Ditch the "mentality" slider altogether.

[wwfan]

there's no need to be so patronising - you select geniuses aren't the only people able to "translate" the game, as i have said time and time again, i find success in fm (and have in every iteration) simple and generally get the team to play exactly how i want but my issues are completely centred around my experiences of dealing with new players (my housemates/friends) who come to FM and by extension, my struggle to teach them the rather essential intricacies of the game - and let me assure you, zero out of the 4 others in my friend circle who regularly play FM are even remotely interested in the concept of having to read a 50 page document or read posts in these forums regularly, to comprehend a game based around FOOTBALL.

PaulC - that's great to hear

I wasn't being patronising, nor claiming any special ability of my own. I was just making an observation about the nature of the dual arguments.

[Millie]

I believe "glutton for punishment" is indeed the correct phrase, wwfan.

Personally, I was always of the opinion that the slider system and the ME have been going in the right direction and are producing more and more realistic football year on year. However, this has also brought with it more and more confusion, and less and less "plain English".

The issue with the ME has always been translation, and I've said it many, many times on these forums. Like learning a foreign language, "mentality 10, closing down 8, creative freedom 17" makes absolutely no sense out of context. Within the grammar of FM, however, it can make a lot of sense, and people can have a good level of control over their players.

The issue, is that people cannot translate "hold back and take pot shots from outside the area, and if you can't do that look to thread in my striker" in to footballmanagerese.

Similarly, it becomes very difficult to translate TT&F's language of slider settings from a bunch of numbers back in to "midfielder who runs from box to box causing havoc".

What's needed is not a radical overhaul of the ME (which is making huge strides), nor I believe a radical overhaul of the tactical interface (though certain instrucitons would be nice to play with and add more realism). More, what we need is a dictionary.

Or rather, the game should still talk in "mentality 18, tackling hard", but we should be able to talk in "push forward and get stuck in".

FM09's dictionary is Tactical Theorems and Frameworks, which I was jammy enough to not only be involved in and test but somehow managed to get my name on the front of it. It's imperfect, and I 100% agree with those who say it "shouldn't be necessary". No, it shouldn't. The system should be easy to understand, easy to get a half-decent tactic out of, which roughly does what one asks, but it should be difficult to really master and overperform with.

We need a way to speak English to the computer, and have the computer then speak English to our players, who will give us feedback on how they are performing in English. We're going the right way, but at the moment our translator is a third party. I'm confident, however, an adequate solution will be in place by next October/November.

[BigRedMart]

The issue is not with the sliders themselves but with the lack of explanation of what each adjusment will do in the ME.

The manual needs to give the end user a much better understing of how to utilise the sliders.

[SFraser]

The issue is not with the sliders themselves but with the lack of explanation of what each adjusment will do in the ME.

The manual needs to give the end user a much better understing of how to utilise the sliders.

This is true but can be resolved by watching the Match Engine, changing the slider, watching the Match Engine.

The problem with the manual is the fact that the situations within which players make decisions changes match to match and sometimes more often, not least of all player versus player. With the current system you cannot write a manual that will tell you exactly what each player will do with certain settings.

I understand the difficulty and went through it myself, but underneath the difficulty there is a simplicity, accuracy and depth that is highly addictive.

[Mitja]

Or rather, the game should still talk in "mentality 18, tackling hard", but we should be able to talk in "push forward and get stuck in".

i thought about that too but imo sliders will still be able to do what ther're able to do now. how would you tell one winger to hug line and other to drift in with sliders? why use complicated slider combination accessible only to people who read TT&F? we need more tactical options - simplify team instructions, make them easy to understand, introduce new player instruction. at least movement instruction it would add so much needed diversity to this game. maybe they could introduce micro-positioning (second striker etc) or role feature (each position having different roles), i know this can be achieved partly with sliders but it could be done so much better, graphical representations of sliders etc.

[PaulC]

In terms of driving the AI, the system of having 1-20 for some of these attributes makes complete sense, especially with attributes ( non player and player ) being on a similar scale.

So the question is, are we in need of a better, or alternative way to create the same settings, giving the user a better understanding of what they are asking of their team along the way?

This is what were are looking into at the moment.

[Gilles Domoraud]

Good luck with that

An idea I can offer is implementing some sort of visual representation so we can 'see' the setting in effect. I'm guessing that would be really difficult to do though.

The slider system does chafe my brain but I understand that the game cannot work without it.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to feedback and liaise with customers! I cannot offer enough praise to the SI team!

[Mitja]

So the question is, are we in need of a better, or alternative way to create the same settings, giving the user a better understanding of what they are asking of their team along the way?

mentality slider works like 'a little bit of everything' right now; passing, positioning/movement etc. don't know why it effects instructions like closing down or agression (tackling rate) if they are seperate instructions? by seperating mentality you will also simplify it, bring new instruction. at least for movement and positioning. set-pices are also crying for improvement.

[PaulC]

Mentality mainly affects pass risk and positioning. It doesn't affect closing down or tackling that is 100% for sure. Yes there is a bit of an overlap with some of the instructions, but to have an overall mentality setting makes 100% sense to me. It isnt going to be removed.

[Mitja]

ok fair enough but what about movement than. it defenetly affects that. thinking about giving some more control there?

we heard something different about CD and tackling these days.

[Gilles Domoraud]

I read somewhere on the FMLive forums they are looking to introduce some form of offensive width and defensive width in future versions. Lets hope it crosses over to FM10

(At least I think I did)

[PaulC]

Mentality affects their default position on the field. Ok, forward runs has some effect on that to a point, if only to give them a better starting point to make real incisive forward runs ( or movement ).

[PaulC]

I read somewhere on the FMLive forums they are looking to introduce some form of offensive width and defensive width in future versions. Lets hope it crosses over to FM10

(At least I think I did)

Its been discussed at various times but no concrete plans at present if I am honest. Pretty much whatever goes into FML in terms of tactical options will find its way to FM at some point, and vice versa.

[Rupal]

Mentality affects their default position on the field.

wwfan has said that it didn't! He was most insistent that mentality had nothing to do with position.

If the game developer and the co-author of the tactics bible can't sing from the same hymn sheet where does that leave the rest of us?

Is it any wonder that people become completely confused when it comes to this slider?

For the love of Mike, either ditch the thing, alter it or decide what it actually does do and provide a clear, unambiguous explanation in the game manual for 2010. Please!

[Wayne\'o]

what happend to the with ball with out ball screen's we used to use back in the CM days?

Thinking about all the arguments in this thread, the with and without ball screens could be an answer to completely do away with a mentality slider all together.. beeing able to place players in certain area's on the pitch can in it's self give a player an attacking or defensive appraoch depending on the placing.

As for free roles, players could be removed from moving the option because they will take up the position they feel fit based on there ability and off-ball skills ect..

IRL on match day, when a manager organises his team leading up to a game and even in pre team talks, the team will play as a unit, as the game unfolds the manager will instruct where he wants his players to run. or push up, stay back ect..

may be the with and without ball screen's isnt an option.. i never did know why it was removed, i remember it beeing a hard version of cm to master which for me was one of the most enjoyable..

we need complex tactics so the game isnt easy, but they need to be understood easily so people know how to use them, like a player, it will come down to our own decision making that will determin our fate!!

also may be there needs to be values added away from the match day tactics to an overall personality and the way we manage players, buy players, train players..

As an example, When AC left Charlton IRL they went on a spiral down fall, not because ID was a bad manager, the club was moulden around AC and the way he wanted thing's done, obviously the board are hopless and they are as much to blame for the clubs down fall as any one, but it's an inidcation that thing's need to be good off the pitch as well as on it..

[PaulC]

Very hard to represent AI teams like that. We have to have a system where AI and human have the same tools at their disposal.

[Marz]

In terms of driving the AI, the system of having 1-20 for some of these attributes makes complete sense, especially with attributes ( non player and player ) being on a similar scale.

So the question is, are we in need of a better, or alternative way to create the same settings, giving the user a better understanding of what they are asking of their team along the way?

This is what were are looking into at the moment.

In the match the assistant-manager (help wizard) gives feedback; gap between defence and midfield and so on. So why not have a similar (help wizard) in the tactics screen? The problem is not the mentality slider (and other sliders), if anything this thread and its posts have shown it’s the interpretation and input that is the difficulty.

I have to add that some people need to get their head around that fact that the average football match has the ball in play for 60 minutes, not 3 minutes etc.

Very hard to represent AI teams like that. We have to have a system where AI and human have the same tools at their disposal.

My perception is that the AI teams already have this understanding, although there is scope for improvement (especially with AI Managers who are supposed to have 20 for tactical knowledge).

[PaulC]

My perception is that the AI teams already have this understanding, although there is scope for improvement (especially with AI Managers who are supposed to have 20 for tactical knowledge).

That's interesting that you perceive it like that. They dont, and for me AI underachieve in FM, something I want to improve at the same time as making tactics more approachable to the user, so we get a nice difficulty balance and learning curve.

[Marz]

That's interesting that you perceive it like that. They dont, and for me AI underachieve in FM, something I want to improve at the same time as making tactics more approachable to the user, so we get a nice difficulty balance and learning curve.

I have to agree with you that the AI underachieves, if you want I am sure me and a few others could give feedback on what we perceive needs changing.

As for my understanding I thought that the AI teams, Manager stats would be taken into account during a match. So in theory an AI Manager who has Tactical Knowledge 20 (in theory should know what to do within his chosen formation/formations), would counter a certain move by the human according to his attacking/defensive tendencies and match situation. Other variables would also come into play (to many to list them).

[Millie]

wwfan has said that it didn't! He was most insistent that mentality had nothing to do with position.

If the game developer and the co-author of the tactics bible can't sing from the same hymn sheet where does that leave the rest of us?

Is it any wonder that people become completely confused when it comes to this slider?

For the love of Mike, either ditch the thing, alter it or decide what it actually does do and provide a clear, unambiguous explanation in the game manual for 2010. Please!

The bigger issue is that every time we try to simplify anything we get people shouting "but it doesn't do that!" It's like learning GCSE Physics which you then learn has bugger all to do with A level Physics.

We can debate whether or not is should be this complicated later (and, no, it shouldn't).

wwfan said that mentality doesn't affect positioning because in itself it doesn't. HOWEVER, it affects risk/reward with regard to anticipation of ball movement, moving for passes, making passes etc. etc.

The result of this is that players with higher mentality tend to be further up the field, while players with lower mentality tend to be further back.

So, it does affect positioning, but it is not a tool which say "you play five notches further forward".

THEREFORE - the mentality slider itself does not dicatate position, but because of the way it tells a player to play, that player's positioning is affected.

This is the problem. Paul and wwfan are singing from the same hymn sheet. Unfortunately instead of trying to take in the advice and debate what's actually going on, people would rather scream and rave that the wording of their advice is not 100% accurate.

[wwfan]

As Millie pointed out, I said it influences positioning, not position. There's a major difference. The former is dynamic, the latter static.

[SFraser]

Mentality, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

[Rista]

As Millie pointed out, I said it influences positioning, not position. There's a major difference. The former is dynamic, the latter static.

But PaulC said it influences their default position on the field. Is that not different to what you're saying or I'm not understanding it well?

[wwfan]

wwfan said that mentality doesn't affect positioning because in itself it doesn't. HOWEVER, it affects risk/reward with regard to anticipation of ball movement, moving for passes, making passes etc. etc.

The result of this is that players with higher mentality tend to be further up the field, while players with lower mentality tend to be further back.

So, it does affect positioning, but it is not a tool which say "you play five notches further forward".

THEREFORE - the mentality slider itself does not dictate position, but because of the way it tells a player to play, that player's positioning is affected.

Millie said it best. Even if that is not exactly how it was originally conceptualised to work, it is by far the most useful understanding of how it works when it comes to designing a tactic. Thinking that a player will always be five yard further forward because one yard = 1 slider click, for example, is not a helpful way of understanding things.

[Rupal]

wwfan said that mentality doesn't affect positioning because in itself it doesn't. HOWEVER, it affects risk/reward with regard to anticipation of ball movement, moving for passes, making passes etc. etc.

The result of this is that players with higher mentality tend to be further up the field, while players with lower mentality tend to be further back.

So, it does affect positioning, but it is not a tool which say "you play five notches further forward".

THEREFORE - the mentality slider itself does not dicatate position, but because of the way it tells a player to play, that player's positioning is affected.

This is the problem. Paul and wwfan are singing from the same hymn sheet. Unfortunately instead of trying to take in the advice and debate what's actually going on, people would rather scream and rave that the wording of their advice is not 100% accurate.

I hope this is not construed as either screaming or raving but can you not see a contradiction between the phrases which I have highlighted?

I just want people to be clear. Please put yourself in the position of somebody who has not made a minute study of FM tactics and is faced with trying to sort out what this slider actually does.

You have just said in this post that it affects positioning twice and that it doesn't affect positioning twice.

Are in fact you and wwfan saying that changing the mentality setting actually does change the relative position of the players? That it just so happens that it is their attitude whch makes them take up these positions?

If that is the case, then we appear to have a mechanism in the tactics which uses a roundabout method for setting position rather than a simple one. Furthermore, it only works in one direction, so to speak - ie it affects forward and back and not width. The latter can only be set for the whole team.

This is why people like me want to see an alternative, where you can set position without ambiguity including individual player width.

If this must be done by sliders, as opposed to a simple and straightforward position screen, then I would have thought that you need to replace this 'mentality' slider by three others - one for attitude, one for forward and back position and one for width in order to allow proper flexibility to the human manager.

Edit: I may very well have a perfectly good reason to want an individual player to play a little further forward, back or wider relative to his team mates without altering his 'attitude towards risk taking' or whatever you call it in any way whatsoever. The current setup doesn't appear to let me do this, short of changing his role (ie making him play wing back instead of full back for example which might not suit him at all).

[Rupal]

Mentality, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

Trouble is, the label is written in an incomprehensible language in FM.

[Wayne\'o]

iv read in the tactics forum people that have used a tool called tacgraber and they have found out that the AI uses global settings for CA and mentality, if this is so why does it work for the AI but we are told we have to keep defensive minded player to a lower limit?

Also what i have found in 9.3 is that a lower mentality ranging from defensive to low normal setting including the same for CF my team not only keeps posesion but also dominates games and scores goals, going attacking does the complete opposit..

[Rupal]

Also what i have found in 9.3 is that a lower mentality ranging from defensive to low normal setting including the same for CF my team not only keeps posesion but also dominates games and scores goals' date=' going attacking does the complete opposit..[/quote']

Yes, I've noticed that as well. When you use a defensive setup with everyone on lowish mentality and counter attack you often seem to spend most of the time camped round the opponents' penalty area.....:confused:

[Wayne\'o]

Yes, I've noticed that as well. When you use a defensive setup with everyone on lowish mentality and counter attack you often seem to spend most of the time camped round the opponents' penalty area.....:confused:

hmm i think in the 9.3 somthing was changed and this is the result, they did say that changing one thing can have an adverse effect on other thing's.. trouble is even when im dead certs to win i still use my defensive counter.. i have been given a good thrashing twice tho recently hich im currently looking into why..

[Millie]

I hope this is not construed as either screaming or raving but can you not see a contradiction between the phrases which I have highlighted?

I just want people to be clear. Please put yourself in the position of somebody who has not made a minute study of FM tactics and is faced with trying to sort out what this slider actually does.

You have just said in this post that it affects positioning twice and that it doesn't affect positioning twice.

Are in fact you and wwfan saying that changing the mentality setting actually does change the relative position of the players? That it just so happens that it is their attitude whch makes them take up these positions?

If that is the case, then we appear to have a mechanism in the tactics which uses a roundabout method for setting position rather than a simple one. Furthermore, it only works in one direction, so to speak - ie it affects forward and back and not width. The latter can only be set for the whole team.

This is why people like me want to see an alternative, where you can set position without ambiguity including individual player width.

If this must be done by sliders, as opposed to a simple and straightforward position screen, then I would have thought that you need to replace this 'mentality' slider by three others - one for attitude, one for forward and back position and one for width in order to allow proper flexibility to the human manager.

Edit: I may very well have a perfectly good reason to want an individual player to play a little further forward, back or wider relative to his team mates without altering his 'attitude towards risk taking' or whatever you call it in any way whatsoever. The current setup doesn't appear to let me do this, short of changing his role (ie making him play wing back instead of full back for example which might not suit him at all).

No, you're missing the subtle distinction between the two.

If you believe that by setting the mentality slider a few notches up will automatically tell your player to play a few yars further up the pitch, you're missing the point.

However, if you believe that the player's positioning will be a side effect of having higher mentality, when taken in to account with RWBs and FWRs, then you're beginning to understand it more.

I agree, that at the current time things are not clear enough. But what is unhelpful (and yes, to an extent it is the fault of the system for being vague in certain areas) is criticism of people trying to help based around rhetoric and misunderstanding.

Personally, I think the mentality system does work. It gives us the options we need to create good tactics. The issue is that it isn't fully explained and crystal clear at first glance, meaning people either misuse or misinterpret it.

Then again - that was the point of TT&F. To try and explain as concisely as possible how it actually works.

Hopefully for FM10 we can construct a system which at least explains everything with far more precision, and gives useful and meaningful advice to managers on how to use it.

[Rupal]

So, we have established (I hope) that altering mentality will have the effect of altering position, although I notice that you further complicate by taking FWR and RWB into account. Did you miss out closing down as well or doesn't this affect position (I'd have though that it must).

What you don't appear to be really concerned about is that this means that there are at least four variables (assuming that closing down is also a factor and I'm not counting the defence line setting, which would make FIVE) which you have to consider in order to get your full back to go approximately where you want forwards or backwards. This seems to me to be an extraordinarily long winded way of doing things. When this is combined with an inability to set your player's width we have a system which is not user friendly enough IMO.

The fact that I cannot ask my full back to sit a bit deeper and wider without considering all of these slider positions and that if I do make adjustments to his 'mentality' setting in order to achieve some alteration I will also change the way in which he plays as regards risk taking and in any case his width position is fixed, just isn't flexible enough. To use your own phrases, 'It is unhelpful' for people to claim that this 'gives us the options we need'.

[Wayne\'o]

i think mentality alters the position in the sence, when you see the next highlight players with high mentality are pushed right forward, obviously with less they are deeper. attacking mentality even with no FWR would make them play further up the pitch?

[Millie]

The problem is that in any tactical system all other instructions will have effects of varying degrees on the others.

If you make a cake with 8 eggs and only a spoon of flour you're going to get a very, very odd cake.

The fact that I cannot ask my full back to sit a bit deeper and wider without considering all of these slider positions and that if I do make adjustments to his 'mentality' setting in order to achieve some alteration I will also change the way in which he plays as regards risk taking and in any case his width position is fixed, just isn't flexible enough. To use your own phrases, 'It is unhelpful' for people to claim that this 'gives us the options we need'.

So this is impossible. You will always have to take in to account the other sliders. You can't, for example, give a guy often FWR and then complain that he doesn't track back enough.

What is needed is a system that can translate "play deeper and wider, and don't go forward so often" in to slider speak and back again in to plain English (as I said previously).

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So changing one slider will necessarily have positive (i.e. wanted) and negative (i.e. not wanted) affects. I'm not sure how it's logically possible to have any other system in place.

The question then arises - would splitting "mentality" in to three different instructions a) really help the ME which is already incredibly complicated or b) reduce this issue of conflicting and complementary slider settings?

[Rupal]

But I may not want to say 'play deeper and wider and don't go forward so often'. I may very well want to say just 'play deeper and wider'. Why do we have to have the connection which the current mentality slider makes between position and attitude? As things stand, I can't just say this to him.

Quite honestly, I am pretty sure that a lot of us could live without the 'mentality' (ie risk taking) element, which seems to overlap and half duplicate everything else in a catch-all way, if we had a basic method of making sure that our players went where we wanted them to go!

A straightforward position slider (or, far better, a simple position screen because you could see the relative positions of your players) would avoid any problems of one slider affecting another, which is what the current 'mentality' slider does all the time.

We already have a mentality slider which affects the whole team's attacking or defensive outlook. Why do we need an individual one as well? Currently, you can't have defenders being defensive and attackers being attacking in outlook with the individual mentality sliders as this creates 'gaps' so there seems precious little point in setting these separately from things like RWB and FWR anyway!

I suppose this is just too simple a solution to satisfy the tactical whizz kids.

[iamjerome]

i don't really like the explicit combination of positioning and movement with the risk-reward of passes in mentality either.

[SFraser]

But I may not want to say 'play deeper and wider and don't go forward so often'. I may very well want to say just 'play deeper and wider'. Why do we have to have the connection which the current mentality slider makes between position and attitude? As things stand, I can't just say this to him.

A players position is where you put him in the formation. A players positioning is where he chooses to place himself throughout the game in relation to his position and the circumstances he is faced with. A Centre Back may find himself near the touchline closing down a striker, on the 6 yard line clearing with a header or on the half way line winning clearances and maintaining pressure throughout the course of the same match. Mentality will never affect his Position as a Centre Back but it will affect his decision making in relation to the game and this will affect his positioning as a Centre Back.

As I said above, Mentality means "The thought processes of an individual or his state of mind" so a defensive mentality Centre Back may choose to pass to the keeper and position himself between player and goal at all times, whereas an attacking mentality Centre Back may put himself in a position to win clearances and try to start counter attacks. These different mentalities will result in different positioning, not directly but through the approach the Centre Back takes to the game. The actual positioning of a Centre Back in relation to mentality and the success of his decisions depends upon the quality of your Centre Back.

Quite honestly, I am pretty sure that a lot of us could live without the 'mentality' (ie risk taking) element, which seems to overlap and half duplicate everything else in a catch-all way, if we had a basic method of making sure that our players went where we wanted them to go!

No Centre Back in the world is going to stand 20 yards from goal while a sole striker breaks down the flank unsupported by his team. No Central Midfielder in the world is going to stand in the centre circle while the opponents play slow build up football around the D. The reason why players have mental stats is because these decisions are entireally up to them over the course of a match, and if the manager has fine control over every single position during every move and attack then no player would ever be caught out of position.

Even American Football relies upon positional, anticipation and decision making errors amongst the defending players. The kind of control you are asking for does not exist in team sports. It defeats the point of team sports and only exists in board games or computer games.

A straightforward position slider (or, far better, a simple position screen because you could see the relative positions of your players) would avoid any problems of one slider affecting another, which is what the current 'mentality' slider does all the time.

Would clearly provide wrong information as positions are dependant upon ingame decision making.

We already have a mentality slider which affects the whole team's attacking or defensive outlook. Why do we need an individual one as well? Currently, you can't have defenders being defensive and attackers being attacking in outlook with the individual mentality sliders as this creates 'gaps' so there seems precious little point in setting these separately from things like RWB and FWR anyway!

The individual mentality sliders exist so a player can make more indepth and complex tactics. You don't have to use it if you don't understand it yet.

[Rupal]

SFraser, could you please explain how a slider 'provides information'? That's extraordinarily unclear.

There is no need for a lengthy, condescending explanation of the term 'mentality' thank you. Nor for a definition of the difference between 'position' and 'positioning'. There is, further, no need to explain yet again how the mentality slider indirectly affects positioning - we've had this stuff from wwfan and Millie and we don't really require a third lecture about it.

The current system has a player's decision making affected by a slider. I must point out that no manager in the world has such fine control of his players' mental processes. That type of control does not exist in team sports to use your own phrase.

Thank you for the earth shattering revelation that the success of a centre back's decisions depends on the quality of the centre back in question. I'm sure we're all extremely grateful for such perspicacious insight.

The current mentality slider is a catch-all which affects almost everything else which goes on. The current arrangement makes it impossible for me to ask my player to sit a shade deeper without also making him more cautious in his outlook. This is a totally unnecessary restriction.

The other sliders available (crossing, RWB, FWR, through balls, closing down, etc) provide a considerable amount of flexibility over how your player behaves both with and off the ball. Why there is a particular necessity for a further slider which affects each of these things as well has not been made clear. If you have a good reason for considering this necessary then what is it please?

The current system does not let me set the width of individual players. It should. It does not enable me to ask players to favour feeds to other players. It should. It does not enable me to ask one centre back to sit a little deeper than the other whilst distributing the ball in exactly the same way as his colleague. It should.

As far as 'understanding' the individual mentality slider in detail is concerned, no I don't. You don't either. You have no real knowledge of what quantifiable difference is made to a player's behaviour by moving that slider a notch to the right or left. You don't know in any detail how the mentality slider relates to FWR, RWB, closing down and so on, in other words how it actually works.

You said in a post on another thread that you have succeeded in making a good tactic. So, as it happens, have I. In my current save my side lies unbeaten in the BSN after 13 matches. I am not claiming that this is anything other than a combination of looking at TT&F and good luck/trial and error, though. Given the current tactical system that's the best you can hope for.

[RT--]

Revisiting an earlier point: would it really require that much of an overhaul to change the individual mentality slider from a 20-point scale to a 7-point scale, or something similar?

Just have seven options along the lines of 'Ultra-defensive, defensive, cautious, normal, aggressive, attacking, all-out-attack' and code them to 0, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 20 or something, if the match engine has to work on 20-point values.

To my mind, real life managers don't possess the vocabulary (and real life players certainly don't possess the level of understanding) to allow for micro-adjustments to mentality (certainly not on a 20-point scale) so we shouldn't be able to do that either. I'm sure some people would complain of a reduction in control, but as with the tactical arrows, isn't just the loss of an unrealistic option?

[PaulC]

Its been raised before, and we have discussed it, but we decided against it.

The system we are trialling in FML beta works best with a 1-20 range, so we will definitely be sticking with that for the foreseeable future.

[RT--]

Fair enough - I guess I'll have to wait and see what the FML system looks like!

[PaulC]

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?p=2895692#post2895692

[SFraser]

Clearly you are going to continue to refuse to accept any explanation for any given slider, ignore the fact that multiple sliders exist to deal with multiple aspects of behaviour and can be fine tuned, and refuse to acknowledge the fact that like real life results are dependant upon player decision making. Where you are clearly wrong though is in stating that actions cannot be quantified, as clearly within a computer programme and even with an element of randomness actions can and must be quantified.

It is a clear SI policy not to discuss or explain actual game mechanics in mathematical and programming detail, whether that is tactics, behaviour, training, development etc. etc. while at the same time keeping the system as complex and logical as possible. Firstly the system its self is too complex for there to be much point in knowing the basic mechanics for a single event or action, and secondly it maintains a situation within the playerbase where each "manager" has his own theories and interpretations but no "manager" ever has the precise, indisputable mechanical facts.

This game has developed so that it attempts to simulate a managers influence over football player behaviour rather than his direct control over football player behaviour. Where elements of direct control exist the attempt has been made to replicate them, where direct control does not exist attempts have been made to replicate that also. Now if you can show that Football Manager would be made more realistic and representative of actual Football by replacing the mentality system of influencing attacking or defensive preferences with a system that allows direct control over defensive positioning, passing decisions, yard by yard specifications of individual player width or depth in his position, specified and detailed attacking moves exploiting fine details in defensive attributes without requiring attacking player footballing intelligence, match reading etc. or any other means of control that you think a football manager has over what actually occurs once the match kicks off then perhaps you would have a point.

I completely understand your point that the tactical system is in some cases vague, open to intepretation and provides a lack of fine control over multiple specific details of player behaviour but I disagree with your analysis that this is a gameplay flaw. Clearly the tactical system allows the manager a lot of control over a wide range of basic tactical principles but beyond that grants the manager no further control over specific details and whether you like it or not this forces the manager to rely upon his players ability and decision making during the course of the match, rather than the managers ability to exploit weaknesses in the system. This game is built to represent football from a managers perspective and not from a purely tactical perspective and in this context attack mentality, passing style, defensive line, width, tempo and creative freedom etc. are all superior mechanics to custom built positions, direct control over passing targets, custom built offensive moves etc. etc.

You forget that the biggest aspect of football management is working out how players respond to situations and moulding them into a team, not simply telling them what to do and watching it happen. What is the biggest problem you have with Football Manager? Understanding how players respond and moulding them into a team. Clear win for SI, in terms of simulation anyway.

[Mitja]

can you help me with couple of issues i have. how can i make my wingers to put one quality cross into the box? how can i make my players to control the ball instead of clearing it like a bunch of grandmumies were playing (no meter the mentality they're on)? what do i need to do to make my players press the other team? or player who's set to RWB to pass the most obvious pass instead of running into defender every time he's got the ball? i have plenty more stuff but i'd be grateful if you could help me with these issues.

[Rupal]

Clearly you are going to continue to refuse to accept any explanation for any given slider, ignore the fact that multiple sliders exist to deal with multiple aspects of behaviour and can be fine tuned, and refuse to acknowledge the fact that like real life results are dependant upon player decision making. Where you are clearly wrong though is in stating that actions cannot be quantified, as clearly within a computer programme and even with an element of randomness actions can and must be quantified.

It is a clear SI policy not to discuss or explain actual game mechanics in mathematical and programming detail, whether that is tactics, behaviour, training, development etc. etc. while at the same time keeping the system as complex and logical as possible. Firstly the system its self is too complex for there to be much point in knowing the basic mechanics for a single event or action, and secondly it maintains a situation within the playerbase where each "manager" has his own theories and interpretations but no "manager" ever has the precise, indisputable mechanical facts.

This game has developed so that it attempts to simulate a managers influence over football player behaviour rather than his direct control over football player behaviour. Where elements of direct control exist the attempt has been made to replicate them, where direct control does not exist attempts have been made to replicate that also. Now if you can show that Football Manager would be made more realistic and representative of actual Football by replacing the mentality system of influencing attacking or defensive preferences with a system that allows direct control over defensive positioning, passing decisions, yard by yard specifications of individual player width or depth in his position, specified and detailed attacking moves exploiting fine details in defensive attributes without requiring attacking player footballing intelligence, match reading etc. or any other means of control that you think a football manager has over what actually occurs once the match kicks off then perhaps you would have a point.

I completely understand your point that the tactical system is in some cases vague, open to intepretation and provides a lack of fine control over multiple specific details of player behaviour but I disagree with your analysis that this is a gameplay flaw. Clearly the tactical system allows the manager a lot of control over a wide range of basic tactical principles but beyond that grants the manager no further control over specific details and whether you like it or not this forces the manager to rely upon his players ability and decision making during the course of the match, rather than the managers ability to exploit weaknesses in the system. This game is built to represent football from a managers perspective and not from a purely tactical perspective and in this context attack mentality, passing style, defensive line, width, tempo and creative freedom etc. are all superior mechanics to custom built positions, direct control over passing targets, custom built offensive moves etc. etc.

You forget that the biggest aspect of football management is working out how players respond to situations and moulding them into a team, not simply telling them what to do and watching it happen. What is the biggest problem you have with Football Manager? Understanding how players respond and moulding them into a team. Clear win for SI, in terms of simulation anyway.

If your post was addressed to me SFraser, your first paragraph is, typically, 1) condescending and 2) totally incorrect.

First of all, I have not at any stage 'refused to accept the explanation for any slider'. I am as aware as you are about what the mentality slider is intended to do, now that the apparent contradictions between the game developers and the tactical gurus over position(ing), etc, have been somewhat tortuously explained away. I am critical of it as I don't think that it is a particularly good concept. I also did not say that its effect cannot be quantified; if you had actually bothered to read my post with proper care, you would have realised this. What I said was that you (as an FM player) could not quantify it. Obviously a computer programmer or a game developer could, given the appropriate information but that is a totally different matter and completely useless to the overwhelming majority of people who play FM.

The fact that the current system means that it is impossible for me to tell a player to sit a little deeper without changing his attitude towards risk taking or to play a little wider at all is, no matter how you may obscure the issue, a flaw. I have to use a roundabout and unclear way of doing something rather ineffectively, as opposed to using a direct and straightforward method of doing it effectively. The fact that I can use other sliders to affect many of the ways in which a player's defensive or attacking propensity would manifest itself also suggests that this slider of which you are so fond is probably providing unnecessary duplication.

How will the player's 'decision making' show itself up in the game? His passing? I can already affect this by choosing settings for through balls, tempo, length, crossing (frequency and position), favouring one or both flanks, or using a target man or a playmaker. His closing down? I can choose a setting for this. His willingness to get stuck in? I can set his tackling. How frequently he will make forward runs? I can set this. How often he will dribble and risk getting caught in possession? I can set this too. Whether he will move up to use the offside trap? Amazing! I can do this as well! His marking? Good grief! You know it's incredible - I can actually do that too!!!

I'm not exactly short of options here, so I am curious as to why I so desperately need another slider which, somehow, in a way which I cannot quantify, will also have an effect on at least some of these things. Indeed, I already have a slider available which will set the overall attitude of the team (ie how defensive or attacking the side will be) in any case.

Your final paragraph has nothing whatsoever to do with the effectiveness or otherwise of the mentality slider.

I will conclude by reiterating a point which I made earlier and which you failed to address. No manager in the world has the fine control of his players' mind-sets which the 'mentality slider' provides. It is an utterly unrealistic concept. I don't understand how you, who obviously dislikes over prescriptive manager input, can possibly be happy with it.

I have never asked for 'custom built positions' or 'custom built offensive moves'. You have a tendency to put words into people's mouths which does no service to the cause of rational discussion.

The replacement of the mentality slider by a less ambiguous arrangement would make the task of devising one's own tactics (as opposed to downloading or blindly aping the recipes in TT&F) a whole lot easier. That would be a very good thing indeed.

[iamjerome]

rupal, of course you need that other MAGICAL slider to supply a tool for the only people who "KNOW" football well enough to develop "ADVANCED" tactics that are surprisingly enough essentially simple but i'm afraid most of FM's userbase who are of course simpletons are not worthy of understanding the convoluted and esoteric game that is football, thus should never be able to translate their ideas into the game!

[Rupal]

rupal, of course you need that other MAGICAL slider to supply a tool for the only people who "KNOW" football well enough to develop "ADVANCED" tactics that are surprisingly enough essentially simple but i'm afraid most of FM's userbase who are of course simpletons are not worthy of understanding the convoluted and esoteric game that is football, thus should never be able to translate their ideas into the game!

Surely you don't harbour the unworthy thought that some people (this is not directed at wwfan or Millie by the way, who always genuinely try to help), are so keen on the mentality slider because it lets them show how really clever and important they are when they explain to the rest of us how it works and make up complicated systems using it?

I'm surprised at you!!

[Bigwig]

This is the first time I’ve read about mentality being related to risk / reward but if I’ve read it right (and there’s a good chance I haven’t) then I can’t say I’m too happy about it.

If I’m giving my players instructions using the other sliders then I expect them to do what they suggest. If I tell both my full back and winger to cross the ball often then I expect them both to be putting crosses into the box as often as possible. What I don’t expect is the winger to stick more in because he’s on a higher mentality and likewise the fullback to stick less in because he’s on a lower mentality. What’s the point in giving a player an instruction as obvious as to cross the ball often if you’re going to counter that by dropping the mentality?

Similarly, how doe sit work with conflicting instructions? I want one of my strikers to track back so drop his mentality, but I also want him to be holding up the ball and trying through balls to my other striker. However, if I drop his mentality to get him to track back then he won’t try through balls as often as I want, but if I leave his mentality to get him to try more through balls then he won’t track back as I want.

[Millie]

Surely you don't harbour the unworthy thought that some people (this is not directed at wwfan or Millie by the way, who always genuinely try to help), are so keen on the mentality slider because it lets them show how really clever and important they are when they explain to the rest of us how it works and make up complicated systems using it?

I'm surprised at you!!

I can assure you we don't. We actually both agree to an extent that the current system is in no way perfect, and we hope that it can evolve to something far more intuitive in the future. However, we're also acutely aware that the current ME (which is coming on leaps and bounds in terms of realism) would need a complete re-write if tactics were to change dramatically over night. Since the current system can be used to work (and we are working hard right now with SI to show this), what we would rather is that we got the most out of the tools we have and gradually move the tactical instructions and the ME on with more instructions in an easier to use fashion.

Mentality will do a lot of good things and is a good instruction for the ME in its current state. Unfortunately (and I agree with a lot of others here) in its current state it is both badly worded and difficult to quantify. But this is all part of the development process.

Which, ultimately, is why we are trying to help and get across how you can use these instructions as the game stands at the moment, and how then people can enjoy the game. And that's the ultimate aim - enjoyment.

This is the first time I’ve read about mentality being related to risk / reward but if I’ve read it right (and there’s a good chance I haven’t) then I can’t say I’m too happy about it.

If I’m giving my players instructions using the other sliders then I expect them to do what they suggest. If I tell both my full back and winger to cross the ball often then I expect them both to be putting crosses into the box as often as possible. What I don’t expect is the winger to stick more in because he’s on a higher mentality and likewise the fullback to stick less in because he’s on a lower mentality. What’s the point in giving a player an instruction as obvious as to cross the ball often if you’re going to counter that by dropping the mentality?

Similarly, how doe sit work with conflicting instructions? I want one of my strikers to track back so drop his mentality, but I also want him to be holding up the ball and trying through balls to my other striker. However, if I drop his mentality to get him to track back then he won’t try through balls as often as I want, but if I leave his mentality to get him to try more through balls then he won’t track back as I want.

But all instructions are related. A player with high crossing will put in a lot of crosses. But if he isn't taking risks, will he be in a position to cross in the first place? If time wasting is also high, will he take it upon himself to hold the ball up in the corner?

You cannot change one instruction without changing the feel of another. Every change will have positive (i.e. intended) and negative (i.e. unintended) effects. Otherwise, the instructions would just be a slider from "play bady" through to "play well".

Now, I agree that positioning wise things could be done in a better way, and this is something to consider. However, a DMC with lower mentality, lots of through balls and HUB is still going to play a lot of through balls and hold the ball up. However, if he senses he is in danger he's going to take the safer option, rather than risking it. That's common sense. If all of the instructions were completely independent of each other, then in order to properly set up a tactic we'd probably need 20 notches of crossing as well.

We need (and are working on) a system which makes these inter-relationships clearer and allows a manager to really get across what he wants to his players in English. That's for the future. Right now, we need to debate how best to use the tools at our disposal. Otherwise, we might as well uninstall and wait for FM27.

[Rupal]

But all instructions are related. A player with high crossing will put in a lot of crosses. But if he isn't taking risks, will he be in a position to cross in the first place? If time wasting is also high, will he take it upon himself to hold the ball up in the corner?

But the whole point is that his high crossing setting will be making him make a lot of crosses if he is also set towards making a lot of FWR and he runs with the ball a lot. Why do we need another variable (risk taking) to come in here?

Surely setting crossing from byline and often, running with the ball often and making plenty of forward runs should be enough to get my player to bomb down the wing and bang the ball across. Why do I have to mess about with his 'risk taking attitude' as well? What on earth is the point of this over complication?

[Millie]

But the whole point is that his high crossing setting will be making him make a lot of crosses if he is also set towards making a lot of FWR and he runs with the ball a lot. Why do we need another variable (risk taking) to come in here?

Surely setting crossing from byline and often, running with the ball often and making plenty of forward runs should be enough to get my player to bomb down the wing and bang the ball across. Why do I have to mess about with his 'risk taking attitude' as well? What on earth is the point of this over complication?

Because the next complaint when this is removed is "why is my winger bombing up the wing and putting in crosses when the cross isn't on and he should be covering my full back".

To which you can counter "ok, reduce FWR and crossing", but then you're not putting in as many crosses or FWRs as before. Which means either you increase the amount of crossing options, or you increase the amount of crossing options.

Mentality does all that for you. Players who are defensively minded take fewer risks - that's part of being defensive, along with playing further back and being more alert for stopping the opposition rather than going forward looking for goals.

I'm sorry, but we're reaching a point here where we can't go any further. If you think risk should not be related to mentality and related to the way a player plays, then we have completely different views of the ME and of football and there's little point in us going on.