not like real life where compactness allows for solidity. You'll just have any team - regardless of skill level - pass through you. 

[eXistenZ]

7 hours ago, Jack Joyce said:

The Step up/drop off instructions are intended to instruct your team on how to react to close-call situations where it's a tight call between needing to drop off or hold your line.

All defences will drop off in certain situations depending on how much time/space the ball carrier has and if there's any opposition players attacking the backline. In obvious situations, all defences will drop off or step up where its a straightforward decision to do so.

Where this instruction comes in is in the grey areas, the close-call situations where you can 'probably' get away with holding your line, but your defender's aren't 100% sure since it's tight:

• Step up - Team will be more reluctant to retreat - unless its an obvious dangerous situation where any team would. In tight-call situations they'll hold their line, and they'll be more risky/aggressive at looking for opportunities to step back up.
• Drop off - Team will be more risk-averse - if there's a tight call they'll err on the side of caution and drop off. This protects more against through balls, but does mean that at times your defenders will drop off when they didn't need to, conceding terriority.

The instructions aren't designed to be overwhelmingly strong, since most defensive lines will react to situations in a similar way, however there is an effect and we have debug that shows us exactly how many times the instruction triggered the defence to drop during a match.

Average positions/heatmaps I'm not sure are a good way to gauge this, since the majority of the time your team will be positioned based on your defensive line height, and them dropping off or stepping up won't make a drastic effect on the average positions over the period of 90 minutes, but can be the difference between you conceding or not in the grand scheme of things.

 

Thank you for the clear explanation. Especially the context when this matters helps. I had the impression it was a general rule.

This mighy be a gross oversimplification, but i assume step up more is for higher tempo, higher pressing tactics, while drop off more is for conservative tactics? or does it depend more on the personnel?

[phnompenhandy]

1 hour ago, VeniVV said:

I call the "Drop off more" the lose button. The ME favors high pressures. Has been like this years. Will always be like this, unfortunately. Never make a tactic that yields territory or pressure. It is not like real life where compactness allows for solidity. You'll just have any team - regardless of skill level - pass through you. 

I'm using 'drop off more' and it's working well. I try to create realistic tactics, not ones where my primary thinking is 'how to exploit the ME'.

[Rashidi]

8 hours ago, VeniVV said:

I call the "Drop off more" the lose button. The ME favors high pressures. Has been like this years. Will always be like this, unfortunately. Never make a tactic that yields territory or pressure. It is not like real life where compactness allows for solidity. You'll just have any team - regardless of skill level - pass through you. 

Stop spouting your mindless drivel on the forums, if you don't know how something works then stop pretending like you know tactics. 

The drop off more button encourages teams to take a safety first approach. Your backline retreats, players close enough to the ball carrier may apply pressure, but it depends on your pressing intensity and any OIs you have set. If your defensive line is too low, then the Drop Off More instruction may create issues as you vacate the area in front of the backline creating space for the opposition to work in. 

I have used the drop off more instruction well with high pressing systems and I am very careful when using them with low block setups where the defensive line is a low one. Sometimes I want a Saachi kind of system where we play in a compressed zone so I set a high line of engagement and a high defensive line with a 442 but I opt to play with a drop off more instruction because I want the whole block to move. Sometimes I want to camp and work ball into box, with a faster team then I choose step up more because my defenders are intelligent enough to use the instruction.

Its not the car. It’s the driver.

[luka_zg]

7 hours ago, VeniVV said:

I call the "Drop off more" the lose button. The ME favors high pressures. Has been like this years. Will always be like this, unfortunately. Never make a tactic that yields territory or pressure. It is not like real life where compactness allows for solidity. You'll just have any team - regardless of skill level - pass through you. 

Won two Serie A titles, two Italian cups and a Champions league, then took over a PL club and won the Prem in the 1st season in charge. All with the instruction to "drop off". So, pls..stop with this nonsense,ok?

[VeniVV]

3 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Stop spouting your mindless drivel on the forums, if you don't know how something works then stop pretending like you know tactics. 

The drop off more button encourages teams to take a safety first approach. Your backline retreats, players close enough to the ball carrier may apply pressure, but it depends on your pressing intensity and any OIs you have set. If your defensive line is too low, then the Drop Off More instruction may create issues as you vacate the area in front of the backline creating space for the opposition to work in. 

I have used the drop off more instruction well with high pressing systems and I am very careful when using them with low block setups where the defensive line is a low one. Sometimes I want a Saachi kind of system where we play in a compressed zone so I set a high line of engagement and a high defensive line with a 442 but I opt to play with a drop off more instruction because I want the whole block to move. Sometimes I want to camp and work ball into box, with a faster team then I choose step up more because my defenders are intelligent enough to use the instruction.

Its not the driver its the car. learn to use the car.

See, I read a post like this and I feel a sense of encouragement that it is possible.

The issue I have is that my weakness is balls over the top with drop off more. It doesn’t seem viable to allow players, at any level, the time and space to play a through ball because of my defenders having trouble dealing with those balls. 
 

I would ideally like to play a 442DM that is compact, narrow, and hard to breakdown. But it feels that giving other teams time on the ball is a death sentence. I have used selective pressing but it still allows the opposition to overperform because of the lack of pressure we give. I notice other YouTubers cite the ball over the top issue as well. 
 

Like I said in a previous post, the information in the game and on the forums, digital channels etc, for years has been contradictory. I don’t know who to listen to anymore. I am 100% happy to learn but I don’t know who anymore. It would be good to use the in game descriptions but it doesn’t feel adequate.

I recall doing a test of the same match 20 times. The variance was quite outstanding. I’d win 4-0, 2-1, 3-1, then lose 4-2, 3-1, 5-0, then win 3-1, lose 4-1 etc. It made me feel the game was a bit of a lottery to be honest. I’m sure that with the game systems it isn’t a lottery and it is more sophisticated than that, but that is how it feels like. 
 

This game in particular makes me feel more like a passenger than any other FM. 
 

[(sic)]

6 hours ago, VeniVV said:

See, I read a post like this and I feel a sense of encouragement that it is possible.

The issue I have is that my weakness is balls over the top with drop off more. It doesn’t seem viable to allow players, at any level, the time and space to play a through ball because of my defenders having trouble dealing with those balls. 
 

I would ideally like to play a 442DM that is compact, narrow, and hard to breakdown. But it feels that giving other teams time on the ball is a death sentence. I have used selective pressing but it still allows the opposition to overperform because of the lack of pressure we give. I notice other YouTubers cite the ball over the top issue as well. 
 

Like I said in a previous post, the information in the game and on the forums, digital channels etc, for years has been contradictory. I don’t know who to listen to anymore. I am 100% happy to learn but I don’t know who anymore. It would be good to use the in game descriptions but it doesn’t feel adequate.

I recall doing a test of the same match 20 times. The variance was quite outstanding. I’d win 4-0, 2-1, 3-1, then lose 4-2, 3-1, 5-0, then win 3-1, lose 4-1 etc. It made me feel the game was a bit of a lottery to be honest. I’m sure that with the game systems it isn’t a lottery and it is more sophisticated than that, but that is how it feels like. 
 

This game in particular makes me feel more like a passenger than any other FM. 
 

The ball over the top issue is definitely real, and defenders definitely don't react to them well in general. It's currently an issue with the ME itself. 

Whether the TIs have anything to do with that, we don't really know. Only the SI do.

[VeniVV]

15 minutes ago, (sic) said:

The ball over the top issue is definitely real, and defenders definitely don't react to them well in general. It's currently an issue with the ME itself. 

Whether the TIs have anything to do with that, we don't really know. Only the SI do.

Perhaps because how I want to play it affects me more acutely than other peoples tactics, hence my frustration is greater than others. 

[werogatda]

Thanks everyone for all the feedbacks. I will be making a follow up video to investigate further.

[herne79]

8 hours ago, werogatda said:

Thanks everyone for all the feedbacks. I will be making a follow up video to investigate further.

Please don’t.  Your conclusions are fundamentally flawed and you create myths which damage the community.

If you really want to help the community rather than just grow your channel with click bait, send your results to SI for them to verify BEFORE releasing videos.  Of course you then wouldn’t actually release any videos as SI debunking your claims wouldn’t make for very good content.

You (and other YouTubers) need to understand that the game is based on realism.  As soon as you start using the game in unrealistic ways, such as messing around with height/jumping reach, using unnatural training programs or using in game reports unrealistically, you run a big risk of seeing unexpected results.  That’s not the game being flawed (as you and others tend to tell the world), that’s your inputs or data use being flawed.

SI are always open to receiving data - they even encourage users to stress test the system and send them the data.  So by all means do that.  Just stop drawing conclusions unless SI have actually verified something.

[themadsheep2001]

3 hours ago, herne79 said:

Please don’t.  Your conclusions are fundamentally flawed and you create myths which damage the community.

If you really want to help the community rather than just grow your channel with click bait, send your results to SI for them to verify BEFORE releasing videos.  Of course you then wouldn’t actually release any videos as SI debunking your claims wouldn’t make for very good content.

You (and other YouTubers) need to understand that the game is based on realism.  As soon as you start using the game in unrealistic ways, such as messing around with height/jumping reach, using unnatural training programs or using in game reports unrealistically, you run a big risk of seeing unexpected results.  That’s not the game being flawed (as you and others tend to tell the world), that’s your inputs or data use being flawed.

SI are always open to receiving data - they even encourage users to stress test the system and send them the data.  So by all means do that.  Just stop drawing conclusions unless SI have actually verified something.

This thread has actually made me quite angry. Max isn't the only streamer to misrepresent stuff like this as well. 

One thing I would say @Jack Joyce is that a compendium filled with detailed replies like the excellent one you just gave would help kill misinformation and nonsense by filling the information gap. 

[HighFlyingDwarf]

I don't understand the response. Getting angry about something like this is petty.

You can either agree or disagree with his conclusionsbased on what he's presented, but I've always thought Max's videos have been good, and he's at least showing his working.

Fact of the matter is, the game is not an exact 1-1 replica of real life. He's not the only person who's pushing the engine through testing.

[themadsheep2001]

9 minutes ago, HighFlyingDwarf said:

I don't understand the response. Getting angry about something like this is petty.

You can either agree or disagree with his conclusionsbased on what he's presented, but I've always thought Max's videos have been good, and he's at least showing his working.

Fact of the matter is, the game is not an exact 1-1 replica of real life. He's not the only person who's pushing the engine through testing.

It's factually inaccurate. And rather than check their working, they push out misinformation. It's not the first time and yes I have absolutely no time for people pushing out misinformation, and how nonsense myths become fact, as evidenced by you saying he only ever does excellent work, when in fact that's not true and this is horribly flawed work. 

[HighFlyingDwarf]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

It's factually inaccurate. And rather than check their working, they push out misinformation 

Nobody is being forced to watch it. It's a bit different if he was conjuring claims out of thin air. The reactions to the above post attempting to browbeat a content creator are telling.

The fact of the matter is, putting aside the line settings, that many of the same old things simply do work in FM year upon year. This was something that brought up in the YouTube creators round table.

You could just as easily make the point that what they were saying is "misinformation" because SI have said that using the same old tactic won't work, but I've seen that same claim many a time and I'm using the same formation and general instruction set that I have done for many a year and it's still working. Many others do as well based on what I read around these forums and on the net. I would also note that from when I watched Rashidi's videos from a few years back that he had a common base he carried from game to game. Whether or not that's still the same now, I don't know.

Brute forcing the engine isn't just something that Max does, and some things clearly do work better than others. Scepticism is not unhealthy within moderation. I think Max is at least reasonable and I don't perceive malice in presenting his own arguments in a reasoned manner. If people want to disagree with him and prove him wrong, that's just as valid as well.

[themadsheep2001]

It's factually inaccurate,it's not the first time it's factually inaccurate, and they choose not to get verification. And I don't like misinformation floating around because its a nightmare to combat.

And the reaction he's got is because the same people here don't like misinformation. If you want to defend that, knock yourself out, I'm not going debate it any further. Herne's posts have summed it up perfectly. What's been put forward today is simply, wrong.

 

[HighFlyingDwarf]

23 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

how nonsense myths become fact, as evidenced by you saying he only ever does excellent work, when in fact that's not true and this is horribly flawed work. 

In response to the edit, that was my spur of the moment subjective opinion and I certainly don't think you can discredit the effort that he puts into his work.

We can agree to disagree on the findings or the basis of them, or whatever, but I do feel that tossing his entire body of work out when clearly people have applied some of his findings and have found that they've worked is another thing entirely.

[(sic)]

16 hours ago, HighFlyingDwarf said:

In response to the edit, that was my spur of the moment subjective opinion and I certainly don't think you can discredit the effort that he puts into his work.

We can agree to disagree on the findings or the basis of them, or whatever, but I do feel that tossing his entire body of work out when clearly people have applied some of his findings and have found that they've worked is another thing entirely.

Nobody's discrediting the effort itself, just the conclusions and the way he reaches those conclusions. Again, some of his findings might be correct, but from what I've seen, most of them simply aren't. 

 

When he tells people that there isn't any significant difference between BPDs and WCBs, and then shows how he came to that conclusion, a lot of people would tend to believe it, even though it simply isn't true at all. 
Like he said in the video "After every match, I went into the match report and recorded the statistics that I THINK are relevant in assessing the performance of the WCB" 

So it's all based on what he thinks is relevant, meaning there's a lot of room for mistakes (especially if he doesn't select the right things to look out for). Especially because you would need to simulate a few hundred matches for each tactic, and not just a few dozen in total.
Also, just by looking at the numbers like blocks/interceptions, etc. you can't get a full picture of how the role plays. There are so many variables not accounted for, like the tactic and the roles around the WCB (including midfield roles, wingback roles), team and player instructions, mentality, duties. Then we also have opposition formations, opposition roles, duties and instructions. All of that is missing, and all of those are variables that will make the WCB (or any other role) play slightly different.
Though you don't even have to do all of that, you can just load up the match and watch it. WCBs, especially on Support and Attack will make attacking runs, they will overlap and underlap, just like the description says, while the BPDs won't really do that (not unless you have the right attributes, traits, tactics, etc. set up, but even then, they wouldn't do it as often as WCB).

Similarly, with the Carrilero analysis, he came to the conclusion that CM-S and Carrilero aren't really different... by testing the role in a 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, and 4-4-2 formations. What about the formations in which the role should actually be used, like 5-3-2, 4-4-2 diamond, and other formations without wingers? You know, the formations for which the Carrilero role is primarily designed for.


It's the same thing with this now, he just looks at the wrong things and doesn't understand what the instructions are for, and comes to wrong conclusions at the end.


 

Edited November 18, 2022 by (sic)

[jeru]

The issue here is not Max's experiments which as he points our in the video he is happy to discuss and have debunked, the issue is as usual FM's diabolical user interface and SI's complete lack of explanation of what things do IN GAME 

If you look at the UI it actually labels it defensive line  and the buttons are step up or drop off, two options that if anybody who watches football or plays FM the logical thing to think is that these options will affect the defensive line and what they do.  There is nothing in the game UI or tooltips to suggest that as @Jack Joyce has now perfectly explained that this only kick in situationally.  The tooltips actually reinforce that the line will push up or defend deeper the only English word that gives any clue that this may only be situational is "typically" on the drop deeper tooltip.

The logical expectation is that push up and drop off are football terms that anybody who has played instantly understand that they do the same thing in FM, the design of the UI and also having defensive line labelled as the slider on the pitch adds to the muddled UI and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if virtually everybody who plays is confused.

Si before all the mods continue to start and encourage a pile on in this thread because somebody has misinterpreted an option in game take a step back and think about the root cause, which is muddled UI design, poorly worded UI elements, and tool tips which do not clarify what the options do, and that sits firmly with SI.  

[zindrinho]

2 hours ago, jeru said:

The issue here is not Max's experiments which as he points our in the video he is happy to discuss and have debunked, the issue is as usual FM's diabolical user interface and SI's complete lack of explanation of what things do IN GAME 

People who spread misinformation are the issue here, if he doesn't know how FM works maybe not make videos trying to tell people how FM works? Leave it to those who know what they're talking about. Its not just on these forums, it's a real problem on any niche-type forum where you go to learn something specific, misinformation galore.

[sugarbear0511]

35 minutes ago, zindrinho said:

People who spread misinformation are the issue here, if he doesn't know how FM works maybe not make videos trying to tell people how FM works? Leave it to those who know what they're talking about. Its not just on these forums, it's a real problem on any niche-type forum where you go to learn something specific, misinformation galore.

But he made that video based on what the UI and tooltip say so @jeru is right. The problem here is SI should improve their UI and tooltip so they don't end up misinforming players.

[(sic)]

3 hours ago, jeru said:

The issue here is not Max's experiments which as he points our in the video he is happy to discuss and have debunked, the issue is as usual FM's diabolical user interface and SI's complete lack of explanation of what things do IN GAME 

If you look at the UI it actually labels it defensive line  and the buttons are step up or drop off, two options that if anybody who watches football or plays FM the logical thing to think is that these options will affect the defensive line and what they do.  There is nothing in the game UI or tooltips to suggest that as @Jack Joyce has now perfectly explained that this only kick in situationally.  The tooltips actually reinforce that the line will push up or defend deeper the only English word that gives any clue that this may only be situational is "typically" on the drop deeper tooltip.

The logical expectation is that push up and drop off are football terms that anybody who has played instantly understand that they do the same thing in FM, the design of the UI and also having defensive line labelled as the slider on the pitch adds to the muddled UI and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if virtually everybody who plays is confused.

Si before all the mods continue to start and encourage a pile on in this thread because somebody has misinterpreted an option in game take a step back and think about the root cause, which is muddled UI design, poorly worded UI elements, and tool tips which do not clarify what the options do, and that sits firmly with SI.  

See, I didn't come to that conclusion about the PIs, but I do understand how some people did. I agree that UI is a mess in FM, in general, not just in this instance.

You already set up your defensive line, why would you need to set it up again with Step Up/Drop Off? To me it was clear from the start that it would be situational, and that it would instruct the players how to deal with the opposition who is coming at them.
Step Up to compress the space ahead, so the opposition have less opportunities to play in front of defence.
Drop Off to protect against balls over the top, but it could leave space in front of defence.


Overall, this game should be a lot more clear in telling players what something does and how it does it. When it comes to roles, duties, mentality, PIs, TIs, everything. They attempted to do something with adding animations to role descriptions, but they just left it at that. They didn't even adjust those animations for different duties (Defend, Support, Attack). Imo they should work on it more, and expand on it. Right now it just feels like they abandoned this completely. 

[zindrinho]

49 minutes ago, sugarbear0511 said:

But he made that video based on what the UI and tooltip say so @jeru is right. The problem here is SI should improve their UI and tooltip so they don't end up misinforming players.

I dont know squat about cars or repairing cars, should I be making videos on how to fix your car at home based on what I think the instruction book I read said?

I dont think I should do that, I should leave that to those who know this stuff in and out. I'd be massively pissed I if wanted to learn how to fix my car at home and the fix your car-forums were full of stupid youtube videos made by people who know even less about cars than I do.

Its a real problem over most forums I read, if you can see my point here and understand where I'm coming from, I'm sure you would agree.

[sugarbear0511]

18 minutes ago, zindrinho said:

I dont know squat about cars or repairing cars, should I be making videos on how to fix your car at home based on what I think the instruction book I read said?

I dont think I should do that, I should leave that to those who know this stuff in and out. I'd be massively pissed I if wanted to learn how to fix my car at home and the fix your car-forums were full of stupid youtube videos made by people who know even less about cars than I do.

Its a real problem over most forums I read, if you can see my point here and understand where I'm coming from, I'm sure you would agree.

That's not even an accurate comparison. If anything this is about testing a feature as it is advertised it's more like you test if your turn the high beam switch in your car it really will turn the high beam on because that's what the manual says. 

All I'm saying is why are we crucifying this guy? There's no intentional malice in what he did. Lets be honest here before @Jack Joyce explain how this feature works none of us here know exactly what it really does. Nobody here try to test it and even though a lot of people claim they know how the feature work (funny how most of them said this after @Jack Joyceexplained it), did they really know all along though? Everybody should take a chill pill and relax before start accusing people of trying to deliberately spread misinformation. If anything we should be thankful that there's at least one person out there who try to test this game out.

[jeru]

32 minutes ago, zindrinho said:

I dont know squat about cars or repairing cars, should I be making videos on how to fix your car at home based on what I think the instruction book I read said?

I dont think I should do that, I should leave that to those who know this stuff in and out. I'd be massively pissed I if wanted to learn how to fix my car at home and the fix your car-forums were full of stupid youtube videos made by people who know even less about cars than I do.

Its a real problem over most forums I read, if you can see my point here and understand where I'm coming from, I'm sure you would agree.

I don't think he framed it as an instructional video, it was much more an experiment based on an theory - that's called science not teaching.  To be clear I had no idea who that guy was until I saw this thread I have not seen any of his videos before but he obviously has a statistical or science background or interest and I thought it was an interesting concept. 

At the end of the day science is having a theory and doing experiments to prove or disprove a theory, what is critical to proving the theory is enough data to make an informed assumption and peer review to validate or disprove your theory.  This guy had a theory, came to a conclusion and all the Mods and "names" just piled on that he was wrong and shouldn't be making videos, I mean come on give the guy some credit for attempting an experiment and putting in the work.

The real difference is that here as we have somebody who presumably knows exactly what the code is designed to do then we have a definitive answer on how something works so the peer review is (assuming the code is not bugged) 100% correct and this guy is incorrect - That's still called science folks.

My initial point about the UI being terrible still stands, there will be a large percentage of people right now making the same assumption as max, and the only definitive answer to correct them is a single post from a member of SI on this thread, I wonder how many of the user base has seen that...............

[zindrinho]

1 hour ago, sugarbear0511 said:

All I'm saying is why are we crucifying this guy? There's no intentional malice in what he did. 

No matter his intentions the outcome is still the same. Misinformation and confusion is being spread, not just on youtube but now it also leaks over here. Its only a matter of time before the reddit-links start flying in too, if you wanna talk about a real garbage heap of misinformation central.
People like him is what makes people not understand FM, if he just stopped making videos more people would know more about FM because their heads is not already filled with his misinfo. I cannot believe you dont see how this is a problem, or how you dont understand why that would **** people off.

Btw it's not possible to think Step up more and Drop off more means Higher or lower defensive lines, those are already in the game and are called Higher/lower defensive lines.

[sugarbear0511]

That's the actual tooltip of step up more. It's 100% different than what @Jack Joycesaid. If you look at that tooltip especially the part that says"...the defenders to press typically higher up the pitch...." it's clear and obvious it means all the defenders will step up. Now if your defenders step up what does that mean? that means your line of defense will also go up higher because that's where your defenders set up. If anything then it's SI here who is misinforming us.

EBFM even replied to the comment in his channel about @Jack Joyceexplanation. He didn't deny it he simply said if this is the case then the tooltip is wrong and he is right!

[vrig]

The root cause of misinformation is almost always the absence of readily available and easily accessible truths. Perhaps it is time to update or add to some of those 3-year-old stickied threads? I would argue for the tooltips being sorted out, but that just obviously isn't ever going to happen.

Anyway, on the actual topic, I don't know anything about these videos or anything, but it seems pretty clear watching games (2D classic probably helps) when the defence is stepping up or dropping off. I really like that it was added. Honestly before getting the game I just thought it was a bit of UI makeup for the old offside trap TI. Very happy to have been wrong about that.

[themadsheep2001]

We definitely need more information, but as you say vrig, you can clearly see in game what the instructions are doing, which is what completely baffles me with what Max is doing here

[sugarbear0511]

1 hour ago, themadsheep2001 said:

We definitely need more information, but as you say vrig, you can clearly see in game what the instructions are doing, which is what completely baffles me with what Max is doing here

Max is simply testing to see if the instruction really work according to the tooltip or should I say how Max interprets the tooltip. I'm not saying he's right or wrong or if the way he conducts his test is right but for God's sake don't crucify the man for trying to test it out.

[Rashidi]

7 hours ago, sugarbear0511 said:

Now if your defenders step up what does that mean? that means your line of defense will also go up higher because that's where your defenders set up. If anything then it's SI here who is misinforming us.

No you interpreted to mean the line of defense moves up. That’s your interpretation, through no fault of your own.  To me it simply means defenders step up to engage, to press, to close down passing lanes, and if needed trigger the offside trap.

Is it SI’s fault? Not really. Unless you expect them to do a detailed explanation of all the mechanics which I doubt any developer ever does with any game. Should they clear up any confusion, yes and they did in the thread.

Now to Max’s video, it’s complete garbage. Why? He uses average positioning! Which statistician in the world begins an analysis with a benchmark being an average?  Heat maps as well. So I was stunned. As far as I am concerned what he made was a generalisation. The biggest weakness in stats is confirmation bias and it’s easy to fall into that trap.

Is there a better way to do this? Yes why not start a thread attach your saves and your findings and ask SI if there is an issue. Discuss with others what a good way of doing a study like this could look like. 

Choosing instead to drop a video with a rudimentary understanding on statistical research will naturally draw criticism. When any scholar submits a hypothesis, they will and should expect peer review and criticism, but if the only plan is to do a YouTube video in some desperate attempt to drive views drawing in the less informed then be prepared to face criticism. And that’s whats happened. 

[cocoadavid]

I can understand both sides' frustration and in this case Max's video is really misleading, but I think the tone of some of the criticism he received here are unnecessarily harsh.

About Max

Did he misinterpret Drop off more / Step up more and got his conclusion wrong? Yes.

But his intentions are good, he really wants to understand the mechanics behind the scenes, he is not doing this only for the clicks. He is always willing to listen to feedbacks and constructive criticism. On multiple occasions he was willing to accept he was wrong and reconsidered his findings, he wants to evolve and is grateful when someone points out the flaws that he might have missed. He puts an insanely amount of work into his videos, sometimes he gets it wrong (mainly about roles and tactics), but sometimes he gets it right, for example his video about how general training sessions affect attributes are helpful, that one actually pointed out some flaws in the training module, and his findings about training sessions are generally working in my experience. Maybe he should be focusing more on training rather than tactics, as they are easier to analyze with data.

[CARRERA]

Don’t cancel that guy, eventhough his videos aren’t as accurate and coclusions may be wrong. 

FM heavily fails to give users a detailed explanation on how things work as well as some basic understanding of tactical principles.

Many other more complex / strategy games do have an ingame wiki or at least very detailed tooltips. Why can’t FM do that? Why do people still need to come to the forums and ask what tempo (or whatever) does to then receive 5 different answers? 

[themadsheep2001]

7 hours ago, sugarbear0511 said:

Max is simply testing to see if the instruction really work according to the tooltip or should I say how Max interprets the tooltip. I'm not saying he's right or wrong or if the way he conducts his test is right but for God's sake don't crucify the man for trying to test it out.

I didn't "crucify" him for testing. I criticized him for putting out misinformation, not for the first time, because he's rather put it out in a video than get either the methodology or results first. Which ive mentioned several times. And I make no apologies for that when it's a trend of behaviour that ultimately ends up poisoning the well of information 

[herne79]

The problem with these videos isn’t with the amount of work that goes into them, the lack of info in game, or not even really about someone’s lack of understanding of the game.

It’s about drawing conclusions without verifying with SI before publishing.

As soon as you start making your unverified conclusions public with “evidence” (lol) which appears to back it up, people believe it.  And that’s a problem because the myth then snowballs and spreads, even if you later back track and change your opinion.  This is not the first time it’s happened either.

And if we all know there’s a lack of in game description, don’t make assumptions about what something does without checking what it actually does before you make a video about it.

[Rashidi]

I think the OPs question has been clearly answered by Jack and an explanation on how its worked. And to that end I think the thread has served its purpose. I will be closing it down now.