FM09 going back on the shelf

[Rupal]

I still maintain that the current system is an example of bad gameplay wwfan.

Whatever is intended, the practical implementation is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

As Bigwig has so correctly pointed out, it makes no sense at all for me, as a manager, to be unclear about what I am actually saying to my players. Yet this is precisely what the current position is. Whilst it is perfectly reasonable for there to be some doubt about the possible reaction of players to my remarks, it really isn't acceptable for me to be uncertain about what I, myself, am actually trying to get across.

We have a limited number of possible comments which we can make in the 'global' team talk and a further limited number of possible comments which we can apply to individuals. Now both you and SFraser have made lengthy contributions about various aspects of player motivation. It does not appear to strike either of you as incongruous that the current arrangements are attempting to deal with a highly complex matter (the various subtle things which may motivate or demotivate a human being) using totally inadequate means. An unsophisticated multiple choice menu of the sort which FM currently provides clearly isn't capable of dealing with the subtleties of what will inspire a human being or vice versa.

Because of the uncertainty engendered by the lack of clarity about what the manager actually means by his/her remarks coupled with the limited choices actually on offer, team talks, as they stand, are thoroughly unsatisfactory. They do not relate to the real business of motivation. What we have now is simply paying lip service to the notion. We are forced to make choices between a set of options where we can't even be sure of what we are actually supposed to be saying! And yet the choice which we make has a very considerable influence upon the outcome of the match.

Is this good gameplay? No it isn't!

Like Squirmy Rooter, I don't give a damn about the number crunching aspects of FM. It's the playability which is important to me. FM's team talks and media interaction, as they stand at present, do not increase the enjoyment of the game one iota for me, rather the reverse. As these features have been the subject of quite widespread criticism in numerous threads, it's apparent that I am not alone in this.

If SI want to include a motivational element then that's absolutely fine (to repeat a point which I made in an earlier post). But this needs to be done properly, not in the current half baked fashion.

[Rupal]

Another generic, non-specific complaint that reinforces your dislike while adding nothing of substance to any debate or discussion on the actual problems.

If you actually read the post which I made, you will see that it specifically took up something which you had said earlier. You asked for alternatives to the current multiple choice arrangements and I am making the very obvious point that it isn't up to the ordinary player to do the game developers' job.

Rather than adopting your usual arrogant and dismissive tone towards those who have the temerity to disagree with you, it might be more constructive for you to actually address the points which they are making!

[Bigwig]

In reply to wwfan...

While I agree with just about everything you’ve posted, I still think you’re talking about how team talks should work in an ideal world and not how they currently do work in FM.

I don’t think it’s too hard to come up with a system of how you would imagine team talks to work, taking into account player personality, morale, form, performance, quality of opposition and so on and so on, but the hard part is putting that into practice and finding it doesn’t quite work how you’d expect.

You only have to take some of the options given as examples of talks which don’t seem to work. Personally I’ve never once seen a player have a reaction to ‘prove a point’ even though I’ve tried it in several circumstances. I’ve also used ‘for the fans’ prior to games as per the assistant’s advice but again I’ve never seen a solitary player have any sort of reaction which leads me to believe that one of the following is occurring:

1. some talks have no effect on players and they’re just there as options but aren’t coded to invoke a reaction

2. some talks have an effect but the coding link to the assistant feedback doesn’t work properly so while you tell a player to prove a point and he performs better, the assistant feedback after the game doesn’t indicate that he was fired up etc.

3. some talks have an effect, but the frequency of them is so miniscule that you’ll rarely (if ever) see them have an effect

While I’ve used talks such as disappointing, angry, have faith, no pressure etc. and seen them have both positive and negative effects on players, I’ve yet to see certain talks such as for the fans, prove a point, expect a better performance etc. have any effect either good or bad.

[wwfan]

I think you've easily made the most valid points about team talks and I can now fully understand where you are coming from.

We've discussed ambiguity previously and I think we'll need to agree that we have different levels of tolerance. However, I can fully agree that the language itself shouldn't be ambiguous. I believe that 'for the fans' is the biggest culprit in this respect, as it really just seems to mean 'go out and do a professional job,' which is hardly obvious from the context. 'No team talk' at half time (or even full time) is also problematic, as it simply the response to give if your team does as expected. Winning 2-0 against a poorish side seems to cause the most issues here, with people generally opting for 'pleased' when actually 'no team talk' is preferential.

However, I believe the degree to which a player is noticeably motivated by your team talk in a social environment (i.e. the dressing room) requires a level of ambiguity. A huge number of people (and I'd include myself in this) will not react to motivational speeches by becoming obviously 'fired up' or 'angry'. Some will take it on board but not display any reactions, whereas others will pretty much ignore it to reflect on their own game. As such, the feedback you get from the AssMan reflects reality reasonably well.

What is lacking is any indication that this is what you should expect, either in the manual or in game. We expect the Ass MAn to tell us if the team talk went well or not, and forget to actually look at what happened in the match to work it out for ourselves. If I pull back a 2-0 defecit and record a 3-2 win, it doesn't matter a jot to me if only 2-3 players obviously reacted to the team talk as it patently did its job. This doesn't seem to be considered in geenral argument.

[Fire Island]

I am really enjoying the game, I have started it again and typically enough had a bad migraine over 2 days so couldn't play it so just hoping I can play tonight :o

[swash]

I think team talks are yet another area that split the FM community. Personally I have no interest in them at all, and have only reluctantly taken over doing them myself as even an ass man with good attributes is pretty much useless.

I appreciate that some people enjoy the challenge of dealing with them, but I feel that SI should improve the ass man's competence in this area (taking into account his attributes) so that it doesn't spoil the game for those that dislike this area of the game.

If SI want to keep the secret of success in this area from becoming obvious, I would be quite happy that if you select the ass man deals with team talks option, you don't get to see what he is saying to the players.

[SFraser]

Ignoring the genitalia measurement that at times seems inevitable around here, I think you can create a cohesive picture of FM09 by combining the information contained in Squirmy's last post and a significant part of SFraser's analysis. Forgive me if this isn't as eloquent as it could be, I managed to close my much more thought-out post before hitting "Post".

After reading numerous "treatises" by SFraser and more than a handful of other intelligent collaborators, I've become enamored with FM09 for what it is: a beautifully, complex game formed by the synthesis of a dozen different systems. As is the case with tactics, training, team talks, or any other module within FM09, the effort has been put in to create a functional, deep system based on inputs and outputs. It is frustrating to listen to people consistently rant about systems they reallyare not interested in understanding; I'm sure this is the source of SFraser's pedantic frustration. For example, when you get to the soul tactical module, that system is capable of everything it promises to do. The features work.

That said, there is a legitimate grip and Squirmy does the best job of explaining it I've seen in a while. FM09 disappoints with it's user interfaces. I'll let his explanation stand mostly on it's own, except for a further point of two.

The heart of FM should be immersion in the complex footballing world it attempts to simulate. No system, training, team talks, tactics, or otherwise, should feel like it has been reduced to "If A, then I push button B; if C, then I push button D". Yes, this is the way FM works at a nuts-and-bolts level but the gameplay should feel immersive enough that you don't notice the wizard behind the curtain. At times the game experience is similar to being on a plane with the pilot unconscious, the autopilot disabled, and then being asked by ground control to take over.

"What's this lever do?"

"Oh that tilts the plane downward..."

"Roger, I won't touch it until we're ready to land!"

"...unless you push the square yellow button and flip the green switch. Then it causes the plane to spin uncontrollably. Unless you also hold the circle yellow button in, which will cause you to maintain your altitude."

Granted, there is a certain amount of that feeling which will inevitably occur with something as rich as FM. And after a while, you can learn to navigate by combining the advice with trial-and-error; personally, I enjoy the experience of reading advice, tinkering, and evaluating repeated ad nauseaum. But if SI wants to really show the monstrous but precise engine they've put under the hood, they have to remember to tune the suspension and calibrate the brakes. Most people don't expect to be able to step into a Porsche the first time and be able to nimbly slide it around tight corners; but they do expect to be able to cruise it through at 20 MPH until they're able to learn the expert maneuvers (if they so choose) by analyzing the car's feedback.

I think the sheer complexity of the different systems (ME, Transfers, Training, etc) and their interplay is much more impressive than the common player realizes. But at the same time, I see half a dozen small interfaces changes which would allow the user to truly enjoy the power of the underlying engine. I think of it this way -- it takes a true car enthusiast to enjoy a Porsche engine tucked into a 1980s station wagon; but if you take that same engine, put it in the proper body and give it intuitive controls, even a bum off the street can take a whirl and enjoy it while the enthusiast will still be able to enjoy the intricacies.

Best post in the thread.

At the end of the day though it is the engine that makes the activity what it is, in reference to your anology. The paint job may make it more appealing to the gathered crowds but the true enjoyement of the passtime comes from experiencing the nuts-and-bolts, whether in detail for the true enthusiast or in a general appreciation for non-specific ability and prowess from the more causal fan.

The problem with computer games like FM is that you cannot enjoy the difference between its mechanical expertise in comparison to lesser titles unless you understand the mechanics to a functional degree. No paint job in the world is going to lessen frustration of failure when the player does not understand the systems inherant within the title. As you have stated and just about everyone in this thread has agreed, the means of interaction could do more to facilitate this understanding, but like the question of tactics previously this thread has degenerated into a critique of the mechanics by those that do not understand the mechanics because of the difficulty in understanding those mechanics. Not only is this unfair but it diverts attention from the real problems.

This is a problem that is not unique to FM, it is a problem inherant within the entire genre, because make no mistake FM is a sports simulation in appearance only, and a damn fine appearance for the most part, but ultimately this game at its fundamentals is a strategy game and so it should be considering its title. It took me a year to learn to play Hearts of Iron 2, my first Paradox Interactive title, not because it was broken and inept but because of its detail and accuracy underneath the facade of obvious inferiority to titles like Call of Duty or Command and Conquer.

I consider it not only fallacious but an insult to state that such games are enjoyable only to number crunchers, that their appeal is only to number crunchers. You don't need to crunch numbers to fully enjoy these games, you need only to see what it is that the mechanics replicate, what they simulate, what they actually do. The true achievement of titles like FM and HOI is in taking complex real world problems and scenarios and reducing them to simplistic mechanics that replicate all of the relevant major trends of the real life subject matter. It is in translating the nuances of their chosen real world subjects into computer programmes and computer game mechanics. The problem faced by all these kinds of games is how do you translate real life into the most comprehensive, accurate and functional set of computer game mechanics, and then how do you translate these mechanics back to the end-user in ways they not only understand and accept but that increase their immersion in the subject matter.

No matter what anyone says or whomever says otherwise, all that people are going to enjoy in a title like FM is fundamentally its mechanics. You could have 3-D replays like watching T.V. but if the mechanics attempting to replicate football were trully and completely broken this would be irrelevant, the world and his wife would shout you down. Obviously presentation matters a great deal, but if you keep pulling your Trigger in the Battlefield series and suddenly your character springs into a funky dance like those console dance games, and you didnt know about it, you wont be happy, irrespective of the modelling of the Abrahms A1.

At the end of the day games like these are all about replicating reality through programmatical mechanics and if you don't like this premise you better hope that the studio decides to forgoe realism of function for superficial representation real soon. If you appreciate this fundamental principle then not only is there a basis for discussion and critique, but a fine discussion and critique of a fine game with an ever better future at that.

[Ceching You Out]

Ultimately, I think we're interested in the same sort of game, SFraser. When I grew tired of the simplicity of FIFA a couple of years ago, I started researching football management games. I read up pretty extensively on the available options (FM, CM, FIFA Manager, etc.) and a particularly line from an FM review stood out to me: FM is an extensively researched, complex spreadsheet with a simple interface thrown on it. If I could remember the reviewer's name, I'd send he/she a thank you note because after playing FM for a couple of years I feel he/she was entirely correct. I wanted that complexity because while a strong use of one's imagination can hide interface flaws, no amount of creativity can add depth to a shallow game.

The game dynamics are exquisite. I come from a math and computer programming/networks background and am amazed at the level of simulation that FM produces compared to any other game I've played. It is staggering that SI is able to integrate such complex modules into a coherent product. As I mentioned before, the features do work if you break the interactions down to small enough parts. It's just hard to tell that because the way the information is presented to the player does not do the system's justice.

It's almost ironic that SI have managed to nearly perfect the engine but struggle with the dashboard. If a little more effort was put into finishing the car out, they'd have a fully awe-inspiring Porsche rather than an old beater that somebody dropped an engine in.

[Hammer1000]

If i had to name the issues i have with FM09 that most make me want to switch off and stop playing, they would be....

1. Tactics

Not just slider ambiguity, but mostly because we are now at a point where we must tweak our tactics during matches?

Whilst the idea of making tactical tweaks throughout the game is realistic, all we have to go on is by what we witness via the ME which is currently completely useless.

If it was possible to understand what is wrong with your tactics and just how to make the tweaks to rectify it by watching the matches via the ME, then i'm pretty sure the Guru's at least would have started some threads in the T&T Forum on just what to look for and ways to counter it, i dont believe i have encountered such topics?

2. Team Talks & Press Conferences

Reasons as already explained in this thread.

3. AI - Poor Squad Building

Making long term career games pointless.

4. Players CA & PA and the Star System

PA being the main culprit.

Basically with any decent Scout you know what players will and wont make it at the top level. I may have a player with all the right stats for all the right areas, but if i want to build a better team and have a better chance of winning matches then he must be discarded for a player who it has already been decide will have a greater future?

Basically, similar to other poorer games of this genre you end up trying to put together a team full of players with the most STARS which i think is rather lame.

I much prefer the older games in which if a player had good stats and performed well he would be considered a great player, in recent FM's a player with 5 STARS who averages a 5.8 rating will be first choice over a player with 4 STARS who averages a 7.8 rating and will also be more likely to sell for an extravagant fee?

5. Reputation

This can bring the game to its knees. I recently started a game as Manager of Man Utd and without doing anything but picking the team(no tactic teaks ever, no OI's, etc, etc)

i have won 88% of all my games and on only 3 or 4 occasions have any opposition even managed to make a game of it at all?

In my Wigan save i finished 7th, 7th, 3rd and 2nd in succesive seasons and had a squad in Season 5 that made Man Utd look poor, yet we were still only predicted 6th in the EPL and pretty much still regarded as cannon fodder by most of the Prem clubs?

6. Injuries

I found a way to practically end training injuries, click left on the intensity slider of the preset training schedule, job done.

The problem is in-match injuries, 90% of which are caused by the opposition who appear to target certain players(mostly strikers/wingers) nothing to do with players being tired or told to make too many forward runs or playing at too high a tempo?

I'll stop there, thats the BIG 6 out of the way, although there are literally 100's of others which have mostly been well covered on the Forums. Some are minor but added together make the whole FM experience a much less attractive propostion than in years gone by.

[Rupal]

Best post in the thread.

I consider it not only fallacious but an insult to state that such games are enjoyable only to number crunchers, that their appeal is only to number crunchers. You don't need to crunch numbers to fully enjoy these games, you need only to see what it is that the mechanics replicate, what they simulate, what they actually do. The true achievement of titles like FM and HOI is in taking complex real world problems and scenarios and reducing them to simplistic mechanics that replicate all of the relevant major trends of the real life subject matter. It is in translating the nuances of their chosen real world subjects into computer programmes and computer game mechanics. The problem faced by all these kinds of games is how do you translate real life into the most comprehensive, accurate and functional set of computer game mechanics, and then how do you translate these mechanics back to the end-user in ways they not only understand and accept but that increase their immersion in the subject matter.

I would be amazed if anyone suggested that a game such as Hearts of Iron appealed solely to number crunchers. It would be entirely unreasonable to make such an assertion.

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

I don't agree with everything mentioned in the OP.

Match only stutters occasionally for me in 3D. Seems the game is updating something tactically. I agree it could be optimized better and some low end machines struggle to run the game without gitters. SI need to fix this up, but ultimately a 3D game is going to need a decent graphics card, especially when people are asking for a better engine for FM2010.

I am only 2 seasons in and I enjoy press conferences, although the questions at time repeat themselves, sometimes the same question twice after you say "no comment" or "unsure".

I prefer to be in the media more often than not. I am sure you can probably download some sort of addon that improves this part of the game.

I totally disagree with the away form. I have managed Watford and Stuttgart, I have had some wonderful results from my away matches and am quite poor at home. You need to defend away, quite simply put. This is definately a tactical issue. Even as a top class side, you can't attack quick pace for 90 min on a high attacking mentality and expect to win. I change tempo, i mark up etc - In fact I usually only lose 1-0 away or I tend to get pegged back at most. My highest defeat was to Spartak Moscow I believe 3-1 with my Stuttgart side.(Which was 2nd last in German League when i took over).

My only gripe with the ME is that too many goals get scored from some TERRIBLE players and players getting disgruntled WAY too quickly.

I for example had a player who had 4 years left on his contract and he had just signed on. Then a club came a long and praised him, put in an offer and I rejected. He instantly was angry that I didnt allow him to move to a bigger club. I was stuttgart and the bigger club were Boca!

I also agree that tactics are a little difficult to understand, however after spending 1-2 days really reading up on the forums and downloading a guide that explains tactics, I finally understood how the game functions, thus in my opinion avoided the "away" issues, injuries and other annoyances I have read about.

Also you state the game is slow? That is not SI's fault really. I have 4 GiG Ram and a Quad core machine. It wasn't an expensive PC and it runs the game like a dream. I have picked 14 nations and play full detail on large database and the game runs fine!

With a few things, you and most SI fans just need to stop being so demanding. This years version has been quite a spectacular game and this comes from me, who has not purchased an FM since 2006 because like you, was always shelfing the games due to huge issues.

This was the first time 3D was introduced. It will take some time to to be developed correctly, I at times get extreemly annoyed at strikers going too far wide, players not controlling balls correctly etc. However it is a just a game and the match engine at time is fantastic. I watch many games on FULL MATCH mode and I sometimes giggle at how realistic some of the play is.

I believe you should just do what I do. When you find an FM you like, stick to it for a few years and then enjoy a polished version in 2011-2012 and wait to February to buy your copy so you get all the patches. I did that with 09 and I am glad I waited 3 years.

I am extreemly happy with my product, I have put a lot of effort into having it modded, updated and added a hell of a lot of things to my game and it will last me a good 2 more years.

[heathxxx]

Winning 2-0 against a poorish side seems to cause the most issues here, with people generally opting for 'pleased' when actually 'no team talk' is preferential.

Sorry to pick up on this individual point wwfan, but this particular statement stood out. The problem with the idea of "'no team talk' is preferential" is that although you or I may feel comfortable using it as a selection in the example you mentioned (because we'll have experimented more with the options), it is actually suggested by the in-game help as an option to use rarely at half-time as a way of making a point that you're beyond "angry" with their performance, as a way of letting the players stew over their performance.

Given that's the advice of the in-game help/assistant, that's more likely what the average FM'er will use the option for, thus inevitably going for "pleased", simply because the wording of the alternatives, does not seem to suit what they would want to say, thus "pleased" comes across as the most appropriate.

From someone as highly regarded as yourself, it's then further disheartening for the average FM'er, because it's going against the developers "advice", yet coming from a respected member of the community who has devled deeper and enjoys more of an understanding of the game itself.

Now I'm not saying that using any option is wright or wrong, which is why I've never gone down the route of trying to incorporate team-talk guides in any of the posts I've made in T&T Forum. I seem to do fine overall, but it purely because each context in which a response is required is so varied. It's hard to try and offer advice with regards to team-talks because what one person may be seeing in their game could be completely different to my own game and purely a case of "what if...".

What I am an advocate for is that SI recognise that it's an excellent feature, that's still in need of a lot of work, certainly with the wording of the available phrases, along with considered expansion of options available. Perhaps also beneficial, would be to ensure that if the user asks the assistant manager to do the team-talk, he always responds in one way or another, or with something at least, even if it's just one or two individual player orientated talks, and when he doesn't offer any options (which I personally find to be too often), the user is then more certain that "nothing" is the more appropriate response.

With that in mind, it's actually how I also came to the conclusion that currently saying "nothing" is more beneficial in the actuality of your example, than "pleased", because being in this situation quite often, I had begun to wonder why my assistant wasn't making any team-talk suggestions.

There I go, I've rambled enough. Hope that what I've said contains enough clarity of thought.

[pires29]

We've discussed ambiguity previously and I think we'll need to agree that we have different levels of tolerance. However, I can fully agree that the language itself shouldn't be ambiguous. I believe that 'for the fans' is the biggest culprit in this respect, as it really just seems to mean 'go out and do a professional job,' which is hardly obvious from the context. 'No team talk' at half time (or even full time) is also problematic, as it simply the response to give if your team does as expected. Winning 2-0 against a poorish side seems to cause the most issues here, with people generally opting for 'pleased' when actually 'no team talk' is preferential.

Why is "no team talk" even an option? There is no way in the world that any manager would take his players in at half-time and just sit down with his cup of tea and not open his mouth for 15 minutes. It's this lack of clarity that I believe is the problem with team-talks and needs to be addressed for FM10.

[el sid]

Sorry to pick up on this individual point wwfan, but this particular statement stood out. The problem with the idea of "'no team talk' is preferential" is that although you or I may feel comfortable using it as a selection in the example you mentioned (because we'll have experimented more with the options), it is actually suggested by the in-game help as an option to use rarely at half-time as a way of making a point that you're beyond "angry" with their performance, as a way of letting the players stew over their performance.

This exactly. FMers who don't frequent the forums are making wrong choices almost every match and thus, losing their joy for the game because of simple issues such as these.

[crouchaldinho]

Haven't got a lot of time to add to discussions on this thread but thought I would just reply to you Ezequiel_Lavezzi.

I don't agree with everything mentioned in the OP. Match only stutters occasionally for me in 3D. Seems the game is updating something tactically. I agree it could be optimized better and some low end machines struggle to run the game without gitters. SI need to fix this up, but ultimately a 3D game is going to need a decent graphics card

You missed the bit where I said that my game stutters even with 3D disabled, i.e. in 2D.

See this thread for the known 'bug': http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?p=3091892#post3091892

I totally disagree with the away form. I have managed Watford and Stuttgart, I have had some wonderful results from my away matches and am quite poor at home. You need to defend away, quite simply put. This is definately a tactical issue.

No. No, it is definitely not.

This is a known problem and the fact is that away form is a problem in the game. Not just for users but also for AI teams.

If you are struggling at home then that is a tactical issue because home games seem to be a walk in the park in FM09.

Also you state the game is slow? That is not SI's fault really.

Actually, I was talking about the slowness of processing, the unresponsiveness of the user interface and the lack of dynamism in the game.

However, to reply to your point, my PC meets the recommended specification and is of a decent standard so it's certainly not my fault that it is slow.

With a few things, you and most SI fans just need to stop being so demanding.

I'm not being demanding. All I have done is offered some feedback about my experience of the game.

This was the first time 3D was introduced. It will take some time to to be developed correctly, I at times get extreemly annoyed at strikers going too far wide, players not controlling balls correctly etc.

The two things you have mentioned are aspects of the match engine and they are not a result of the new 3D representation.

Anyway, I'm not particularly interested in the 3D having tried it and decided that I much prefer the 2D for the reasons I have outlined in this thread.

I am extreemly happy with my product, I have put a lot of effort into having it modded, updated and added a hell of a lot of things to my game and it will last me a good 2 more years.

Glad to hear you are enjoying the game.

C.

[Ceching You Out]

Hammer1000:

1. Tactics

You can read the ME to understand what tweaks to make. Are you giving away too many breakaway chances? You might want to push your D-line back. Are you seeing your players consistently wing the ball upfield to the opposition's CBs? Try playing a less direct style or tell your players to aim for a target man who can win the balls.

I think a lot of people either over tweak during a game or expect radical solutions. You have to keep the circumstances in perspective: sometimes the best a tactic can do is give your team it's best chance given current morale, motivation, fitness, determination, etc. Away to Chelsea, Utd, or a team on a hot streak is rarely going to tilt towards your favor even under the best circumstances.

2. Team Talks and Press Conferences

There is a lot of ambiguity in this area unless you've dug deep into how it works. As heathxxx mentions in his "None" team talk example, some of the advice given by the game itself contradicts how some of the options can be used. Until I freed myself of my biases as to what I thought the options should entail, I was stuck in the same cycle a lot of people are of being disappointed at my mixed results.

Guides rarely mention personality type when discussing team talks or press conferences but I think that doesn't do justice to the complexity of the system. What you tell your ST at halfime depends on what you said before the game, his morale, his personality type, the opposition, whether he loves you and/or the club, his reputation, and another handful of things. People tend to analyze this part of the game with tunnel vision without realizing that there are at least a dozen things which impact what should be said.

3. Poor AI Squad Building

This is one of the weaknesses of the game. It is understandably hard to code but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't expect a lot of progress in FM10.

4. Players CA & PA and the Star System

I don't honestly understand your complaint here. The stars indicate both how talented a player currently is and how talented they could be (within your scout's/coach's a margin of error). Just because a player has 7 stars doesn't mean he should be first choice; there's personality, distribution of attributes, etc. to consider. But ultimately it's your choice who to pick, so I'm not sure what else you're looking for.

5. Reputation

At times reputation can be overweighted, especially when it comes to games not run on full detail or during holidaying. But there's little wrong with Premier Predictions being based on club reputation. It takes multiple seasons of success for the perception of a club to move from also-ran to a top team.

6. Injuries

Again, this is a very complicated system. A player's likelihood of injury depends on his natural injury proneness, past injuries, his fitness, his condition, and a few more variables. Plus do you think players don't go in a little harder on someone like Ledley King or Michael Owen knowing their injury-riddled pasts? By training your players at low levels you're ceding more control of their development, which is the downside to fewer training injuries.

I understand a lot of where you're coming from, but most of the gripes about FM come from not being willing or able to wade through the depth of features to see how everything links together. And the onus doesn't just lie with the user; in some areas it takes a real intellectual curiosity about the game to understand how to better enjoy FM.

[Hammer1000]

Hammer1000:

1. Tactics

You can read the ME to understand what tweaks to make. Are you giving away too many breakaway chances? You might want to push your D-line back. Are you seeing your players consistently wing the ball upfield to the opposition's CBs? Try playing a less direct style or tell your players to aim for a target man who can win the balls.

I think a lot of people either over tweak during a game or expect radical solutions. You have to keep the circumstances in perspective: sometimes the best a tactic can do is give your team it's best chance given current morale, motivation, fitness, determination, etc. Away to Chelsea, Utd, or a team on a hot streak is rarely going to tilt towards your favor even under the best circumstances.

Maybe you can mate, but i can assure you that the majority of FM'ers CANNOT

Not because they cant be bothered, or their stupid or any other reason than via the ME you are simply shown scenarios that show a passage of play that has been set up via a calculation made by the ME.

For instance - A goal is scored and the passage of play shows a thirt yarder whistling into the back of the net that appeared to go straight through your MC and both DC's from a guy who's long shot stat is 6.

You cannot work out from that what you are doing wrong tactically? because all the game has done is show you a scenario of a pre calculated goal.

All the instances you mention above are neither here nor there, i'm lucky if i see 2 or 3 goals a season in which i can say "oh yeah fair enough i can see how that happened?"

2. Team Talks and Press Conferences

There is a lot of ambiguity in this area unless you've dug deep into how it works. As heathxxx mentions in his "None" team talk example, some of the advice given by the game itself contradicts how some of the options can be used. Until I freed myself of my biases as to what I thought the options should entail, I was stuck in the same cycle a lot of people are of being disappointed at my mixed results.

Guides rarely mention personality type when discussing team talks or press conferences but I think that doesn't do justice to the complexity of the system. What you tell your ST at halfime depends on what you said before the game, his morale, his personality type, the opposition, whether he loves you and/or the club, his reputation, and another handful of things. People tend to analyze this part of the game with tunnel vision without realizing that there are at least a dozen things which impact what should be said.

Your missing the point of the whole team talk debate here mate, in that team talks are much too indicative of performance(ie; get it right and it does'nt matter how bad your tactic is you will get a magical performance) or having "Nothing" as a suitable team talk, how many Managers would you say do this? the game is supposed to give you a sense of realism, but this is in no way realistic

4. Players CA & PA and the Star System

I don't honestly understand your complaint here. The stars indicate both how talented a player currently is and how talented they could be (within your scout's/coach's a margin of error). Just because a player has 7 stars doesn't mean he should be first choice; there's personality, distribution of attributes, etc. to consider. But ultimately it's your choice who to pick, so I'm not sure what else you're looking for.

Player ability and value is based on performances in real life. If Stevie G played crap every week and averaged a rating of 5 he would no longer be considered a great player, whereas in FM he would continue to have 7 stars and be chosen to play in front of players that were performing 10 times better, for his club AND his country.

Also, one of the calculations the ME makes when it comes up with results is regarding the quality of player/s, as such i'd like to bet that 11 players with 7 stars with an average rating of 5, would improve the chances of the calculation been made going in your favour, against 11 six star players with an average rating of 8.

5. Reputation

At times reputation can be overweighted, especially when it comes to games not run on full detail or during holidaying. But there's little wrong with Premier Predictions being based on club reputation. It takes multiple seasons of success for the perception of a club to move from also-ran to a top team.

An example - Did you watch Man Utd v's Porto at Old Trafford the other week? well if you did not, i can tell you that Porto absolutely deserved something out of that game. I missed the game in Porto but all reports suggest Porto played well again in a tight contest?

In my recent Man Utd save i came across Porto in the CL and in both games managed 20-30 shots whilst Porto had 1 or 2, it was akin to player a poor lower league English side, why is that? Reputation!

6. Injuries

Again, this is a very complicated system. A player's likelihood of injury depends on his natural injury proneness, past injuries, his fitness, his condition, and a few more variables. Plus do you think players don't go in a little harder on someone like Ledley King or Michael Owen knowing their injury-riddled pasts? By training your players at low levels you're ceding more control of their development, which is the downside to fewer training injuries.

How many times have you witnessed a side losing 3 strikers in just one game in real life?

In FM i can expect this at least 2 or 3 times a season? enough said!

I understand a lot of where you're coming from, but most of the gripes about FM come from not being willing or able to wade through the depth of features to see how everything links together. And the onus doesn't just lie with the user; in some areas it takes a real intellectual curiosity about the game to understand how to better enjoy FM.

Way off the mark!

[SFraser]

If i had to name the issues i have with FM09 that most make me want to switch off and stop playing, they would be....

1. Tactics

Not just slider ambiguity, but mostly because we are now at a point where we must tweak our tactics during matches?

Whilst the idea of making tactical tweaks throughout the game is realistic, all we have to go on is by what we witness via the ME which is currently completely useless.

If it was possible to understand what is wrong with your tactics and just how to make the tweaks to rectify it by watching the matches via the ME, then i'm pretty sure the Guru's at least would have started some threads in the T&T Forum on just what to look for and ways to counter it, i dont believe i have encountered such topics?

2. Team Talks & Press Conferences

Reasons as already explained in this thread.

3. AI - Poor Squad Building

Making long term career games pointless.

4. Players CA & PA and the Star System

PA being the main culprit.

Basically with any decent Scout you know what players will and wont make it at the top level. I may have a player with all the right stats for all the right areas, but if i want to build a better team and have a better chance of winning matches then he must be discarded for a player who it has already been decide will have a greater future?

Basically, similar to other poorer games of this genre you end up trying to put together a team full of players with the most STARS which i think is rather lame.

I much prefer the older games in which if a player had good stats and performed well he would be considered a great player, in recent FM's a player with 5 STARS who averages a 5.8 rating will be first choice over a player with 4 STARS who averages a 7.8 rating and will also be more likely to sell for an extravagant fee?

5. Reputation

This can bring the game to its knees. I recently started a game as Manager of Man Utd and without doing anything but picking the team(no tactic teaks ever, no OI's, etc, etc)

i have won 88% of all my games and on only 3 or 4 occasions have any opposition even managed to make a game of it at all?

In my Wigan save i finished 7th, 7th, 3rd and 2nd in succesive seasons and had a squad in Season 5 that made Man Utd look poor, yet we were still only predicted 6th in the EPL and pretty much still regarded as cannon fodder by most of the Prem clubs?

6. Injuries

I found a way to practically end training injuries, click left on the intensity slider of the preset training schedule, job done.

The problem is in-match injuries, 90% of which are caused by the opposition who appear to target certain players(mostly strikers/wingers) nothing to do with players being tired or told to make too many forward runs or playing at too high a tempo?

I'll stop there, thats the BIG 6 out of the way, although there are literally 100's of others which have mostly been well covered on the Forums. Some are minor but added together make the whole FM experience a much less attractive propostion than in years gone by.

Apart from point number 3 which I emphathise with, this is the worst post and most shocking display of footballing and Football Manager ignorance I have ever read in these forums. Apologies for the tone but a duck is a duck is a duck, and clearly SI should think long and hard about listening to any feedback from this forum whatsoever.

[TigerJoe]

SFraser, why is the post so bad, please post constructive crititism which includes a reason

[Ceching You Out]

Maybe you can mate, but i can assure you that the majority of FM'ers CANNOT

Not because they cant be bothered, or their stupid or any other reason than via the ME you are simply shown scenarios that show a passage of play that has been set up via a calculation made by the ME.

For instance - A goal is scored and the passage of play shows a thirt yarder whistling into the back of the net that appeared to go straight through your MC and both DC's from a guy who's long shot stat is 6.

You cannot work out from that what you are doing wrong tactically? because all the game has done is show you a scenario of a pre calculated goal.

All the instances you mention above are neither here nor there, i'm lucky if i see 2 or 3 goals a season in which i can say "oh yeah fair enough i can see how that happened?"

The goal was precalculated using your tactics. Change your tactics and the calculation for the rest of the match changes. Identifying (potentially) what led to a goal is easy with practice. If you describe just about any scenario I believe I could suggest a few minor tweaks that could be made to shore up your defense.

For example, in the situation you described, you may have given the opposing player too much time on the ball to set up for the shot. Also, it sounds like you were caught a little unlucky.

Your missing the point of the whole team talk debate here mate, in that team talks are much too indicative of performance(ie; get it right and it does'nt matter how bad your tactic is you will get a magical performance) or having "Nothing" as a suitable team talk, how many Managers would you say do this? the game is supposed to give you a sense of realism, but this is in no way realistic

My point was that "Nothing" may not literally mean nothing. It could be more along the lines of "Boys, I've got very little to say to you. Think about how you're playing. Now here's how we're going to change tactically...". Occasionally you will see a dramatic turn around after a half-time talk but you can't always assume that your players wouldn't have come out with spirit no matter what you said. Do you think it mattered too much what Hiddink had to say much to Chelsea at halftime during their last CL tie? As long as he pointed them in the right direction the players were ready to show their true colors.

Player ability and value is based on performances in real life. If Stevie G played crap every week and averaged a rating of 5 he would no longer be considered a great player, whereas in FM he would continue to have 7 stars and be chosen to play in front of players that were performing 10 times better, for his club AND his country.

Also, one of the calculations the ME makes when it comes up with results is regarding the quality of player/s, as such i'd like to bet that 11 players with 7 stars with an average rating of 5, would improve the chances of the calculation been made going in your favour, against 11 six star players with an average rating of 8.

Player ability is what determines performances, not vice versa.

Reputation is determined by success (ratings). Value is determined by reputation, ratings, and club reputation. Yes, sometimes these values are skewed for players with a lot of potential and poor performances, but shouldn't they be valued highly anyway because of their upside? Surely Rooney was not bought by Utd on the basis of his actual attributes at 16; a large part of his fee was paying for his potential. Some players' value may not shoot up as highly as their performances suggest but this can sometimes be a result of players' playing at a higher level than their attributes suggest.

The ME does not make calculations based on previous match ratings or CA/PA (which determine the stars); it only factors in attributes. That said, players with higher CA tend to have better attributes and hence better performances. It doesn't, however, mean that there isn't a place for role players who give good performances within a talented team (both for team cohesion and team finances).

An example - Did you watch Man Utd v's Porto at Old Trafford the other week? well if you did not, i can tell you that Porto absolutely deserved something out of that game. I missed the game in Porto but all reports suggest Porto played well again in a tight contest?

In my recent Man Utd save i came across Porto in the CL and in both games managed 20-30 shots whilst Porto had 1 or 2, it was akin to player a poor lower league English side, why is that? Reputation!

And using reputation, how would you explain the 4-0 hammering Bayern took at the hands of Barcelona? They are signifcantly closer in reputation yet the scoreline was significantly different. Reputation is a general bar to measure whether one team will beat another but it is not the end all in either RL or FM.

How many times have you witnessed a side losing 3 strikers in just one game in real life?

In FM i can expect this at least 2 or 3 times a season? enough said!

How much do you run your strikers? How many games a season are they playing? How frequently do you sub? What sort of minimum condition must they have to start?

If any one of those factors differ from a coach's management IRL, that would explain why you're not seeing "realistic" injury levels in your game.

Way off the mark!

I'm sorry you feel that way and I'm sorry you've found the game so frustrating. I can definitively say that after reading the experiments and analysis of those who have explored the depth and complexity of FM that I'm able to better understand and appreciate the features most complainers write off as "broken".

[BigRedMart]

As a newbie to these forums I have been a little taken aback a slightly bored by the amount of these type of threads as I'd rather read about the game. Ok there are only a few at the moment but some days it feels like every other thread.

I can understand people wanting to give their opinions constructive or otherwise.

But is this type of thread not required to adhere to the forum rules of using the search function first?

I don't want to have a swipe at the OP as his post is not a rant and actually quite constructive but wouldn't a single stickied thread for criticism and people quitting the game etc. be more beneficial to all?

SI would have all the negative feedback in one place and another thread for positive feedback could also be stickied.

I can understand that having a stickied negative feedback thread is not to appealing for any potential new custom but surely

it's better than logging on to GQ and seeing several threads all on the same topic with varying negative headlines at any given time.

At first I thought that this was just an 09 problem but then searching through the archives shows that 08 had a similar amount and some quick Goggling found plenty of complaints about FM07 being to hard etc.

Just be nice to have them all in one thread wouldn't it? as they all have the same topic?

[peter-evo]

As a newbie to these forums I have been a little taken aback a slightly bored by the amount of these type of threads as I'd rather read about the game. Ok there are only a few at the moment but some days it feels like every other thread.

I can understand people wanting to give their opinions constructive or otherwise.

But is this type of thread not required to adhere to the forum rules of using the search function first?

I don't want to have a swipe at the OP as his post is not a rant and actually quite constructive but wouldn't a single stickied thread for criticism and people quitting the game etc. be more beneficial to all?

SI would have all the negative feedback in one place and another thread for positive feedback could also be stickied.

I can understand that having a stickied negative feedback thread is not to appealing for any potential new custom but surely

it's better than logging on to GQ and seeing several threads all on the same topic with varying negative headlines at any given time.

At first I thought that this was just an 09 problem but then searching through the archives shows that 08 had a similar amount and some quick Goggling found plenty of complaints about FM07 being to hard etc.

Just be nice to have them all in one thread wouldn't it? as they all have the same topic?

That would make the forums far too boring and I prefer these types of discussions than the 'will this computer play FM09' threads.

[BigRedMart]

That would make the forums far too boring and I prefer these types of discussions than the 'will this computer play FM09' threads.

Yeah I suppose,

This one has some good discussion and therefore some good reading but some are less so.

ahh well just my two cents

[peter-evo]

Yeah I suppose,

This one has some good discussion and therefore some good reading but some are less so.

ahh well just my two cents

I do understand what you mean mate. I think a lot of the praise and critiscism threads are pretty pointless but I would like to think the one I wrote and this one (just off the top of my head; I know there are plenty more) are better than some of the 'general threads'/

[heathxxx]

1. Tactics

Not just slider ambiguity, but mostly because we are now at a point where we must tweak our tactics during matches?

Whilst the idea of making tactical tweaks throughout the game is realistic, all we have to go on is by what we witness via the ME which is currently completely useless.

If it was possible to understand what is wrong with your tactics and just how to make the tweaks to rectify it by watching the matches via the ME, then i'm pretty sure the Guru's at least would have started some threads in the T&T Forum on just what to look for and ways to counter it, i dont believe i have encountered such topics?

To be fair, be it a tactical "guru" or anyone else, where would you begin with with such a topic?

Aside from your observations and opinions about the match engine, which some share, others don't, you must agree that there's literally and infinate number of variables involved during the matches, therefore I doubt anyone could sufficiently guide anyone else about what tactical changes to make, where to apply them and when to do them. Add to this that realistically we're all using different players, different settings, different tactics, different team-talks, etc... That's more likely why nobody has tackled what clearly would be an impossible task to "guide".

As a representation of matches, I quite like the match engine. I was surprised how much I even liked the 3D representation. Agreed, there's still room for improvement, but the visual aid is definately a step in the right direction, in tandem with the stats and data below the surface.

I understand your frustration with examples of a player with rubbish long-shots etc, scoring a thunderbolt from 30 yards, making it harder to compensate for, but in fairness, these things do happen in the real game and I'm sure they leave our real life counterparts scratching their heads as well. Imagine being the team who concedes a goal from someone like Gary Neville! I think I've seen Halleys Comet more times than I've seen him score! I perhaps view them in a more light-hearted way and am more accepting of such events though.

Overall though, perhaps I'm more accepting of a lot of things with FM. Yes, I'm happy to point out improvements that SI could make, as much as anyone. Ultimately though, I enjoy the game, within it's limitations. Certainly with that in mind, I may not be as harsh as others perhaps with my criticism.

[Ceching You Out]

If you're struggling with tactical changes, or even tactics in general, I'd recommend reading through LAM's experience starting with defaults and SFraser's less is more perspective. Both have some good discussion about understanding what you're telling your players to do and how small changes to that can impact your performance based on your scout's and ass man's feedback.

Neither is the end all, be all of tactical discussions but I found both helpful in changing my perspective.

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

@ crouchinho? Who has stated that away games are being affected by a "bug"?

I am doing fine away from home. As stated I struggle at Home mostly, mainly because I am a defensive minded manager, however away from home I have always done extreemly well.

Please explain to me where this is a known bug and some links? Maybe I can try to understand why I am not affected by it.

Also by demanding I meant, many people really want a little too much from SI, even if it is reported in a kind and constructive feedback.

Just in case anyone thinks im a fanboi, as stated I havent even bothered with the past few years releases as I wasnt happy. I am finally enjoying my game, except for a few annoyances.

BTW, I would like to bring further attention to players being SO EASILY disgruntled at your club. Players who have only just signed a contract are constantly pursued by teams and players get upset at not being allowed to move. I have a "very loyal" player who states my club as his favourite club and he was still upset at me denying a move to Barcelona (which I didnt deny, I just wanted a better offer for Gomez)

[crouchaldinho]

@ crouchinho? Who has stated that away games are being affected by a "bug"?

Never used the word 'bug'.

Here is a thread regarding away games: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?p=2951258&highlight=6%25+more+difficult#post2951258

For instance, in the last league table I looked at in FM09, too many sides had unbeaten home records. Also, I found it too easy to win at home, beating sides that I would have expected to struggle against.

I am doing fine away from home. As stated I struggle at Home mostly, mainly because I am a defensive minded manager, however away from home I have always done extreemly well.

Tactically, as I have already pointed out in this thread, you can still be successful away from home by spending a bit more time in preparation and watching the game very closely. That's how I was doing it anyway. But this isn't the point though.

Please explain to me where this is a known bug and some links? Maybe I can try to understand why I am not affected by it.

If you are enjoying the game then the last thing you want to do is read about bugs that aren't having an effect on your enjoyment. Sometimes I think these forums are bad for FMers in this respect.

Also by demanding I meant, many people really want a little too much from SI, even if it is reported in a kind and constructive feedback.

Well, no, not at all.

I've posted some feedback to pinpoint where I have been disappointed with the game this year. SI can listen to it or, alternatively, ignore it entirely. I've not demanded anything anywhere and I don't intend to. At the end of the day, if I don't like the game, I simply won't buy it or play it. So I can't see where you are coming from here.

C.

[crouchaldinho]

If you're struggling with tactical changes, or even tactics in general, I'd recommend reading through LAM's experience starting with defaults and SFraser's less is more perspective. Both have some good discussion about understanding what you're telling your players to do and how small changes to that can impact your performance based on your scout's and ass man's feedback.

Neither is the end all, be all of tactical discussions but I found both helpful in changing my perspective.

Taking about tactical changes, WWFan actually did a really good article a few years back on the different kinds of AI tactics and what to look for. Perhaps if you ask him nicely, he will post it up or direct you to it. I think it was written for FM07. It helped me to read the match engine at the time. It would still provide useful information for analysis of the FM09 match engine.

C.

[Hammer1000]

To be fair, be it a tactical "guru" or anyone else, where would you begin with with such a topic?

Aside from your observations and opinions about the match engine, which some share, others don't, you must agree that there's literally and infinate number of variables involved during the matches, therefore I doubt anyone could sufficiently guide anyone else about what tactical changes to make, where to apply them and when to do them. Add to this that realistically we're all using different players, different settings, different tactics, different team-talks, etc... That's more likely why nobody has tackled what clearly would be an impossible task to "guide".

As a representation of matches, I quite like the match engine. I was surprised how much I even liked the 3D representation. Agreed, there's still room for improvement, but the visual aid is definately a step in the right direction, in tandem with the stats and data below the surface.

I understand your frustration with examples of a player with rubbish long-shots etc, scoring a thunderbolt from 30 yards, making it harder to compensate for, but in fairness, these things do happen in the real game and I'm sure they leave our real life counterparts scratching their heads as well. Imagine being the team who concedes a goal from someone like Gary Neville! I think I've seen Halleys Comet more times than I've seen him score! I perhaps view them in a more light-hearted way and am more accepting of such events though.

Overall though, perhaps I'm more accepting of a lot of things with FM. Yes, I'm happy to point out improvements that SI could make, as much as anyone. Ultimately though, I enjoy the game, within it's limitations. Certainly with that in mind, I may not be as harsh as others perhaps with my criticism.

The point is Heath, IRL a Manager is acutely aware of the difference between a bad performance(whether that be an individual or the whole team?) and any tactical errors he may have made? in FM it just does'nt work like that.

Yes, there are some instances when it is obvious that you may concede certain goals due directly to the tactical choices you have made.

ie; You have set a high defensive line despite having slow defenders and the oppositions pacey striker is getting in behind.

Or maybe you have set up your defenders to tackle "hard" and you are giving away a lot of free kicks just outside the box to a team that are reknowned for being dangerous at set pieces.

These kinds of scenario are sensible, realistic and are obvious tactical issues, but in FM such things are few and far between.

What you are much more likely to witness is the following...

* Conceding from corners (from the same issue that can bag yourself a lot of goals)

* Conceding from direct free kicks - Fair enough now and again against players with high free kick taking attributes, but when you concede two in one game from a bloke with a free kick stat of 10 and long shot stat of 8 it starts to chaff.

* Missed interceptions - The Titus Bramblesque error, an individual mistake that would never be connected to a Managers poor tactical settings IRL, yet argued on the Forums as a tactical issue by many.

* Opposing striker with limited pace and dribbling skills taking on half your midfield and your whole defence before slotting the ball home.

* Rebounds - Six of your defenders around one striker and they fail to deal with it.

* Clearances - Whether it be headed or not, a poor clearance from your defender is hardly a tactical issue.

I could go on all night, but should i have to?

The truth is IRL that the kind of football you will witness will be based on player limitations and player/team performances game after game, luck or the individual performance of one quality player can often be the difference between a win/draw or defeat, but know this, unlike FM the difference in performance will not be specific to a closing down instruction of 10 rather than 12, or a creativity setting of 15 rather than 12?

At the end of the day it should'nt matter whether i know the ins and outs of football management like the back of my hand, if i'm Managing Hull away to Man Utd, just because i have the tools/knowledge to set my players up in the best possible fashion, does not mean that i wont still get beat 6-0, as those players may either find themselves completely outclassed, or just simply play poorly on the day?

[Coop]

I'd rather press conferences disappeared from the game. Boring!!

Team talks need work. Again you follow a predictable path every game. Boring!!

My biggest gripe is Arsenal. I can't help feeling that SI made them so good for selfish commercial reasons. Sorry SI.

Other than that the game is great. I really enjoy it.

[wwfan]

This is the key segment of the 'How to Read the AI' post. I've been following this methodology since FM07. It still stands today.

Attacking AI: With an attacking AI a key indicator is the large number of passes going forwards instead of sidewards or backwards. Players will not spend much time on the ball. The wingers will push forward and play level with the strikers. The central midfield will also push up although one MC/d tends to stay back and provide cover for the central defence. Pay careful attention to the opposition fullbacks. If they are pushing forward deep into your half and getting to the byline in support of the wingers then the AI is clearly attacking

Counter measure: defensive strategies (weaker teams) or balanced strategies (stronger teams).

Possession AI: This system is very difficult to play against. When attacking the AI builds up play slowly and doesn't play too many risky forward passes. Build up play will consist of clinical through balls in the third half, occasional direct balls to breaking strikers hoofed up balls and crosses from deep positions. The AI managers who prefer this style will stick to this until very late in the match whether they be pushing for a goal or defending a lead. When top teams employ this style (e.g. Man U, Roma), they are very hard to counter with a defensive tactic. Best is to set up a well-balanced system to start taking the battle in midfield.

Counter measure: defensive strategies (underdogs) or balanced (tweaked) strategies (medium and stronger teams).

Ultra-defensive AI: This system employs heavy time wasting. Watch for the increased amount of time players keep the ball before passing to a team mate. Most of the passes will aim to keep possession or clear the ball from danger and only a few look for counter opportunities. The most common forms of attack are balls hoofed up to a lone striker or very patient forward moves that can be finished by a dangerous quick pass or deep cross. There are many possible formations that employ this style: not only the classical 3-3-2-1-1 (which is the most obvious), also flat 4-4-2s, defensive 4-4-2s (2 DMCs, often referred as 4-2-2-2), 4-1-4-1s, some diamonds and the French and German 4-2-1-2-1s.

Counter measure: overloading strategies, after most attacking versions (plus unticking counter) have failed

Ultra attacking AI: This strategy usually plays as a 4-2-4 but occasional more idiosyncratic formations are possible (2-3-5). The AI employs next to no time wasting. Forward runs are high on almost every position, including the previously cover-minded MC/d, which often results in an overloading of the opposition's defence. Only the two centre-backs stay back. There will be a high number of long shots from any half-promising midfield position. There is also the very dangerous option of long balls out of the defence to a fast breaking front four which misses out both sets of midfield. At times it will feel like playing against 8 forwards.

Low ranked teams often play the 4-2-4 with a possession approach, keeping hold of the ball until the forwards break and then trying to hit them with a long ball from defence.

Counter measure: kill game/shut up shop strategies (all teams)

Defensive AI: This is sometimes difficult to differentiate from the possession AI. Most of the observations on a possession AI remain, but with careful scrutiny you will see the passing is more cautious and the time wasting slightly higher. The most obvious change from the possession system is the very strong positional constancy of any defensive player. The back four will stay back at all times and are almost always covered by the DMCs. If the AI is using two strikers, you will see one of them continuously dropping very deep to pick up the ball and/or help out the defence. The other striker constantly looks to beat your offside line which can be very clinical and dangerous. The midfield will only get forward in support on occasional instances when the chance is most definitely on.

Counter measure: balanced and attacking strategies, sometimes overloading for top 4 teams

Continental and Multi-Strata Formations

More problems arise with non-standard managers (two that readily come to mind are Mourinho and Allardyce) who play 4-3-3s, wingless4-1-3-2 and 4-5-1s. Although harder to pick, they still offer clues to their intentions. Are the wing backs or wingers getting a long way forward? Does the formation employ a pure DM, a flat three in the centre or an AMC? A good example is Rapid Bucharesti which plays a 3-5-2 with an AM when attacking, but a 3-5-2 with DM when defending.

Many Spanish teams use the 4-2-3-1 for a cautious game before switching to a 4-4-2 if they need to score. The most difficult formations to successfully pick are diamonds, the Cappello 4-2-2-2 and some 4-5-1/4-3-3 hybrid formations. They often don't change during the game and adapt between attacking, defensive or possession mindsets entirely through mentality and forward runs.

Expected AI Changes

Since FM06 users have become accustomed to change formations to counter the AI mentality and its tactical switches. If done well it can lead to a fantastic performance. However, badly or hastily made decisions can prove disastrous and are often enough punished by conceding immediately after switching tactics and eventually losing the game.

Don't change to a more aggressive tactic immediately after conceding, especially away. Once the AI team takes the lead, unless it comes late in the match, it will generally look for a second goal. If the AI is playing at home the extra crowd input from the first goal will give the AI team a boost and an instant change to a more aggressive formation will allow them more holes to exploit.

It is hard to determine the AI mentality by watching key highlights only, but as that is the preferred mode of playing for most the occasional hints in the match commentary offers some help. There are some other in-game strategies you can use while watching the match highlights or more. As you can predict with relative certainty what the AI will do in certain situations, based on the rank of both teams, venue, who scores, etc you should be able to switch strategy with some success. Less experienced players will definitely gain an advantage from using extended highlights until they have gained more experience. For key games they are almost a must, no matter how long you have been playing.

For example, after a goal against a team that the AI thinks it can beat, the AI will nearly always go more attacking or keep to an already aggressive style in an attempt to grab a second with the crowd behind them and their tails up and kill off the game. Similarly, after conceding or grabbing a lucky lead when the AI thinks it will lose, the AI usually shuts up shop and is content to try and pick off the team as they commit men forward in an attempt to get back into the game. Nevertheless, some teams shut up shop after conceding in first half, but will try to come back in second. If they go down by two goals some AI teams will still try to get back into the game whereas others will shut up shop to try and prevent embarrassment . Paying attention to the AI formation after a second goal is vital in understanding its mentality. Underdogs will shut up shop in the second half after starting defensive if still defending a draw. Knowing what the AI usually does helps you see better what's going on.

[Rupal]

If you're struggling with tactical changes, or even tactics in general, I'd recommend reading through LAM's experience starting with defaults and SFraser's less is more perspective. Both have some good discussion about understanding what you're telling your players to do and how small changes to that can impact your performance based on your scout's and ass man's feedback.

Neither is the end all, be all of tactical discussions but I found both helpful in changing my perspective.

The problem which I have is that I don't think it should be remotely necessary to consult 'articles' of this sort or productions like TT&F in order to compensate for the unintuitive tactical system and lack of clarity in the multiple choice options for team talks and so on.

When this is combined with misleading statements in the game manual (a glaring example being where it says that mentality settings directly affect player positions, which wwfan has said elsewhere is incorrect) we have a situation which is not conducive to producing maximum fun. Everything is far too nebulous and what should be a relaxing game becomes much too much like hard work.

A careful thought about the game manual, the introduction of some logic to the multiple choices on offer, correcting flaws in the ME and a thorough review of the tactical system (including the elimination of the inherent ambiguity in the 'mentality' setting) would be a good start towards improving matters.

[Bigwig]

I downloaded the tacgrabber to see the opposition formations and they seem to be pretty weird and go against the advice given out in the T&T forum. A few examples of how teams lined up…

Aston Villa were playing away to Spurs and their formation was a 4-3-3 and they had both fullbacks, DMC, both MCs, AML & AMR all on forward runs.

Liverpool were playing away to Arsenal with a 4-2-3-1 and had both full backs, two DMCs, AML, AMR & AMC all on forward runs.

Man Utd were playing away to Chelsea with a 4-4-2 and had two full backs, ML, two MCs, MR all on forward runs.

Now I know some of these are ‘better’ teams, but even so based on the quality of the opposition you would expect them to be playing a different style of game. I didn’t see any side utilising a MCd or using their DMCs in a defensive manner. These are some of the basic elements users are encouraged to use but at times it seems like the AI doesn’t follow the same methods.

Btw this line made me smile:

Build up play will consist of clinical through balls in the third half

[PaulC]

I downloaded the tacgrabber to see the opposition formations and they seem to be pretty weird and go against the advice given out in the T&T forum.

One of the changes already made for FM2010 is that AI teams now use the TT&F frameworks, using the same logic that will be presented via the tactics interface to the human in FM2010 and is already in place in FML beta.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

Apart from point number 3 which I emphathise with, this is the worst post and most shocking display of footballing and Football Manager ignorance I have ever read in these forums. Apologies for the tone but a duck is a duck is a duck, and clearly SI should think long and hard about listening to any feedback from this forum whatsoever.

I think people need to read between the lines and understand the bigger picture a little more.

Where do you think Hammer's "Football Manager ignorance" stems from? Is it really entirely his (and others) fault if they misunderstand certain mechanics within the game? Do you, and others, honestly think that there is no room for improvement within the game to provide better feedback to the user, and be more intuitive and accessible?

I see threads like these as describing people's criticisms about how they feel about the game, how they percieve it, the impressions they get from it. It is pointless to argue with them and keep prodding them with how wrong they are, because this really isn't about who's right or wrong, and it isn't about people wanting help and advice from the community. In my mind, it's about why people have got it wrong in the first place.

I don't really want to focus on just one person, but I'm going to use Hammer as an example. Hammer doesn't strike me as being stupid, not by a long shot. Sure he may be "ignorant" (and I don't mean than in the derogatory sense) about how certain aspects of the game function, but overall in terms of his "FM IQ" (I just made that up!) I would imagine he probably falls somewhere just above the average across the entire userbase.

George Carlin, the US stand-up comedian, once said something along the lines of: "Think how stupid the average person it, and then realise that half the people are stupider than that". It's funny because it's true.

Now if I worked for SI, I would find the sort of feedback provided by users like Hammer extremely valuable. It doesn't matter if he's wrong about things - I would be questioning how he managed to get the wrong idea in the first place. If someone like Hammer managed to get confused about parts of the game, or are unable to "read" the match, or work out team-talks, then I would be asking myself how people further down the spectrum would cope too.

SI cannot and should not rely on the community to make up for shortfalls in the usability in their product. Think for a minute about the large proportion of users that do not frequent these forums. How will they know what "none" teamtalk constitutes? How will they know what the mentality slider affects? As Rupal has already pointed out, the manual appears to tell a different tale to what we collectively believe to be true.

You guys aren't going to be there for Average-Joe when he boots up the latest edition of FM, and tell him he's wrong and ignorant and that he should read TT&F etc. So instead of shouting down people who raise certain criticisms about how user-friendly certain parts of the game may be to them, try and understand a little about where they're coming from first.

Some people like Hammer may put their points across in a manner that maybe provokes a defensive reaction, or contain inaccurate facts that are indeed arguable. But if you read between the lines a bit then you may discover some valid points somewhere along the line.

If you disagree with people's observations and have an alternatve view, then by all means make yourself heard and lets discuss it like adults. But as I said before, I don't personally think you can argue with people about their overriding impressions, and how they personally feel about the game. Just in the same way that you can't argue with me about the fact that I don't like broccoli, or that automatic cars are better than ones with manual gearboxes.

Fortunately I think the people at SI are intelligent, humble, and open-minded enough to be able to make up their own minds about how much useful feedback threads like these contain, and what to do with that feedback.

[Hammer1000]

I think people need to read between the lines and understand the bigger picture a little more.

Where do you think Hammer's "Football Manager ignorance" stems from? Is it really entirely his (and others) fault if they misunderstand certain mechanics within the game? Do you, and others, honestly think that there is no room for improvement within the game to provide better feedback to the user, and be more intuitive and accessible?

I see threads like these as describing people's criticisms about how they feel about the game, how they percieve it, the impressions they get from it. It is pointless to argue with them and keep prodding them with how wrong they are, because this really isn't about who's right or wrong, and it isn't about people wanting help and advice from the community. In my mind, it's about why people have got it wrong in the first place.

I don't really want to focus on just one person, but I'm going to use Hammer as an example. Hammer doesn't strike me as being stupid, not by a long shot. Sure he may be "ignorant" (and I don't mean than in the derogatory sense) about how certain aspects of the game function, but overall in terms of his "FM IQ" (I just made that up!) I would imagine he probably falls somewhere just above the average across the entire userbase.

George Carlin, the US stand-up comedian, once said something along the lines of: "Think how stupid the average person it, and then realise that half the people are stupider than that". It's funny because it's true.

Now if I worked for SI, I would find the sort of feedback provided by users like Hammer extremely valuable. It doesn't matter if he's wrong about things - I would be questioning how he managed to get the wrong idea in the first place. If someone like Hammer managed to get confused about parts of the game, or are unable to "read" the match, or work out team-talks, then I would be asking myself how people further down the spectrum would cope too.

SI cannot and should not rely on the community to make up for shortfalls in the usability in their product. Think for a minute about the large proportion of users that do not frequent these forums. How will they know what "none" teamtalk constitutes? How will they know what the mentality slider affects? As Rupal has already pointed out, the manual appears to tell a different tale to what we collectively believe to be true.

You guys aren't going to be there for Average-Joe when he boots up the latest edition of FM, and tell him he's wrong and ignorant and that he should read TT&F etc. So instead of shouting down people who raise certain criticisms about how user-friendly certain parts of the game may be to them, try and understand a little about where they're coming from first.

Some people like Hammer may put their points across in a manner that maybe provokes a defensive reaction, or contain inaccurate facts that are indeed arguable. But if you read between the lines a bit then you may discover some valid points somewhere along the line.

If you disagree with people's observations and have an alternatve view, then by all means make yourself heard and lets discuss it like adults. But as I said before, I don't personally think you can argue with people about their overriding impressions, and how they personally feel about the game. Just in the same way that you can't argue with me about the fact that I don't like broccoli, or that automatic cars are better than ones with manual gearboxes.

Fortunately I think the people at SI are intelligent, humble, and open-minded enough to be able to make up their own minds about how much useful feedback threads like these contain, and what to do with that feedback.

Excellent post! even if it does suggest i'm ignorant;)

I still stick to what i said before and that is that the game overall is far too EASY by that i mean simply that it is not difficult to majorly overachieve(I had Wigan challenging for the EPL within 3 seasons)

This is very different from what my actual issues are with the game, which is something most FM'ers dont want/seem to understand?

Its one thing to do well, but the truth is i have absolutely no idea why? i assume its because i have managed to set the sliders at the premium positions and i dont make a complete mess of teamtalks?

I cannot even bear watching the ME because the scenarios played out are mostly a lot of nonsense and completely unidentifiable to RL football.

Its all very well overachieving, but just how long can it remain fun and enjoyable, or even realistic, when i have no idea why i'm succesful?

And what do i do if something goes wrong? because i dont know what i was doing right in the first place, so i just leave things as they are, what else can i do? luckily it always tends to sort itself out, but god knows how?

[Rupal]

I agree very much with what Squirmy Rooter has said (again!). What SFraser and some others need to realise is that it isn't really any defence of the current position with the game to say that it's possible if you are really persistent to 'crack the code' of things like team talk choices or slider settings. It just should not be necessary to have to go through this process.

If Hammer or other people (like me for instance) aren't clear about what (say) one of the multiple choices for team talks actually means then it might be because we are thick. On the other hand, like Squirmy Rooter, I don't gain the impression that Hammer is thick at all and, as I have a first class honours degree, I don't think I'm so terribly unintelligent either. An alternative explanation is that we find things difficult to understand because they aren't put properly or, just possibly, they are inherently ambiguous. Look, for example, at the various alternative meanings for the 'none' team talk option discussed in this thread.

If we give tactical instructions A or team talk B and make the wrong choices and the opposition slaughters us as a result then that's fair enough. But if we wanted to tell our players to do A but, because of the lack of clarity of the slider system, we've actually ordered them to do X, or our team talk has, in fact, told them Z then that's a completely different matter and I'm afraid that all too frequently this is what is tending to happen. As Squirmy Rooter has said above, it's just isn't good enough for SI to provide an unhelpful manual and ambiguity in the tactical system and multiple choices and to rely on third parties, however able they may be, to bail them out by providing lengthy and complicated explanations in order to clarify what should be transparent and straightforward.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

Excellent post! even if it does suggest i'm ignorant;)

Heh heh, fortunately I knew you had the intelligence to understand what I was trying to say.

[wwfan]

One of the issues that seems to be causing the most problems is the naturally ambiguous nature of management. Management, in any field, is ambiguous. Given its very nature, this will be even more true in managing a sports team. Hammer's current argument is that a real life manager will know if the team is playing badly because of his tactics or a player is just having a bad game. Given that, he will also know how to make the right decision. I just don't think that hold water.

Lots of real life managers are not good tacticians. Likewise, we have all been amazed at substitution decisions when a manager has taken off someone who looked to be having a good game and left someone on who was having a shocker. It's a fallacy to believe that football managers always know how to make the right decision. They must constantly best guess and deal with the ambiguity and ambivalence inherent to the club and the game.

Therefore, there needs to be some ambiguity in the game for it to be a realistic simulation. I've discussed this with Bigwig before, and the gap seems to be in whether the tools are ambiguous or whether the communication between manager and player are ambiguous. For him, a good game requires the tools to be crystal clear, but he'd be happy with players failing to understand his communications correctly. However, he is not happy if he himself doesn't understand the tools. Personally, I think managerial tools are usually ambiguous in nature as well (do all managers really understand the intricacies of man-marking or goalkeeping?), but I can understand that this does not make for good game play.

What FM cannot become is a positivist management simulation in which the manager does A and B happens. Not fun at all. However, we can work towards a less ambiguous system in terms of slider terminology and clarity of instructions, both in the manual and between the virtual manager and his players. We can also add a lot of dynamism which will help fully immerse the manager into the virtual world. What we cannot do is simplify systems so things become overly transparent and it becomes too cause and effect orientated, not if we want a management simulation anyway.

And as we are throwing academic qualifications around, my PhD thesis is concerned with ambiguity and irony in management, so I do speak with a fair bit of authority when discussing the nature of managerial systems. The ambiguity of FM is what makes it such an excellent managerial simulation, and losing it would be a massive step in the wrong direction. However, I can accept it has gone too far and can be overly stressful to those with low tolerance levels for ambiguity and cognitive dissonance. Finding the right balance must be the prerogative for SI, which will require work on the tactical system, the manual and the language in the game itself. If we can gain in clarity there and make sure the manual doesn't contain any contradictions, hopefully most of the angst will go away.

[Rupal]

I wish I understood what was so dreadful about the notion of a straightforward cause and effect situation where B follows from A. How is this so much worse than the current ambiguous muddle where the manager does A and doesn't have a clue whether B, C, D, X, Y or Z will happen, at least in part because he/she doesn't understand what A involves in the first place? In a number of people's eyes this isn't much 'fun' as a 'game' either, however accurate it may be as a 'management simulation'.

.

[Bigwig]

I can handle some of the tools being ambiguous, such as the example you mentioned of man marking. I might task someone to man mark a player tightly but in all honesty I don’t really know how that works in real life as I doubt I’d be asking my centre half to sit on someone for 90mins while he still has other duties to carry out such as getting involved in attacking set pieces etc.

However, my problem with the ambiguity comes from selecting an instruction when I’m not sure what that instruction means. I know I’ve mentioned this before, so I’ll limit it to a couple of examples…

Does try through balls mean trying defence splitting passes for attacking players to race on to, or simply playing the ball ahead of players instead of to their feet? In the first occasion you may want your central midfielders trying through balls often for strikers to run on to, whereas in the latter you may also want your centre halves to have the same instruction so you they can play the ball ahead of full backs giving them a starting run rather than a ball to feet.

Does cross from deep mean to cross from just inside the opposition half, or does it mean in the final third just outside the opposition box, or both? Asking which players to do this depends entirely on what it actually means so I need to know, not assume what I’m asking.

If these basic instructions are left ambiguous then it defeats the purpose of your tactical settings. How would that work in real life explaining it to the players?

‘I want you to cross from deep, but I really don’t know where ‘deep’ is so just figure it out for yourself’

That just wouldn’t work in real life so shouldn’t happen in FM. Visual aids will hopefully reduce a lot of this ambiguity, so I would hope that tweaking the crossing slider will produce different shading effects, increasing closing down will expand or decrease a zone and so on and so forth.

[Rupal]

However, my problem with the ambiguity comes from selecting an instruction when I’m not sure what that instruction means.

That's the problem in a nutshell!

[Bigwig]

I wish I understood what was so dreadful about the notion of a straightforward cause and effect situation where B follows from A. How is this so much worse than the current ambiguous muddle where the manager does A and doesn't have a clue whether B, C, D, X, Y or Z will happen, at least in part because he/she doesn't understand what A involves in the first place? In a number of people's eyes this isn't much 'fun' as a 'game' either, however accurate it may be as a 'management simulation'.

.

I wouldn’t want a situation where B follows from A, otherwise it would make the game repetitive and would get stale very quick. If telling a 6.5 Michael Owen I was disappointed got him fired-up every time then I wouldn’t want that.

However, I would like a system where it’s likely that B will follow A given the right circumstances, so telling a 6.5 Michael Owen I’m disappointed has a higher probability of him getting fired up than telling a 6.5 Mark Viduka the same.

[BigRedMart]

I can handle some of the tools being ambiguous, such as the example you mentioned of man marking. I might task someone to man mark a player tightly but in all honesty I don’t really know how that works in real life as I doubt I’d be asking my centre half to sit on someone for 90mins while he still has other duties to carry out such as getting involved in attacking set pieces etc.

However, my problem with the ambiguity comes from selecting an instruction when I’m not sure what that instruction means. I know I’ve mentioned this before, so I’ll limit it to a couple of examples…

Does try through balls mean trying defence splitting passes for attacking players to race on to, or simply playing the ball ahead of players instead of to their feet? In the first occasion you may want your central midfielders trying through balls often for strikers to run on to, whereas in the latter you may also want your centre halves to have the same instruction so you they can play the ball ahead of full backs giving them a starting run rather than a ball to feet.

Does cross from deep mean to cross from just inside the opposition half, or does it mean in the final third just outside the opposition box, or both? Asking which players to do this depends entirely on what it actually means so I need to know, not assume what I’m asking.

If these basic instructions are left ambiguous then it defeats the purpose of your tactical settings. How would that work in real life explaining it to the players?

‘I want you to cross from deep, but I really don’t know where ‘deep’ is so just figure it out for yourself’

That just wouldn’t work in real life so shouldn’t happen in FM. Visual aids will hopefully reduce a lot of this ambiguity, so I would hope that tweaking the crossing slider will produce different shading effects, increasing closing down will expand or decrease a zone and so on and so forth.

Surely try through ball means exactly that? Play balls through gaps in defence for attacking players to run onto. I couldn't imagine it meaning anything else in real life and therefore wouldn't expect it to mean anything else in FM.

Cross from deep means - look to cross the ball earlier as opposed to waiting until the byline is reached. As for how early I would assume that it would depend how early an oppurtunity presents itself to cross.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

I would hate it if SI implemented a system where we new the exact answer to each problem. Seems to me that some would like a manual that tells them exactly how to manage every little detail. Where is the fun in that?

[peter-evo]

Surely try through ball means exactly that? Play balls through gaps in defence for attacking players to run onto. I couldn't imagine it meaning anything else in real life and therefore wouldn't expect it to mean anything else in FM.

Cross from deep means - look to cross the ball earlier as opposed to waiting until the byline is reached. As for how early I would assume that it would depend how early an oppurtunity presents itself to cross.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

I would hate it if SI implemented a system where we new the exact answer to each problem. Seems to me that some would like a manual that tells them exactly how to manage every little detail. Where is the fun in that?

So we have to work out how to translate our thoughts into sliders so that we work in the match engine? I see absoloutely no fun in that.

I enjoy making my team play how I want them to play and, at the moment, that isn't possible due to the 'sensitivity' of Football Manager and that I can not for the life of me get a working tactic in order.

[SFraser]

I agree very much with what Squirmy Rooter has said (again!). What SFraser and some others need to realise is that it isn't really any defence of the current position with the game to say that it's possible if you are really persistent to 'crack the code' of things like team talk choices or slider settings. It just should not be necessary to have to go through this process.

Says who precisely?

This is the chance-to-hit formulae for a single turret in Eve-Online.

((1/2)^((((Transv/(Range*Tracking))*(Sig_Res/Sig_Rad))^2) +((max(0,Range-Optimal))/Falloff)^2))

This is a description of the function of Supply Efficiency in HOI2.

The probability of K number of attackers selecting a particular defending division in a battle in the same game is this:

The number of effective shots fired by K attackers at that division is this:

This thread contains the mathematics behind the theoretical rate of maximum economic growth in the game Victoria.

This thread explains the game mechanic function of Plurality, Consciousness and Militancy of populations in Victoria.

This thread explains the State and Government tech tree in Victoria.

Do you honestly believe that it is up to you to judge how complex a game should or should not be? To take a position that assumes the behaviour of every other gamer in the world? To use your personal preferences as a critique of gaming in general? Who are you to state how complex X title ought to be? You are one individual, and untill you come up with hard evidence regarding purchaser opinions and economic projections you should be careful to make it clear that your opinions on the "ought or ought not" of complexity on X title are your opinions and preferences only. There is no "It just should not be necessary to have to go through this process." There is only "I don't like it, I disagree with it".

And as longevity and sales figures would show, complex strategic titles are perhaps not always Chart Toppers, but are certainly a valid and vibrant genre with many fans and many customers.

If Hammer or other people (like me for instance) aren't clear about what (say) one of the multiple choices for team talks actually means then it might be because we are thick. On the other hand, like Squirmy Rooter, I don't gain the impression that Hammer is thick at all and, as I have a first class honours degree, I don't think I'm so terribly unintelligent either. An alternative explanation is that we find things difficult to understand because they aren't put properly or, just possibly, they are inherently ambiguous. Look, for example, at the various alternative meanings for the 'none' team talk option discussed in this thread.

This is neither here nor there, you have produced no hard evidence of any bugs or broken mechanics other than heresay and opinion alongside an admitted lack of interest in studying the actual mechanics of the game, and you have applied the same methods to identical criticism of multiple other fundamental game features. Your arguements do not produce evidence of fundamental game flaws, they produce evidence of a fundamental dislike of a particular development style and type of game.

If we give tactical instructions A or team talk B and make the wrong choices and the opposition slaughters us as a result then that's fair enough. But if we wanted to tell our players to do A but, because of the lack of clarity of the slider system, we've actually ordered them to do X, or our team talk has, in fact, told them Z then that's a completely different matter and I'm afraid that all too frequently this is what is tending to happen. As Squirmy Rooter has said above, it's just isn't good enough for SI to provide an unhelpful manual and ambiguity in the tactical system and multiple choices and to rely on third parties, however able they may be, to bail them out by providing lengthy and complicated explanations in order to clarify what should be transparent and straightforward.

Again the only "should" stems from your opinion that your opinions should be factual, fundamental game development practices. There is no "should" of relevance nor reason from yourself untill you become an executive in the development process of this game. Untill such time there is only "I would prefer" or "I dislike" or "I think" and it really is about time you realised this.

[Bigwig]

Surely try through ball means exactly that? Play balls through gaps in defence for attacking players to run onto. I couldn't imagine it meaning anything else in real life and therefore wouldn't expect it to mean anything else in FM.

Cross from deep means - look to cross the ball earlier as opposed to waiting until the byline is reached. As for how early I would assume that it would depend how early an oppurtunity presents itself to cross.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

I would hate it if SI implemented a system where we new the exact answer to each problem. Seems to me that some would like a manual that tells them exactly how to manage every little detail. Where is the fun in that?

That’s the mistake users make though when they assume[/]I an instruction will obviously mean something but in fact it’s been coded as something different, which gets people frustrated as they’re telling players to do things thinking they’re telling them one thing when in fact they’re giving them a completely separate instruction.

The two examples I’ve given were just those, examples. I used the try through balls because it’s been discussed at length before in the tactical and beta forums and like yourself I assumed it meant the former because what else could it mean, but there was much debate about it and some of the more experienced tactical gurus insisted it was the latter.

As I’ve mentioned before, the player reactions to instructions should always vary and they might not know what you’re asking them to do, but we as managers should, so yes, I do think that telling a player try through balls I should know exactly with 100% certainty what a through ball is.

[BigRedMart]

That’s the mistake users make though when they assume[/]I an instruction will obviously mean something but in fact it’s been coded as something different, which gets people frustrated as they’re telling players to do things thinking they’re telling them one thing when in fact they’re giving them a completely separate instruction.

The two examples I’ve given were just those, examples. I used the try through balls because it’s been discussed at length before in the tactical and beta forums and like yourself I assumed it meant the former because what else could it mean, but there was much debate about it and some of the more experienced tactical gurus insisted it was the latter.

As I’ve mentioned before, the player reactions to instructions should always vary and they might not know what you’re asking them to do, but we as managers should, so yes, I do think that telling a player try through balls I should know exactly with 100% certainty what a through ball is.

Fair enough, All I am saying that the ME seems to respond well to logical tactical input. Some are struggling others arent, either way SI have acknowleged this and FM10 is going to attempt to cater for both types of user. All good I guess:thup:

[SFraser]

Ambiguity is an important point because like others have stated it is also my opinion that a great deal of ambiguity is necessary to replicate the challenge of management.

I think that it is is false to assume that managers are automatically armed with complete knowledge of every possible consequence of every possible action when they take up the job, and indeed it is my opinion that the fundamental issue of football management is learning how to interperate the reactions of players, and ultimately learning how to manipulate them.

In that context you could view the game as being handed 500 or so ways of directly influencing players, thousands of possibly actions and reactions, and the true nature of the game is finding out the combinations of influence that produce the desired, or close to the desired, reaction. I may be way off the mark but perhaps the difficulty in understanding the game, combined to the variability of reactive player behaviour, is one of the most important parts of the game.

I think that the more we chew over these kinds of topics and issues, whether teamtalks or tactics, the clearer it becomes that ambiguity is a fundamental design choice that forces each virtual manager to interperate the game him/her self not just once, but in relation to every new player and every different scenario. I think the ambiguity of interpretation exists because at a fundamental mechanical level there does not exist that ambiguity of calculation that you would find in the real world with real players. You are purposely not told exactly what is going on, and purposely not granted complete, fine control over mechanics because if you had that knowledge and ability you would have far more power than any manager has in real life, and this would ultimately destroy the premise of the game.

This would imply that while we argue over the merits of X system, the true question faced by SI is a matter of balance, not a change in design premise. I would severely doubt that from a purely gameplay perspective that the issue of changing ambiguity in favour of direct control is ever considered.