Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tacticsdude

  • Rank

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Have you tried these out or are you reading off a manual? If you play him WM he won't attack enough, if you play him Winger he won't defend enough nor cut inside at all. If you play him IF he won't make himself available to carry the ball and he won't cross enough (won't defend enough either). The only solution I've come up is to play them with higher-up roles (winger support/attack) then give them man-marking instructions on the FB, that way they at least track one player, but they no longer cut inside when we have the ball, and what I need is a zonal approach not man-marking. I'm gaming the tactics UI more than using it to give instructions. But I agree, we are getting off topic for this thread.
  2. No. They do have an effect in the way that you suggest, but player traits are not in the game as a way to tell your player how to play the next match, how to play the second half of the current match. There has to be a way to adjust the instructions for the match (not the education of the player as a whole). The problem with the current roles system (outside of players being robotic): 1. They represent positioning for both phases (attack and defense) 2. They represent the philosophy of both phases (aggression, lateral movement, risk, approach to gaining advantage) 3. They are locked against 'counter intuitive' selections (like telling a player to dribble less if he is set to winger) Think about how absurdly high FM is setting its own bar for the named roles: Each role in FM contains an entire instruction set for attack and defense, and carries a bunch of hardcoded instructions on how to move and interact with other players. So say I wanted a AML winger that doesn't challenge the FB on the dribble (that is: dribble and cross when you see green, but don't push it if you are being marked because the FB is a better defender than you are a dribbler), so using the FM named role model we would need this non-existing role: cautious winger But we are playing against Barcelona, so I also want him to come down to defend immediately and track aggressively any wing attempts, so the imaginary role is: defensive cautious winger But for the few times that we are in the final third through play development I want my FBs to overlap so I don't need the winger on the wing, instead I want him to blast into the box to become a target for crosses, so the role is: defensive cautious winger/inside forward How close is the FM tactics UI from letting me assign this role? Keep in mind this is not some fantasy role, this would be perfectly at home for an AML playing La Liga.
  3. I notice that we (all the people exchanging ideas here) are too often speaking about different things and then getting on each other's nerves for lack of a common ground. This is what I mean about micromanaging roles, and the reduction of player smarts: Say you have a player and you tell him to play CM/Auto. That seems to work (with some quirks but relatively fine enough). The player moves up and down with the play, comes back down to defend, moves up to participate in attack, takes a shot every now and then, tries a through ball every now and then, etc. Some do it more than others (attributes and such) but overall they play their role. Now let's take an AML. What do you want him to do? Say you/me are a beginner trying to set up a 4231 with the '3' being AML - AMC - AMR. Let's focus on the AML. Say you want him to have this role: AML/Auto, which is the same thing we did for the CM in the last paragraph. Except in FM17 that doesn't exist - simply not an option. So now we are forced to give him a specific role, when as a beginner I might just want to set him to auto, or even better yet, 'play to your style' which is something you might say to Neymar if you just bought him at PSG. But those are not options, so in order to determine what to instruct this AML, let's define what we want him to do: - defend in a flat zonal 451. When we don't have the ball, fall into formation. Listen to your CM and FB and stay in line. - when we attack: carry the ball, and give the team a few seconds to push up. Decide if you want to pass sideways, cut inside or go wide to cross. - Don't repeat the same maneuver too often, keep the FB guessing. Cross a few, cut inside a few. Dribble into the box sometimes, and other times pass to the CMs and dart into the box to receive a through ball. So, I just described someone like Neymar IRL. Now let's try to set the role in FM17: Winger - nope. This guy always goes wide and doesn't defend competently. With support duty he passes sideways some times but also tries a few dribbles. With attack duty he always tries to dart forward (whether there's room or not) and doesn't wait for support. AP - nope. This guy lingers back and doesn't attempt to cross or cut inside. He carries the ball and waits for support, but once the support arrives he doesn't push against the FB. IF - nope. This guy hides behind the FB so that you can't give him the ball, and when he occasionally reappears in the game he'll try to cut inside even if the situation clearly calls for a side pass or a wide run. WT - This is not an AML, more like an outlet player. Raum. - This guy doesn't defend. In summary, it is impossible to just tell him what we want him to do. But you have to choose a role. So you give him the closes one you think fits, and then one of 2 things will happen during the game: 1. He doesn't play like Neymar (there's no hope that he would), and the budding tactician managing this team can't see it and/or do anything about it 2. You keep an eye on his behavior and touch up his role throughout the game in order to make him do different things. If you need him to cross more you switch him to winger for 20 mins. If you need him to hold up play more you switch him to AP for 20 mins. If you are chasing the game and intend to play faster longer balls, you switch him to IF for 20 mins. But even option 2 there is a sad compromise. Because he will focus on one task for 20 mins at a time and miss opportunities for other tasks during that time. The root of the problem is that the roles are on rails and the players are not welcome to think. A real player would work with the instructions but if an opportunity presents itself he would take it. If the instructions are not working he would still try to work within the system but look to get creative and try different things. In FM17 that behavior doesn't happen. So in FM17 there are more roles which provides more detail, but they are also more on rails. Players are less clever about their game and thus can't adapt to the tactics not working. So FM 17 suffers of a double whammy: 1. You can't tell players how to play correctly (the tactics system just doesn't work right) 2. Players on the pitch won't adapt to the game to avoid mistakes and exploit arising chances So it is a common occurrence in FM17 that users are setting up teams with tactics that neither work well, nor represent what you actually wanted them to do. This is not the user's fault, it is FM's fault for being too rigid, having an ineffective tactics UI, and not coding the players on the pitch to act smarter and naturally fill in instruction gaps like humans would.
  4. We've talked this to death. I have written an entire book chapter about why FM17 is an inferior game and why FM11 was better. If you want an objective conversation and feel like reading 10+ pages on the subject, lookup my other posts. Here specifically I was replying to a fellow player that's trying to figure out how the game 'feels', and from that perspective I have feelings too, and my feeling is that FM11 was more fun. That we express subjective opinions does not impede us from also being capable of having an objective conversation elsewhere. And as a quick reminder, the thread's topic is 'favorite' FM series, as in personal preference. I can and have argued my objective points regarding FM17, while as a whole I am also a gamer and have personal opinions on what's more fun.
  5. From your other post I would say that you are right about the natural feeling of the game. You probably found the previous tactics UI more natural to convey tactics (as did I). Also, back in 11/12 the players were smarter, so you didn't have to micromanage roles the way you have to do now. It was easier to tell the players what to do and expect them to put in an acceptable performance (like it would be IRL). And I don't think it is nostalgia. I played FM11 and FM17 extensively in the last 12 months, and I can attest that FM11 feels real in a way that FM17 fails to deliver. The ME and tactics UI in FM11 are more immersive and less visibly flawed. Whatever the failings of FM11/12, I had to work much harder to get wins so there was a feeling of accomplishment, and I had to work less hard to convey my tactics, so I felt better connected to my squad. Those 2 things alone make FM11 a far superior game than FM17.
  6. Yeah, I'm nearing 400 hours according to Steam but I leave it open plenty. I'd say maybe up to 25% of it is idling time for me. I think your opinion is valid and important to take into consideration as the flip side of that is people like me who feel that game is too easy once you figure it out. But if the game is not beginner friendly for being too hard to pick up and play, and it is not veteran friendly for being to simplistic in its tactics and ME, then who is it for? I think it does want to be beginner friendly with the named roles and its single formation panel (instead of having something to represent phases and transitions). The problem is that the roles are not easily understandable as the game wants them to be, and you can fail plenty with the roles in ways that you wouldn't IRL, because in FM your players are on rails and will continue to make the same mistakes over and over, when IRL they would think throughout the game and become more effective as the match goes on. So I've said before that the tactics UI is way too complicated for the beginner (when it should and tries to be easy) and at the same time it is not complex enough to set normal modern tactics on it. It needs an overhaul. Feedback To your point about getting feedback, I think that's very fair. The game is trying to give you feedback via the assistant manager, but I think the consensus is that you shouldn't listen to that as it is not very smart feedback. I think at this stage the game is not capable of giving good feedback, so that's something else that should improve. But keep in mind that RL doesn't come with perfect feedback either - you can ask your assistant what he thinks is going wrong, but he could be just as wrong or worse than you are, and listening to your assistant and changing the tactics accordingly doesn't guarantee anything gets better. That's why you are in charge of tactics and you have to set your own philosophy, not someone else's. For instance, the question: why can't my fullback cross? - there are many ways you can come at it an many ways to solve it and they all have pitfalls you have to plan for. Do you make him play higher up the pitch so he has a bit more time on the ball to get a cross out? but then he will be out of position more often to defend a counter. Do you ask him to pick his crosses more carefully, then he tries it less often which means the ball gets rotated sideways more often than crosses are attempted - this will cost you attack chances. You can also abandon trying to cross with your fullbacks and instead use a midfielder to move into that space, but now you are messing with your formation. So your assistant can say: "boss, the fullback is not getting his crosses out. I think we should ask him to play higher." It is your job as the manager to realize that your assistant is applying his own philosophy of the game to give you advice, and that this is only one of many ways to approach the problem. It is also your job to preempt what effect this recommendation would have on the game if you choose to follow it. Otherwise the next piece of advice might be: "boss, the fullback keeps getting caught out of position, I think we should use a CM to manmark that winger" And on it goes, playing the game by your assistant's philosophy whether it is any good or not.
  7. That's true, but at the bare minimum why not open it up to some simple modding like Bethesda does to their games. On Fallout you can use mods to change the entire storyline and mechanics. Here I am asking for a very minor mod, and we know that this is something that many players want. If SI doen't want it to be a feature in the actual game, but agree that adding to the game would take only a handful of hours of work, then maybe they can make it a downloadable mod somewhere (or open up the platform so that the community can make the mod if we want to - and we will).
  8. This is an opinion/poll thread. I was interested in the opinions of the community due the ongoing conversation about the ME/AI etc. I've been reading a lot of player opinions spanning back a few years. My comment was simply my summary of the opinions I found. While opinions are all over the map, a few themes keep recurring. This is a game, so what is fun? I see this divided into 2 brackets: - the users that don't care too much if the ME is realistic (usually playing shorter careers [but of course not always] and/or just not too immersed in tactics) - And the users that want to set their tactics in detail and see them come to life, usually playing longer and wanting more out of the ME Sure this is too simple a way to separate the audience but I'm jut trying to make an overarching point. For instance, FM12: - Softcore players (new, casual or not too involved with tactics) had a blast. The game felt real, they felt in control, they achieved success with their tactics and lived the dream of coaching their team to glory. - Hardcore players overall don't seem to have thought much of the game. They think it was too easy, once you figure out the ME it impossible to play a long career Now to be fair, I'm a hardcore player and I loved FM11(/12) and don't necessarily agree that it was too easy or that the ME was broken beyond use, but I'm summarizing the opinions I read not just my own. Also, other things go into it as with any game. FM12 was more refined than versions prior. Same with FM08. But a lot of the success or criticism centers in the actual ME because that's the core of football. So versions that had a better ME, that gave you a better run for your money are more appreciated by hardcore players. Softcore players appreciate the package as a whole more. They'll mention the graphics and the general feel of the experience. This is part of the immersion factor too, because if the game feels real to you, and the speed of play and the stuff that arrives at your game inbox feels engaging, then you are having a great immersive time. For instance, many softcore players would complain that a game gets bogged down in detail and that the ME is much harder than the year prior (FM13). But for the same version many hardcore players have the exact opposite opinion (more interesting with more detail, and the ME is a better challenge). I don't think I'm seeing your point. You can have a great immersive fun experience inside of the first 50 hours even with that game that you'll ultimately find unsatisfying. This is the case with FIFA and PES that only reveal their thorough suckiness once you've figured out the systems and become attuned to the crappy momentum and AI cheating on you. Then the game is far less fun. To be clear, my point was that football games hold well for the first 50 hours even under some critical scrutiny, because it takes some time to develop a sense for the game and advance your club's project. It is only past some serious time with the game, often well past the 100+ hr mark that players start becoming attuned with the patterns and judging the quality of the game in a more informed way. That's why you'll see a lot of the people here say that having played 200+ hours does not negate your right to have a negative opinion of the game. I personally have near 400hrs on FM17 and think it is easily the easiest FM I've played. I can't stop winning trophies with barely trying. It was certainly fun for the first 50 hours when I was in Div 2 and accepting the ME's odd behavior as potentially a lack of skills from my Div 2 players or myself as a new game user, but once I got past 150 hrs and I'm playing with Div 1players against known Div 1 teams, the flaws of the ME become glaring and the magic goes straight out the window. And going back to the core of the matter (which version of FM is most fun), that's another very good way to summarize: - Some players get to that point where they see the flaws of the ME and find them distracting (mostly hardcore players) - Many players don't get to that point (casual or less tactical) or simply don't care (better sense of humor for enjoying games?) So under those brackets, the first group would probably appreciate FM 08, 13, 15, and the second group is likely to have more fun with FM 12, 17, 18 Again, that's just my interpretation of the opinion's I've read. (Personally I hated 15, but I think that's cause I hated the tactics UI and the team morale felt like a rollercoaster ride. I did love FM11, so my personal journey contradicts my findings on other people's opinions. I was supposed to love 15 and find 11 wanting, but it was the opposite for me)
  9. After reading lots of opinions (here and elsewhere), it seems that the best versions of the last 10 years stand at: FM 08 FM 13 FM 15 This is in terms of ME realism, good balance of richness of detail, approachable interface and a general sense of immersive fun for more than the casual user (so 50+ hours). I say this for anyone looking to try an older version and planning to spend 100+ hours. The causal user that does not seek a long-term challenge would most likely enjoy FM12, 17 and whichever is the current version.
  10. Thank you for sharing. How do you illustrate tactics to the team? I imagine you have a few sit-down sessions with whiteboards. Do you provide any written materials for players to take home and review/study?
  11. I was involved with a Sunday league about 15 years ago. The players get together to play on Sundays and maybe talk a bit of tactics over the week but they all had jobs elsewhere. In a situation like that you are going to want to keep your tactics simple 'cause without having the players available for constant training you are not going to gel them with complex tactics, nor even have enough time to work with each player to make sure they understand a role that includes too much detail. So instructions are simple and verbal, and maybe the team embraces a philosophy but it would be a simple one that could be described in a couple sentences. But if you have them training at your facility all day every day and you have great smart coaches that understand the game very well, and players like Ronaldo that you can basically set them up any way you want and they can play it, then you are going to gravitate towards very custom tactics and custom roles for each player, then spend months working with each player so that they adopt their custom role and play the way you instruct them. And you can see this in action even from a distance. Like when Guardiola arrived at City, there was clearly a clash of philosophies and it took months for the team to look like they were at least trying to do the same thing together. I wonder how he conveyed his instructions then, and how he does it now that the team looks gelled and everyone is pulling in the same direction. "never shoot from distance" is perfect for a Sunday league, but that's not how you'd want to instruct first-div pro players. You probably want to give them a philosophy of play so they can make clever decisions during play, so it would be an ongoing discussion, more like "we don't want long shots from you because we are looking for incisive through balls instead when you draw defenders to yourself, so concentrate on making that happen or play to the wings. If that's not working, pepper in a few long shots to make the defense second guess their movement, and go back to the incisive passes and move the ball wide. We'll adjust from there depending on the day's tactics and how the game is going, so if things are not working look at me during the match and we'll adjust a bit". So there are few black and white tactics, it would mostly be layers of decisions fitting a philosophy of play. The best teams make it look effortless, but each players is carrying a canon of dozens of instructions given to them over the years. How much of it is in writing or on charts, how much of it is reinforced verbally by the coaching staff over months and years?
  12. I honestly think that we need at least 2 versions of the FM tactics panel in order for this game to move forward. One for new users and those that don't want complexity, and one for advanced users and those trying to set up very specific tactics. I think we have the firepower in these forums to come up with something good. I understand that from there to the ME there's a long, long distance, but if we can present a model that works it could be the inspiration for a new generation of the TC. (Is anyone with me regarding a need for simple and advanced screens?) If we were to build such a thing (a visual design of a new TC) do we have hope of the devs giving it a serious thorough look? ---- And on another topic, I'm very curious as to how exactly pro managers set their tactics in the real world. I have an idea of what managers/coaches would say to players, and I've heard managers talk about their tactics and instructions, but I haven't seen any of their charts or tactics paperwork. Are there any examples, screenshots, apps that show the tactical instructions of first-div managers like Guardiola, Wenger, Mourinho, Conte, etc?
  13. I think this is the type of thinking that explains away FM flaws by propping up disagreements in concepts or showing things to be too complex for us to get on the same page. Let's take Counter Attack Counter is seeking to catch your opponent off balance by striking right after they made a move. At its core it is not a particularly complicated idea, and it is an essential component of all situations that pit humans against each other (combat, sports, games). I agree it is not an on/off thing, because each manager will set their own instructions regarding range of passing, speed of attack, passing risk. But a good place to start would be to at least have it as an on/off thing like it was a few years back, because a countering mentality can happen according to your team's speed and range of play development (you can counter at full speed and directness like Spurs, or you can counter by weaving precise mid range passes like Atletico Madrid). A next level could be as simple as giving the tactics UI 3 levels of aggression: 1. Counter with low aggression -> seek to exploit the counter but don’t be gratuitous with the ball (Man City) 2. Counter with mid aggression -> seek to exploit and don’t be afraid to try long balls, but do it intermittently (most Italian teams) 3. Counter with high aggression -> we won’t have the ball and won't be able to build up play, so be aggressive with every opportunity to break (a minnow team playing against Barcelona) ---- I don't think that was so hard. I know those that disagree with the way I'm handling myself here will say I'm being condescending, but PLEASE consider this: Really? So the Italians have been doing it as basic dogma for generations but a good definition is simply not available in 2018? I personally find that offensive, because it is a condescending way to dismiss the argument, and it derails progress to say this stuff is too complicated to figure out and nobody has the answers. I promise you I didn't just invent the first workable short definition of counter attacking in football. To you there may be no good definitions, to me this stuff is 101 in modern tactics. I'm not being 'elitist' to suggest that this stuff is essential knowledge and should be clear to anyone making decisions regarding FM tactics (not necessarily you, but all the developers that decide on the tactics system). I think it is the opposite of elitism. Your camp is being over simplistic in dismissing a lot of ideas under the guise of 'too complex to sort out'.
  14. Scheduled in FM: National match with Argentina at 3pm played in US Central time GMT -6, then a club match at 8:45pm in Rome GMT +1. So there's a 5:45 - 7 hour difference. In other words, the Rome match is scheduled in the evening (8:45pm) but that's a +7 hours difference with the US time so in US time that's 1:45pm. Means that the Rome match happens first, then the US match starts 1:15 later. So the US match starts while the Rome match is still being played. In FM: I played the US match first, then I'm allowed to play the Rome game too. I'm wondering what's supposed to happen in these situations. Any stories of managers being scheduled for 2 games across the globe on the same day? And what should have happened in-game? (Can I manage both games from Rome, the US one on a tablet via Skype with me and my assistant wearing headsets? )
  15. I think that's a core point. Is it a sim if most people think it is? How many users get into a CL matchup against Barcelona and leave unsatisfied that they won easily? Perhaps the majority celebrate a wonderful victory and move right past questioning what kind of Barcelona they just 'outclassed'.
  • Create New...