Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Smurf

FM 13 New Video: Changes in Training

Recommended Posts

If SI's AI is poor they should be building better AI not punishing users by removing their choice.

AI will never be as inteligent as human being, so its udestandable that SI try to handicap it, by limiting players' options as far as it makes the game more difficult. I'm so bored of winnig everything with unknown club whitin few years. It has to be more difficult!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AI will never be as inteligent as human being, so its udestandable that SI try to handicap it, by limiting players' options as far as it makes the game more difficult. I'm so bored of winnig everything with unknown club whitin few years. It has to be more difficult!

Code:

Club's tactical preference (weighted) + AI manager's tactical preference (weighted) = "Standard" tactics for AI team.

Are players core attributes equal to required level to match roles selected in tactical system? = If yes, normal training. If no, AI manage picks training schedule that focuses on boosting required attributes.

Are players too close to their peak to gain required attribute points? - AI manager "guesses" from scouting report and then using calculation of funds, tendency to buy players, loyal etc decides whether to stick with inferior player for the tactic or go into the transfer market/use a youth player who may develop.

Plenty of coding work required to iron out the bugs but working out the theory to have the AI managers use a more detailed training system that has been suggested in this thread is doable. It's almost pure logical choice (IF, OR) so it's definitely doable if they wanted to spend a few years working on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This was the main design point of the training revamp this year. Teams train together and whilst for some drills they are split into sub-groups based on the position they are expected to play, at the end of the day the training is not about having 25 players doing individually tailored drills alone at the training ground, its about the team training together (either in one group or a few different groups).

The way training works in relation to player progression and the coaching duties is pretty much the same under the hood, however there have been some changes to accommodate things like focusing a player on a role instead of just one attribute and the new team level focuses and intensities.

We were well aware of the fact that some people would feel strongly about these changes and would insist that they lose certain level of control over training and molding their players. However looking at it from the realism aspect, we feel the new interface makes it more like managing actual training instead of balancing sliders in search of some perfect combination.

I like the training module as it stands but I've done that now so I like the idea of these changes...better realism + less tedious admin = more fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one knows exactly how an individual focus affects the weighting of training/the sliders but it's an advanced option that makes sense and gives control.
I would argue that nobody should ever need to understand what the weighting is. The ideal scenario is where a manager:

- Identifies a potential weakness to fix, or strength to accentuate (ability to master the system)

- Knows what needs to be done in order to perform this action (ability to translate requirements into actions, again mastering the system)

- Knows how to work the "machine" that is FM13 in order to perform this action (the system is easy to use)

All in all, this results in "easy to use, difficult to master".

How the user performs step 3 is immaterial. I suspect how it is implemented will end up being similar to sliders because we need to define the "scale" in which we perform individual focus. It doesn't mean the game will go back to the old sliders, of course. It could expand on the slider system, to give us more sliders and therefore more fine-grained control. As long as this "advanced" system is easy to use (step 3), then it doesn't matter if it's old sliders or flashy buttons.

People need to stop thinking it's either the old system or the new (there's plenty of room for both to be mixed, or to have a new idea altogether), or that this "advanced" system will look like the old system (indeed, the old system can be made better).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would argue that nobody should ever need to understand what the weighting is. The ideal scenario is where a manager:

- Identifies a potential weakness to fix, or strength to accentuate (ability to master the system)

- Knows what needs to be done in order to perform this action (ability to translate requirements into actions, again mastering the system)

- Knows how to work the "machine" that is FM13 in order to perform this action (the system is easy to use)

All in all, this results in "easy to use, difficult to master".

How the user performs step 3 is immaterial. I suspect how it is implemented will end up being similar to sliders because we need to define the "scale" in which we perform individual focus. It doesn't mean the game will go back to the old sliders, of course. It could expand on the slider system, to give us more sliders and therefore more fine-grained control. As long as this "advanced" system is easy to use (step 3), then it doesn't matter if it's old sliders or flashy buttons.

People need to stop thinking it's either the old system or the new (there's plenty of room for both to be mixed, or to have a new idea altogether), or that this "advanced" system will look like the old system (indeed, the old system can be made better).

I'm in complete agreement with you. My point about the individual focus and its weighting being totally not understood was brought up to try and curtail the argument about people not knowing exactly how the sliders impacted training. As long as there is a good enough UI that makes sense and can still allow for in depth personal training if a manager wants it, then whether it's only drop down options or a hybrid of the current/next system doesn't matter at all.

I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for the sliders to remain because we like the sliders. The argument is because the sliders allow that personal tweaking to a team's training that the new system apparently lacks. People are then arguing that managers don't have players train one-on-one and my counter argument is that they were misunderstanding/not seeing the slider concept in the best light.

The coaching screen shows the overall intensity of the training schedules and how many players are training each category. If my centre-back is training intensive Strength but my winger isn't, this doesn't mean that they are training on their own at all. What it means is that when the group of players who are all training the strength category get together, my centre-back has a harder and longer routine than my winger. When the players who are all being trained in the Ball Control category get together then some players will spend more time on it than others. To me that is what combining the overall coaching screen with the individual schedules actually means. And if you throw everyone into a general training, no one does anything different.

A new system should then allow me to tell my coaches which players I want to spend longer in the gym/longer with a ball/longer in the video room and who I don't. I don't care how this new setting affects the "sliders" under the hood as long as I'm able to point out who needs what and how much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You misunderstand. I was describing a scenario where, say: I have a central midfielder who has far too much competition in central midfield, but he can play at right-back as well, and that is a good position for him to get experience in, and best of all, there's little competition there. However, he is not a long-term right-back - this is a temporary thing until the competition eases off in central midfield. Consequently, I don't want him to train as a right-back. His tactical role doesn't match his training role. I don't want him to learn how to dribble and cross too much, because that is less useful in his ultimate position, central midfield.

I understood you fine. What I said was, you may be playing him there, but in the training screen his training position is central midfield. So no issue at all.

In addition, let's say we have a right-back who is capable in central midfield who is poor at taking long-shots but you are training him there anyway because it's a weakness. Obviously, you don't want your right-back to shoot often, because he's poor at it, so you set Long Shots to low. However, how are you supposed to train his long shots? You have suggested that if a wing-back has the instruction to play offensively and shoot often, then the training will adjust to match that - but in this case, the tactics are telling him to stay away from long shots as much as possible! You would have to do something like set his training to attacking midfielder (to bring up his shooting) despite the fact he's a right-back/central midfielder, just to compensate for his long shots.

If he's that bad at long-shots, you are not going to make any real difference through training.

Linking tactics to training is not a good idea in the long run because in the long run, players evolve. A player in the short-term is different at his peak. They could be very different players. Training is a long-term thing, while tactics are largely short- or medium-term depending on circumstances. You don't want to mix training and tactics - they are fundamentally different things.

I don't think you've followed this. The training schedule for the position links to your defined tactical roles. What role he trains in is up to you.

Training and tactics are intricately linked in real-life, utterly integral to one another. So it makes sense to move that way with FM.

That's pretty funny because this solution doesn't even let managers think. Why not let the manager decide if the training matches the tactics? As stated above, sometimes you don't want them to match.

As above, your misunderstanding of what I was talking about.

It is possible to add a level of deep customisation ("advanced") without sliders. This system lacks deep customisation full-stop. Whether it's sliders, pink buttons, microphone-driven input or minigames, it's possible to add deep customisation. I don't think it's a backwards move to add deep customisation. Deep customisation can still be intuitive. Deep customisation is for users who enjoy fiddling with things, lots of shiny buttons and the ability to shoot themselves in the foot if they desperately want to.

You can integrate deep customisation, too. An assistant manager or coach could, as I said before, notice that your training schedule is sacrificing one of your player's biggest strengths, and therefore tell you about it. A feature can be deep and integrated.

I'm all for deep customisation. But it has to feel natural within a realistic system. If SI have to take a step back to bring in a better system, withdrawing a little of that deep customisation, to then take three steps forward next iteration by returning more customisation within a better system, that's fine by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understood you fine. What I said was, you may be playing him there, but in the training screen his training position is central midfield. So no issue at all.

It is an issue because you've said training and tactics are linked. In this case, tactics (right-back) and training (central midfield) doesn't match. They're not necessarily linked, full-stop.

If he's that bad at long-shots, you are not going to make any real difference through training.

It doesn't have to be "that bad". It could just be a weakness in his current game that you want to iron out. However, you don't train the weakness by potentially costing your team points by telling him to use that weakness. You iron out that weakness in training, and as he becomes better at it, you gradually expose that side in-game.

Another issue is where you deliberately want to train a player to be a jack-of-all-trades as a squad player who can fill out many roles. In this case, there really is no "position", be it tactics or training, where this player plays. The training schedule for this player would have a lot of low/medium workloads but no heavy workloads in a particular area. In reality, this would reflect the player taking part in various attacking/defensive or central/wide roles during training drills or intra-squad matches. The current system can't support this without micromanagement. Linking training and tactics wouldn't help this either - it would make it worse.

I don't think you've followed this. The training schedule for the position links to your defined tactical roles. What role he trains in is up to you.

Training and tactics are intricately linked in real-life, utterly integral to one another. So it makes sense to move that way with FM.

Again, you might not play a player in a specific tactical role (because he's no good at that role... yet) but wish to work on it in training. Therefore the two are not necessarily linked. Training isn't just about making strengths stronger - it's about ironing out weaknesses that you may not wish to actually try out on the pitch (yet).

Are they intricately linked? I don't think they are that "intricately" linked. It's likely that most players will train in a role that is similar to how they play, but this clearly doesn't apply to all players, and it opens up a can of worms with multiple tactics, even if one is a more familiar tactic.

Even if they are intricately linked, why not let the manager make that decision, and allow them to override it when it's an edge-case like the above?

You may as well say things like "tactics and team-talks are intricately linked, therefore whatever tactics you choose and results at half-time restricts what you can say at half-time". Or that scouting and tactics are intricately linked ("what's the point of scouting for players you don't need?"), therefore if you don't play with wingers, you can't scout for wingers. Even if they are linked, it doesn't mean this rule always applies. And more importantly, the manager - i.e. the user - needs to make that decision.

So to recap, this tactical blend in training makes no sense because:

- People don't necessarily play players in the roles they train if they are not ready to play there

- Jack-of-all-trades players cannot be taught without micromanagement

- The desired training schedule might not even correspond to what SI deem an available training role for a specific position

- It removes decision-making from the user, when decision-making is absolutely required

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is an issue because you've said training and tactics are linked. In this case, tactics (right-back) and training (central midfield) doesn't match. They're not necessarily linked, full-stop.

I'm honestly banging my head against the desk. Tactics and training can be linked, doesn't mean the player is training in the role he's selected for by default. It means the defined role in the tactical screen (i.e. your instructions for a right-back) define the nature of the right-back schedule in training.

I'll try one more time. The nature of the schedules for Right-back and Centre Midfield would be defined by the tactical choices you make for that role.

What role the player then trains for is up to you, but it would be the right-back training that suited *your* tactics, not SI's default.

It doesn't have to be "that bad". It could just be a weakness in his current game that you want to iron out. However, you don't train the weakness by potentially costing your team points by telling him to use that weakness. You iron out that weakness in training, and as he becomes better at it, you gradually expose that side in-game.

I agree, and you'll note I've previously said there are areas they need to address. We still need that "Player working on X" thing somehow, I just don't agree with picking an attribute focus. Unrealistic in most cases.

Another issue is where you deliberately want to train a player to be a jack-of-all-trades as a squad player who can fill out many roles. In this case, there really is no "position", be it tactics or training, where this player plays. The training schedule for this player would have a lot of low/medium workloads but no heavy workloads in a particular area. In reality, this would reflect the player taking part in various attacking/defensive or central/wide roles during training drills or intra-squad matches. The current system can't support this without micromanagement. Linking training and tactics wouldn't help this either - it would make it worse.

Linking tactics and training would have zero impact on the scenario you describe, neither positive or negative. It only makes it worse in your mind, because you still don't get this. Hopefully I've finally clarified it to the point you do.

I'm not convinced that players train for no real role. They work on core skills, as all do, and that may be applicable. But players tend to train in the role the manager intends to use them in future matches. I've met lads who play this sort of role, generally the manager has them working in the position he'll most likely need.

Are they intricately linked? I don't think they are that "intricately" linked. It's likely that most players will train in a role that is similar to how they play, but this clearly doesn't apply to all players, and it opens up a can of worms with multiple tactics, even if one is a more familiar tactic.

Even if they are intricately linked, why not let the manager make that decision, and allow them to override it when it's an edge-case like the above?

Because you are trying to replicate something approaching reality, where it *is* intricately linked, and they *do* train with respect to tactics. They don't train in a role similar to how they play, the manager and coaches train them for the role they need them to fill.

You may as well say things like "tactics and team-talks are intricately linked, therefore whatever tactics you choose and results at half-time restricts what you can say at half-time". Or that scouting and tactics are intricately linked ("what's the point of scouting for players you don't need?"), therefore if you don't play with wingers, you can't scout for wingers. Even if they are linked, it doesn't mean this rule always applies. And more importantly, the manager - i.e. the user - needs to make that decision.

You can say all that, but you'd look pretty stupid doing so. Mostly, when people start being facetious, it's because they've not got much of a real argument.

So to recap, this tactical blend in training makes no sense because:

- People don't necessarily play players in the roles they train if they are not ready to play there

- Jack-of-all-trades players cannot be taught without micromanagement

- The desired training schedule might not even correspond to what SI deem an available training role for a specific position

- It removes decision-making from the user, when decision-making is absolutely required

No, to recap, it makes no sense, because you don't understand what I'm talking about. That may be my fault, it may be yours. But when all you are making are invalid straw-man arguments, it's pretty pointless.

What I'm suggesting addresses three of the four points you make there, it fixes them. The only one it doesn't fix is the "utility" issue, and I don't believe managers train players to be utility men. So it's a non-issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm honestly banging my head against the desk. Tactics and training can be linked, doesn't mean the player is training in the role he's selected for by default. It means the defined role in the tactical screen (i.e. your instructions for a right-back) define the nature of the right-back schedule in training.

I'll try one more time. The nature of the schedules for Right-back and Centre Midfield would be defined by the tactical choices you make for that role.

What role the player then trains for is up to you, but it would be the right-back training that suited *your* tactics, not SI's default.

Today's tactics are not necessarily tomorrow's tactics.

What happens if I want my right-back to train as a central midfielder, but don't play central midfielders (i.e. 4-4-2 diamond)? Is it realistic for a manager's training options to be linked to the formation du jour?

What if I do play a flat 4-4-2, but all of my central midfielders are hopeless at long shots (so these are set to low), but I want to train my right-back to be a central midfielder but iron out his poor long shots attribute? He would inherit the tactical role of the central midfielders in my formation (don't shoot!) and proceed to not train his long shots attribute. Of course, since he is poor at long shots and full-backs generally aren't looking to score 30-yard screamers anyway, his long shots would be set to low as a right-back.

All of this stems from the fact that your current tactics are not necessarily your future tactics. You might be stuck with a 4-4-2 diamond for a while because you have pathetic central midfielders on high wages. However, you may favour a 4-3-3, but until you get rid of the high earners, you have to make do with a 4-4-2 diamond. It shouldn't stop you from training your (younger?) players to play in a 4-3-3, which is not one of your current tactics.

In addition, it effectively means that this right-back can train in any tactical role employed by your formation. So if you play a flat 4-4-2, the right-back can train as a right-back, centre-back, left-back, central midfielder, left midfielder, right midfielder or striker. It also means he can't train as a right-wing back or right-winger (unless he tries to learn the position, which you might not want to do because you have no intention in the next few seasons to play him there - don't waste the training focus).

What you are actually trying to do is link a potential tactic to a player's training schedule. That is, you create a 4-3-3 with long-shooting central midfielders, and the right-back derives his training schedule from that tactic. However, this is a very fiddly way of doing it since the tactic, unless tested, might be downright wrong. What is actually important isn't the full tactic - it's the tactical role desired that matters - a long-shooting central midfielder - and that needs to derive this right-back's training. So you aren't binding training to tactics - it's training to tactical role - where this tactical role may not exist in your current tactic(s).

Of course, you still might not want that, because the training might be very unorthodox. Imagine, say having a midget central midfielder who is extremely technical, but simply needs to bulk up. His training schedule would involve going to the gym every day. No tactical role mimics this. Even if it did, would it matter? You know from the very start that this player simply needs to bulk up, so you tell him to bulk up. You don't say, "Box to box midfielder role" because that involves training things like passing and ball control, which he already has. You want him to become a box-to-box midfielder, but you know what needs to be done, and you know the out-of-the-box solution won't work.

Linking tactics and training would have zero impact on the scenario you describe, neither positive or negative. It only makes it worse in your mind, because you still don't get this. Hopefully I've finally clarified it to the point you do.

It would, because the training desired for a player who fills multiple roles likely needs training that reflects these roles. You cannot pinpoint him into central midfielder or right-back because you might want him to train both.

I'm not convinced that players train for no real role. They work on core skills, as all do, and that may be applicable. But players tend to train in the role the manager intends to use them in future matches. I've met lads who play this sort of role, generally the manager has them working in the position he'll most likely need.

Generally? If a manager desires a player to fill two or more roles, they aren't going to shoehorn them into one role. It would involve this player doing different drills with different groups of players. Sure, they may have a primary and secondary role, and hence train the primary more often, but if the manager sees this player doing the secondary role fairly frequently, they will want to make sure that the secondary role is trained, too.

Of course, as matches come up, the training shifts towards the tactics on the day. However, the long-term training will involve drills for all the roles.

Because you are trying to replicate something approaching reality, where it *is* intricately linked, and they *do* train with respect to tactics. They don't train in a role similar to how they play, the manager and coaches train them for the role they need them to fill.

Ah! "Need them to fill" doesn't mean the role is already filled (i.e. 4-4-2 diamond and training to become a central midfielder). Which is what I am getting at.

And for flawed players, the out-of-the-box solution isn't always the solution. For brilliant yet flawed players, it might be more important to iron out the flaws, resulting in a training schedule that looks nothing like the tactical role requirements. All you know is that the custom, exotic training schedule is designed to fulfill that tactical role.

You can say all that, but you'd look pretty stupid doing so. Mostly, when people start being facetious, it's because they've not got much of a real argument.

Just criticising the logic of your argument. Lots of things are linked but it doesn't mean that they are "100% linked".

----

Strictly-speaking, your argument is:

1) I have a tactical role

2) I want this player to fulfill this tactical role [in the future?]

3) I select this role in training and somehow my training schedule is affected

I am saying this is fiddly, because deriving a tactical role can be unnecessary in some cases:

1) I have a tactical role

2) I want this player to fulfill this tactical role [in the future?]

3) I see this player has a few flaws, so the out-of-the-box solution won't work

4) I derive a custom training schedule with the intention that it specifically trains the player to [eventually] fulfill that tactical role

This is the "midget box-to-box midfielder" training schedule scenario, where selecting box-to-box midfielder will result in this technical midget becoming a very technical, slightly-less midget-y midget, but making my own custom schedule will turn him into a technical box-to-box beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for flawed players, the out-of-the-box solution isn't always the solution. For brilliant yet flawed players, it might be more important to iron out the flaws, resulting in a training schedule that looks nothing like the tactical role requirements. All you know is that the custom, exotic training schedule is designed to fulfill that tactical role.

For anyone who missed this...It means if you have three central midfielders who are all playmakers but the first needs physical work, the second isn't as technically sharp as he should be to do what his creativity/flair and the third has the potential (not talking PA here) but needs overall development, the only way to improve all of these players is to have them in the same training schedule but use the individual for each individual attribute rather than telling them what they (the first two) need to focus on in general. Which is the type of direction managers have when it comes to real-life training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, its another PA/CA thread!
Thank you for this intellectually-stimulating post. I can see it adds plenty of value to the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for this intellectually-stimulating post. I can see it adds plenty of value to the debate.

Just like most of your posts tbh, except a lot less wordy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just like most of your posts tbh, except a lot less wordy.
How is attempting to describe a potential solution not going to work not adding value to the thread? Because it's wordy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For anyone who missed this...It means if you have three central midfielders who are all playmakers but the first needs physical work, the second isn't as technically sharp as he should be to do what his creativity/flair and the third has the potential (not talking PA here) but needs overall development, the only way to improve all of these players is to have them in the same training schedule but use the individual for each individual attribute rather than telling them what they (the first two) need to focus on in general. Which is the type of direction managers have when it comes to real-life training.
I'm not sure what you mean by the last bit? For example, Ledley King doesn't have the same training schedule as another all-round centre-back by any means. "Focus" doesn't mean much for Ledley King because his training schedule is fundamentally different to another central defender in his role. In fact, "focus" in King's case is "lack of focus" - in physical areas altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can no longer be much bothered with this x42bn6, I just don't have the time for what is becoming an involved debate. Suffice to say I think you have a very unrealistic view of how real-life training works. Most of it is focused on the matchday, there's little "long term" training beyond a manager getting his tactical ideas across, and outside of natural development, the sort of "re-imagining" of players you are after just isn't realistic. Sorry. But it's been interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you be able to tell me why?

Yes.

You have a vague knowledge*, at best, about that which you discuss and this becomes incredibly apparent very quickly as you fall back to your usual tactics of ignoring specifics and arguing semantics.

*usually gained from a Wikipedia article.

At least you haven't mentioned cancer in this "discussion", though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can no longer be much bothered with this x42bn6, I just don't have the time for what is becoming an involved debate. Suffice to say I think you have a very unrealistic view of how real-life training works. Most of it is focused on the matchday, there's little "long term" training beyond a manager getting his tactical ideas across, and outside of natural development, the sort of "re-imagining" of players you are after just isn't realistic. Sorry. But it's been interesting.
But there is, isn't there? Look at players training new positions, like Alan Smith from striker to central midfield (even if misguided). Or youngsters being trained not for the next youth game, but in development in general. Or youngsters being mentored by older players.

Things like gym work, for example, is surely a long-term goal - because it has minimal effect in the short-term. It's only over a long-term period where you see results. The same goes with things like sprint work and agility work.

These are not short-term "next game" training goals - they're medium-term or long-term goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what you mean by the last bit? For example, Ledley King doesn't have the same training schedule as another all-round centre-back by any means. "Focus" doesn't mean much for Ledley King because his training schedule is fundamentally different to another central defender in his role. In fact, "focus" in King's case is "lack of focus" - in physical areas altogether.

I was using my examples as a way of agreeing with you. King is another issue and another one that (in the new design) is not obviously possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.

You have a vague knowledge*, at best, about that which you discuss and this becomes incredibly apparent very quickly as you fall back to your usual tactics of ignoring specifics and arguing semantics.

*usually gained from a Wikipedia article.

At least you haven't mentioned cancer in this "discussion", though.

I'm a software designer who has a rough idea on what the new feature is attempting to convey but feel it fails to convey, and why I feel some attempted suggestions won't work or are flawed. No Wikipedia article is involved.

Binding tactics to training, for example, is a good start but is flawed in specific ways in that you train a player to fulfill a specific role, but you cannot always use an out-of-the-box solution to fulfill that role (i.e. Ledley King).

It's not rocket science and I think Dave C hasn't quite thought through edge cases, although the idea's gist is good because you can still use it as a basis - it just won't work for every case. Again, not rocket science. Just Ledley King.

The purpose of a forum isn't gospel truth, anyway, it's opinion; least of all a video game whose purpose is to entertain, not document as a research project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can no longer be much bothered with this x42bn6, I just don't have the time for what is becoming an involved debate. Suffice to say I think you have a very unrealistic view of how real-life training works. Most of it is focused on the matchday, there's little "long term" training beyond a manager getting his tactical ideas across, and outside of natural development, the sort of "re-imagining" of players you are after just isn't realistic. Sorry. But it's been interesting.
Actually, I've thought about it a bit more - I think it is actually a good idea with a few tweaks, although I think it has some implications that are a little perhaps... Boring.

Let's take our box-to-box midfielder role. Say we somehow define a specialised box-to-box role that you think is perfect (it might be your current tactic, or a future one - it largely doesn't matter, but let's say we can pick either).

If we assign this role to an "average" midfielder, then the out-of-the-box solution will work. The assistant checks and says, "We are good to go with this, boss!" The player's training schedule is updated.

If we assign this role to a technical midget, then we do so but the assistant sets (or warns? I think warns is better as it forces the user to consider the implications) the physical and aerobics training to be slightly higher behind the scenes. Perhaps it tells the user that "this is probably not the best role for the player to train into because he needs to increase all his physical attributes by 15. But we'll try our best, boss!"

Likewise, if we assign this role to a physical beast but footballing idiot, the assistant sets/warns the technical and mental training slightly higher and perhaps warns the player he is better off as a centre-back, targetman or water boy.

In other words, the coaches treat the tactical role as the "goal" and the coaches will try their best to get that goal. In some cases, like the latter two cases, it's probably not going to be possible, but you can try.

And, as davidbowie has stated many times, the manager should be able to override and tinker with it.

However, I think it does have implications in that the coaches do all the thinking for the manager by compensating for the training. The manager no longer thinks about training - they think about ultimate goals. Which is good and bad, depending on which side of the fence you sit on in this thread. Some users like training and fiddling with it. Others don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I've thought about it a bit more - I think it is actually a good idea with a few tweaks, although I think it has some implications that are a little perhaps... Boring.

Let's take our box-to-box midfielder role. Say we somehow define a specialised box-to-box role that you think is perfect (it might be your current tactic, or a future one - it largely doesn't matter, but let's say we can pick either).

If we assign this role to an "average" midfielder, then the out-of-the-box solution will work. The assistant checks and says, "We are good to go with this, boss!" The player's training schedule is updated.

If we assign this role to a technical midget, then we do so but the assistant sets (or warns? I think warns is better as it forces the user to consider the implications) the physical and aerobics training to be slightly higher behind the scenes. Perhaps it tells the user that "this is probably not the best role for the player to train into because he needs to increase all his physical attributes by 15. But we'll try our best, boss!"

Likewise, if we assign this role to a physical beast but footballing idiot, the assistant sets/warns the technical and mental training slightly higher and perhaps warns the player he is better off as a centre-back, targetman or water boy.

In other words, the coaches treat the tactical role as the "goal" and the coaches will try their best to get that goal. In some cases, like the latter two cases, it's probably not going to be possible, but you can try.

And, as davidbowie has stated many times, the manager should be able to override and tinker with it.

However, I think it does have implications in that the coaches do all the thinking for the manager by compensating for the training. The manager no longer thinks about training - they think about ultimate goals. Which is good and bad, depending on which side of the fence you sit on in this thread. Some users like training and fiddling with it. Others don't.

This, whether tactical roles, positions or whatever, would be very interesting. Allowing the coaches to adjust a schedule depending on the player's attributes and progression/regression, relative to it's goal, would be great. (as long as there are enough schedules to cover every type of player! unless maybe the manager can feed in the attributes "goal" to a template and hand it to the coaches to deliver him a custom made player)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The underlying basic mechanics and links between training and player progression remain the same. The way training levels are constructed has changed obviously but the progression of attributes (and thus CA) is linked to the training the same way as before.

Sometimes I wonder what part of optional; SI dont understand. The game would be a better experience for all if SI allowed the customer to decide which features we would like to have in our game. Or at least make it a lot easier to mod the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However we cannot cater for all the different ways people want to play the game and we also need to consider the gameplay balance and playability across all of the customer base when making design decisions.

This is nonsense and really speaks to an underlying arrogance at SI. The old system was already in place and could easily have been kept as an option. SI just hate to allow any variability in game play; then get all hurt when numbers of people complain. Just like various leagues have varying rules, each player shouldnt have to play the game the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But would negate the advances they are trying to make. They already explained that they felt putting every player (or multiple players) on individual traning regimes is unrealistic and shouldn't have been the way in the first place.

They've replaced that system with a system that better reflects what happens in real life training.

It's a change for everyone - but it's more realistic in terms of training.

I'm sure you've made some very valid points and I'm sure SI will take them (and everyone elses) onboard to make improvements to the new improved more realistic way of how clubs approach training.

By all means, removing the sliders and individual training regime moves the game forward to the way training should have been handled from the start.

For the hundredth time you are wrong. Parroting something over and over doesnt make it any truer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is nonsense and really speaks to an underlying arrogance at SI. The old system was already in place and could easily have been kept as an option. SI just hate to allow any variability in game play; then get all hurt when numbers of people complain. Just like various leagues have varying rules, each player shouldnt have to play the game the same way.

You've just managed to prove your speaking rubbish in your own post, well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the hundredth time you are wrong. Parroting something over and over doesnt make it any truer.

Neither side of the argument is completely right or completely wrong. The truth lies somewhere in between. If people weren't so intent on believing that their arguments are infallible then we might get closer to a workable solution for everyone. Maintaining two disparate systems is not the answer and will only lead to a mess of code and bugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've just managed to prove your speaking rubbish in your own post, well done.

Really now? Lets take the example of FM 2007...someone playing season 2012/13 in that game are going to have a most unrealistic game because SI refuse to allow optional play (7 subs; 25 man squad. etc). Each iteration of FM is realistic only for the first season as the real life game constantly changes but the game doesnt.

You have just managed to prove you have a limited capacity for imagination in your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither side of the argument is completely right or completely wrong. The truth lies somewhere in between. If people weren't so intent on believing that their arguments are infallible then we might get closer to a workable solution for everyone. Maintaining two disparate systems is not the answer and will only lead to a mess of code and bugs.

I agree with this but Senor Tyson does nothing but parrot the SI company line. It kinda lowers his credibility IMO.

Also, there wouldnt be '2 desperate training systems' as fundamentally training hasnt changed..just the interface. Its perfectly simple to have two interfaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really now? Lets take the example of FM 2007...someone playing season 2012/13 in that game are going to have a most unrealistic game because SI refuse to allow optional play (7 subs; 25 man squad. etc). Each iteration of FM is realistic only for the first season as the real life game constantly changes but the game doesnt.

You have just managed to prove you have a limited capacity for imagination in your post.

Hang on here. Your saying SI do not allow varience, because they have not coded, new unwritten rules into the game? In your example there would be no way to know what the rules were going to be 5 years into the future. You cannot code rules that do not exist into the game. You can create your own league with whatever rules you want tho. I really dont get that example, but it certainly doesnt prove what your talking about.

Anyway back to your original post, you say "SI just hate to allow any variability" then follow up with, "Just like various leagues" so they hate to allow variety in the game, whilst providing a variety of leagues. Hence why you proven your own point to be incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hang on here. Your saying SI do not allow varience, because they have not coded, new unwritten rules into the game? In your example there would be no way to know what the rules were going to be 5 years into the future. You cannot code rules that do not exist into the game. You can create your own league with whatever rules you want tho. I really dont get that example, but it certainly doesnt prove what your talking about.

Anyway back to your original post, you say "SI just hate to allow any variability" then follow up with, "Just like various leagues" so they hate to allow variety in the game, whilst providing a variety of leagues. Hence why you proven your own point to be incorrect.

No new unwritten rules...7 man subs were common in Europe and the CL had the 25 man squad..it was quite possible to allow these options at the start of each new season. There are lots of rules variance across leagues that are already in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, have cleaned up the insults that went back and fore and left the actual discussion going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

Anyway back to your original post, you say "SI just hate to allow any variability" then follow up with, "Just like various leagues" so they hate to allow variety in the game, whilst providing a variety of leagues. Hence why you proven your own point to be incorrect.

I was referring to variety in game play (ie; not having optional training interfaces; not having optional rules year to year; not being able to opt out of press conferences etc that alter players attitude).

I do appreciate that SI have added so many leagues and work hard to make the game as good as they think it can be. I never said 'This game is rubbish' or 'SI are (fill in the blank)'. I just wish that they would allow more choice to the customers and make it easier for modders to make unique changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No new unwritten rules...7 man subs were common in Europe and the CL had the 25 man squad..it was quite possible to allow these options at the start of each new season. There are lots of rules variance across leagues that are already in the game.

What, so you want the user to be able to choose the league rules for each season? As it would be more realistic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to make the game a modder's paradise, SI would pretty much have to rip up the entire game and design it all again from scratch.

In its current form it can't cope with the changes from year to year, it's just not designed to be able to cope with the sort of modding people would want to do with it. On top of that it would also make testing it a logistical nightmare (well, even more so than it already is) and the bugs forum would become almost entirely useless as SI would no longer be able to tell if anything entered there was of any use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just wish that they would allow more choice to the customers and make it easier for modders to make unique changes.

Like an editor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule changes are definitely not possible without a major redesign and overhaul. They all currently have to be hard coded in and you need to start new games to see those changes if they were introduced in a patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What, so you want the user to be able to choose the league rules for each season? As it would be more realistic?

Yes..it is more realistic. League rules change all the time IRL. From a purely gaming POV a rule change or two each season can keep a long term save fresher. Are you opposed to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rule changes are definitely not possible without a major redesign and overhaul. They all currently have to be hard coded in and you need to start new games to see those changes if they were introduced in a patch.

To use the FM 2007 theme...rules in England and Germany varied on the 5/7 man sub rule and were both in the game. It shouldnt be hard to change the rule in either direction when a new season starts in June as the code is already in the game. Other sport sims have this feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This, whether tactical roles, positions or whatever, would be very interesting. Allowing the coaches to adjust a schedule depending on the player's attributes and progression/regression, relative to it's goal, would be great. (as long as there are enough schedules to cover every type of player! unless maybe the manager can feed in the attributes "goal" to a template and hand it to the coaches to deliver him a custom made player)
I was thinking of mentioning the attributes as a goal but I thought that would be a very fiddly thing to do (due to natural development, you'd need to fill out pretty much every attribute, which is an absolute pain). It also bundles things like PA into the question (i.e. a player where CA and PA are close has little scope to move). Nor is it terribly realistic because Sir Alex, for example, likely doesn't set very specific targets for training in things like crossing ("Bend it like Beckham, Bébé!"). Maybe Bielsa does, of course.

I suppose specific targets can be possible for sprinting/jumping/etc., though. Whether that's what's done in training or not is another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To use the FM 2007 theme...rules in England and Germany varied on the 5/7 man sub rule and were both in the game. It shouldnt be hard to change the rule in either direction when a new season starts in June as the code is already in the game. Other sport sims have this feature.

They were programmed in to occur at a very specific point in a very specific way. Unfortunately making that sort of thing a random occurrence is just not a simple matter.

I'm not saying it shouldn't happen (it's the sort of thing I've been pushing for for years), but that it's unlikely to happen any time soon as it would require changing a quite substantial and critical part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes..it is more realistic. League rules change all the time IRL. From a purely gaming POV a rule change or two each season can keep a long term save fresher. Are you opposed to this?

Are you being serious here?

To use the FM 2007 theme...rules in England and Germany varied on the 5/7 man sub rule and were both in the game. It shouldnt be hard to change the rule in either direction when a new season starts in June as the code is already in the game. Other sport sims have this feature.

What exactly would go into making this change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking of mentioning the attributes as a goal but I thought that would be a very fiddly thing to do (due to natural development, you'd need to fill out pretty much every attribute, which is an absolute pain). It also bundles things like PA into the question (i.e. a player where CA and PA are close has little scope to move). Nor is it terribly realistic because Sir Alex, for example, likely doesn't set very specific targets for training in things like crossing ("Bend it like Beckham, Bébé!"). Maybe Bielsa does, of course.

I suppose specific targets can be possible for sprinting/jumping/etc., though. Whether that's what's done in training or not is another story.

Yeah, I was pretty much thinking on my feet, and on reflection, I was standing on shaky ground concerning the customising of schedules.

To use the FM 2007 theme...rules in England and Germany varied on the 5/7 man sub rule and were both in the game. It shouldnt be hard to change the rule in either direction when a new season starts in June as the code is already in the game. Other sport sims have this feature.
They were programmed in to occur at a very specific point in a very specific way. Unfortunately making that sort of thing a random occurrence is just not a simple matter.

I'm not saying it shouldn't happen (it's the sort of thing I've been pushing for for years), but that it's unlikely to happen any time soon as it would require changing a quite substantial and critical part of the game.

The changes in training are pretty far reaching if they now include updating league rules. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you being serious here?

What exactly would go into making this change?

Yes...in the case of subs simply changing the number if named subs..this season in Italy they will name 12. Wouldnt it be more realistic to allow rather simple rules to evolve over time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The changes in training are pretty far reaching if they now include updating league rules. :p

Apologies for going off-topic there :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes...in the case of subs simply changing the number if named subs..this season in Italy they will name 12. Wouldnt it be more realistic to allow rather simple rules to evolve over time?

So because rules can be changed in real life you want it so that the user has the capacity to change the ingame rules to suit their personal wants/preferences? Or should there be a magic code that checks to see if the change relates to a real rule change first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So because rules can be changed in real life you want it so that the user has the capacity to change the ingame rules to suit their personal wants/preferences? Or should there be a magic code that checks to see if the change relates to a real rule change first?

This is a game....basic rules should be changable once a year when the new season starts. These can also be random. It happens in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a game....basic rules should be changable once a year when the new season starts. These can also be random. It happens in real life.

There's absolutely nothing that I could possibly say to that which wouldn't get me in trouble with a mod...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...