FM14 - New Tactical Elements

[RTHerringbone]

His point is that if you set someone as inside forward you must instantly know what it is exactly that an inside forward does. You shouldn't need to watch the match to see how many forward runs and into what area the player makes because it needs to be clear from the role description. Watching a match to see if a player is following a game plan = OK. Watching a match to make sense of instructions that you yourself have given = not OK.

Thank you for the clarification, thought I was being a bit slow.

I do agree, and it's where the idea of "concepts" will most be tested. I don't imagine that the Role descriptions will differ much from what we have in FM13. When you watch the "New Roles" video blog the descriptions seem along the lines of the old ones - they don't explicitly detail every instruction, nor was that shown on the player instruction screen.

As a result, we will be working a bit blind, but this is the leap of faith we need to take. Imagine if you were new to the game in FM14 - you wouldn't have this slider reference point anyway. A new user will have to think "I buy into the concept of what the winger Role description tells me; that seems to broadly fit what I want to achieve on that flank". The user can them shape that Role using the Player Instructions and see if it meets the requirement. That circle of tweaking continues again.

Whilst I had FM13 loaded, I would still watch comprehensive highlights of any new tactic I created until I had "got it right", when I could then drop to Extended or Key highlights. This won't change for me in FM14, and I don't see why watching the representation of the ME should feel like a chore, after all football is what the core of the game is.

I know I irritate many by advocating a system I haven't even tried, but logically I can see the benefits of it, and I don't think it actually deviates much from the overarching player manipulation strategy that sliders enabled, I think it will be more controlled and stable than the micro-management that sliders enabled.

It will be a transition that we have to make if we want to keep playing, but I'm going in with the mindset that I need to forget about what I do or don't know about the game as it was at FM13, and go in with a clear mind and no pre-conceived ideas about what a Role precisely does.

[Svenc]

Don't you think the slider era verbal descriptions (rarely-mixed-often) as a concept had found the perfect balance between mathematical precision and ease of understanding?

I think those you describe, from a usability point of view, weren't that problematic to begin with. Access to those you will have via the individual role instructions pretty much anyhow, as it looks.

The other sliders... not so much. In particular mentality, but there is also bad and contradicting theory and theory full stop about time wasting, tempo, etc. (by clearly intelligent users with several thousands of posts under their belt, I might add). I confess I have never really understood how many of the community's mentality theorems would drastically make a difference. It has been excessive micro-tweaking, and none of the sliders in my opinion were that sensitive that it ever made a real difference when you worried about individual clicks, which all those theories did. Consequently, it is only few philosophies in the TC that are based around distinctly different mentality theories that have a distinctive influence on play and shape, in my opion. For example the balanced philsophy in the TC that really has larger gaps in mentality (based on duties) and the very fluid one which has it global. As for the others it is more about how many different groups of mentality bands there are - each of those groups never really far apart from each other.

In fact those couple of clicks apart that borderline on micro-tweaking abstract settings nobody really should bloody have to worry about as it has zero to do with football management and rather to do with backwards translating and theorizing how the game's ME code might be set up and how it might interrelate with such abstract settings. It doesn't get any less user friendly and more immersion breaking and irritating than this. Older AI wasn't based on such wild theory anyhow, it employed basic global mentality tactics and a few basic pre-sets, and that's it. I didn't follow the entire history of ME development, but I'm also not keen on keeping up with which of these abstract settings get tweaked version in, version out. As for the TC now, consequently I'm primarily deciding on philsophy based on creative freedom levels (when not going very fluid and balanced anyhow), but then even the rigid one can be made to behave more "fluid" with going "creative freedom: more expressive" in the team instructions.

As in the thread linked to on page one, long-term users didn't really get the basic gist of that slider anyhow. It's still messed up, evidently so. Everyone claimed to be an expert, when evidence is all over the place that they weren't.

Apart from the usability, tweaking was optional, after all, I'm more excited about something else, but that was already hinted at by PaulC and it was also adressed by me also, and that is the shift away from balancing the match action from to suit limitless slider combinations and slider tweaks to clearly defined concepts that are meant to influence play as they "say on the tin". The combinations are still limitless, and in the long run ideally make for more varied play due to all the tweaks being based around those concepts. PaulC can now clearly address a role as such during setting the code up and make certain behavior inherent to a role (or strategy, or style, etc.). Just about anything replacing the sliders entirelly will be an improvement, as far as I'm concerned. But as you said, the documentation and descriptions needs better on the new system than it was on (both) old ones. Just because SI throw a couple of footie catch phrases around doesn't mean they're all set.

This is a well written blog, but the writer completely relies and holds onto very abstract sliders. http://www.fmscout.com/a-philosophy-creative-freedom-and-formation.html

How will he do without? Ah, we'll see.

[Äktsjon Männ]

As I said previously, much of it will depend on how the ME is developed. If I can see a clear difference between a poacher and a defensive forward (attack) just by watching a match or two then I don't think there will be too many issues. If there's very little visible difference like there is in FM13 and earlier then there will be a lot of confusion and a bit of outcry. Especially with most of the new roles seemingly being much of what we already have, just described in fancier hipster terms.

[Mintah]

His point is that if you set someone as inside forward you must instantly know what it is exactly that an inside forward does. You shouldn't need to watch the match to see how many forward runs and into what area the player makes because it needs to be clear from the role description. Watching a match to see if a player is following a game plan = OK. Watching a match to make sense of instructions that you yourself have given = not OK.

But how do the existence of sliders solve this problem? Yes you can see that your inside forward has mentality set to 8, but what does that actually tell you about how he plays? or that he has runs set to often, but in reference to what? The fact that FM players ( I included) would set fantasy values using sliders and then get angry when our team/players were not playing according to the assumptions we made about what the sliders should do are symptomatic of this problem. In short, because the sliders were such an abstract means of giving instructions, it necessitated watching the match to make sense of the instructions you yourself have given whereas the plainness of the shouts system should lesson this issue since what you tell the player to do is done in plain language. That said, I do agree that we need clearer descriptions of what each role does.

[Äktsjon Männ]

But how do the existence of sliders solve this problem? Yes you can see that your inside forward has mentality set to 8, but what does that actually tell you about how he plays? or that he has runs set to often, but in reference to what? The fact that FM players ( I included) would set fantasy values using sliders and then get angry when our team/players were not playing according to the assumptions we made about what the sliders should do are symptomatic of this problem. In short, because the sliders were such an abstract means of giving instructions, it necessitated watching the match to make sense of the instructions you yourself have given whereas the plainness of the shouts system should lesson this issue since what you tell the player to do is done in plain language. That said, I do agree that we need clearer descriptions of what each role does.

Forward runs, wide play instructions etc are not abstract. These are direct instructions and the problem with those has never been sliders per se. Sliders are just means to control the ME through the game interface. The issue has always been the 20 point scales for mentality, creative freedom, time wasting etc and the way these interact, as well as the effect they have on clear instructions such as long shots or tackling or whatever. This was never an interface issue. It's a ME issue. If the interface changes come with an improved ME I'm all for it. I've always been a supporter of the TC in principle.

[dsch]

Yes, because we've never used the TC interface!

That's a bit unfair, I think. The change isn't the addition of the TC but the removal of the classic system. Obviously, as someone instrumental in creating the TC (as far as I know), you are much more familiar with its possibilities, so it's reassuring that you think things will work out. It's perhaps not entirely necessary to assert this with quite so much finality.

[Loversleaper]

Which will not be a bad thing if it results in a better code.

I really can't see that better coding will be the result from the game relying more on the game-coding crew than on human control - it's kind of like watching a movie and not participating in it. They can make the movie really, really good - but it won't enhance the gaming experience...

Let's look at what the game-coders did with the whole Training Regime aspect. They removed the training experience and added drop-down menus, now you can say train "Center Midfielder" or focus on your passing - I don't create anything, I don't give any thought (well, limited thought) - which is maybe good for the casual gamer, but for the true gamer it has absolute no value - I am basically in the dark here as to what exactly I am doing or accomplishing with the training regimes. Who didn't remember going on to FM discussion forums looking at threads about Training Regimes or sitting there trying different things out yourself (to get all those green upward arrows on attributes), interpretting, learning and trying to create something better? Looking around different sites, that whole aspect is obsolete...

[Loversleaper]

That is why I am concerned that the same will happen with the Tactical side of the game, now it will be drop-down menus and you have to punch this box or that box or you will lose. Creating your own 'Starting Tactics' - which is one of the most important part of real life football - with your own personal ideologies will be harder to obtain as the starting Strategy will basically all be the same in the different categories and we will have to know what shouts make the match possible to win - without some form of 'standing points' to relate to - will be the same experience that we have in the current Training reality. Personally, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot...

[thomit]

Needing to discuss training, trying and trying again to find something that was "better" ... phew, I'm glad that is gone. Much more intuitive and fuzzyless now. Set appropriate training, get on with it. If the player has the potential, he will get better, End of. So much better to simply set a training that is appropriate to develop a certain attribute, or based on players position/roles. Having to choose between 5-a-side or pig-in-the-middle on wednesday morning ... no fun at all. Or is it better to have 5-a-side on thursday? Ehm ... thanks, but leave me out of it.

Again, from a "gaming" perspective, it's perhaps more satisfying to have some more micro management to do, for some. But I think - as wwfan has pointed out again and again - looking at this "game" from a traditional "gaming" perspective is probably not the wisest way to go about it. I for one is very happy that training has been simplified, that tactics has been simplified (with the TC), and I'm looking forward to having the tactical interface further simplified, and more holistic. That leaves me, the manager, more time to get on with what is the fun part of FM; looking for better players, and creating a sound tactic or two or three to use with these better players that you manage to get. And the odd tactical outmanouvering of the opposition. The matches, the players, and aquisition of said players; that is what is fun.

[Loversleaper]

@Thomit:

I can see what you mean to some extent. But looking at training - where is the challenge? Training is one of the most important parts to make your matchday tactics more feasible - if 'realism' is the main theme comming from the Towers...

Gamers need a challenge for the game's long term success - if you agree with me or not will be a preference choice...

[wwfan]

That's a bit unfair, I think. The change isn't the addition of the TC but the removal of the classic system. Obviously, as someone instrumental in creating the TC (as far as I know), you are much more familiar with its possibilities, so it's reassuring that you think things will work out. It's perhaps not entirely necessary to assert this with quite so much finality.

I think most of the mods are more direct than we were prior to the abuse we received from some quarters during the release of FM13. I don't mean to offend, but I'm not going to pussyfoot around statements I don't agree with either. I am very, very sure that a concept based ME in which the user and AI use the same playing field will be far better than anything that preceded it. And then some.

@Loversleaper:

your own personal ideologies will be harder to obtain as the starting Strategy will basically all be the same in the different categories and we will have to know what shouts make the match possible to win

I respect your intelligence and contribution to these forums, but the TC doesn't work like this. Shouts are not just in-match elements, but are strategies and styles in themselves. You can use them reactively, but you can also employ them to shape a tactical philosophy. It's 100% "your" tactic. Every time you comment on how you think the TC works (and, given the screenshots and Miles' comments, how the TC 2.0 will work), it illustrates to me how little you've understood it.

You also make it perfectly clear that you want a gaming solution, a way to design a training and tactical system that beats the AI in itself. Whilst such an approach is creative, it is more about gaming than football. It is almost, if not completely, impossible for a real life manager to create a system that is simply better than anything anybody else can create. Even when such systems do emerge (e.g. swissbolt, catenaccio, total football, Tika Taka), they do not remain unbeatable. Other sides catch on and develop systems to combat and replace them.

Your vision of FM is one in which your creativity is challenged, but only by developing a system that beats the AI and undermines the ME. All other aspects of FM other than slider arranging are irrelevant. In-match decisions, man and media management, player personality, player nervousness or over-confidence, are all overwhelmed by having a system that guarantees you will have the best possible players using a tactic the AI can't cope with anyway.

The challenge with the TC is learning how to win without that innate advantage. Whilst it is a different challenge than decoding sliders, I think it is a far more rewarding one, and one you've yet to appreciate because of your misapprehension and misinterpretation of the TC. I hope FM14 an change your mind.

[Loversleaper]

@wwfan:

During my time here on the forums, I never created tactics that beat or undermined the ME. All the tactics I ever made were more for fun and tried (to the best of my ability) to teach interrested gamers when and where to use the different tactics - following the Strategy theory that is evident when looking at the settings that the TC used - so in that context, beating the AI using strategies same as the TC would. I could have made super-tactics but, in reality, it was never in the cards. Giving my experience to show how gamers could win without supertactics and showing what elements one could use to acheive (a relative) success/reach their goals (being avoiding relegation or getting into European Competitions, ect...).

In a way, you are hinting that the ME will be much more difficult to beat than it currently is - which will please a lot of those casual gamers for sure . Finding combinations of Strategies and Shouts are how we will be able to beat the AI - accompanied by the team talk accuracy. This does look kind of complex on the tin, but the overall understanding of the game won't necessarily enlighten many...

Creating tactics was more in the lines of being able to match the AI, not destroy it, and of course I attempted to do this using the TC. The TC had it's limitations when it came to settings - that is why it was a good option to be able to tweak/change some of the settings. This was kind of necessary to avoid some of the annoying options the ME offered - not to alter to something that the AI couldn't cope with. For instance, the 'rarely' department did cause quite a lot of those rant posts of why their players stood around and didn't know what to do with the ball (and ended up doing some ridiculous backpass) - I just could change that so, for example, my center midfielder actually tried to cross the ball after receiving the ball out wide again after a corner kick...

I know that with the current TC/shouts, you can still obtain a lot of the same settings that you could with the old Classic Sytem - it's just that if the tweaking aspect is removed (to personalize/tailor make roles), then it would kind of spell out that we no longer create anything as the example I made with the current Training reality. I am very happy that gamers don't have to bother with Training or tweaking tactical instructions - but what about all those gamers that do want that challenge? If the ideology is that since the casual gamer wants to be left out of those types of decisions - then we all have to follow suit. Since you like analogies so much - it would be kind of like the shoe industry finds out that the majority of people wear size 42 so they were only going to produce that size, now that's really cool for everyone that uses size 42, but that would mean if you use size 46, well, then, you're simply out of luck...

[yonko]

Needing to discuss training, trying and trying again to find something that was "better" ... phew, I'm glad that is gone. Much more intuitive and fuzzyless now. Set appropriate training, get on with it. If the player has the potential, he will get better, End of. So much better to simply set a training that is appropriate to develop a certain attribute, or based on players position/roles. Having to choose between 5-a-side or pig-in-the-middle on wednesday morning ... no fun at all. Or is it better to have 5-a-side on thursday? Ehm ... thanks, but leave me out of it.

The current training model is totally unrealistic though. Selecting 5-a-side or Pig-in-the-middle was far more realistic and close to reality. For you it wasn't fun, for me it was.

I think most of the mods are more direct than we were prior to the abuse we received from some quarters during the release of FM13. I don't mean to offend, but I'm not going to pussyfoot around statements I don't agree with either. I am very, very sure that a concept based ME in which the user and AI use the same playing field will be far better than anything that preceded it. And then some.

What is going to happen to common folks like myself if we don't pussyfoot around statements we don't agree with? Does being a mod give you the right to be more direct than I can be?

[yonko]

Thank you for the clarification, thought I was being a bit slow.

I do agree, and it's where the idea of "concepts" will most be tested. I don't imagine that the Role descriptions will differ much from what we have in FM13. When you watch the "New Roles" video blog the descriptions seem along the lines of the old ones - they don't explicitly detail every instruction, nor was that shown on the player instruction screen.

As a result, we will be working a bit blind, but this is the leap of faith we need to take. Imagine if you were new to the game in FM14 - you wouldn't have this slider reference point anyway. A new user will have to think "I buy into the concept of what the winger Role description tells me; that seems to broadly fit what I want to achieve on that flank". The user can them shape that Role using the Player Instructions and see if it meets the requirement. That circle of tweaking continues again.

Whilst I had FM13 loaded, I would still watch comprehensive highlights of any new tactic I created until I had "got it right", when I could then drop to Extended or Key highlights. This won't change for me in FM14, and I don't see why watching the representation of the ME should feel like a chore, after all football is what the core of the game is.

I know I irritate many by advocating a system I haven't even tried, but logically I can see the benefits of it, and I don't think it actually deviates much from the overarching player manipulation strategy that sliders enabled, I think it will be more controlled and stable than the micro-management that sliders enabled.

It will be a transition that we have to make if we want to keep playing, but I'm going in with the mindset that I need to forget about what I do or don't know about the game as it was at FM13, and go in with a clear mind and no pre-conceived ideas about what a Role precisely does.

It's pretty absurd to play a game where you select roles for players and you don't know/can't see the instructions for these roles. IRL when a manager gives his players roles on the team he knows what these roles are and how they are different from one another. We have to rely on vague in-game descriptions.

[Svenc]

It's pretty absurd to play a game where you select roles for players and you don't know/can't see the instructions for these roles. IRL when a manager gives his players roles on the team he knows what these roles are and how they are different from one another. We have to rely on vague in-game descriptions.

Are you a beta tester? Or why do you know how and how bad/well it works exactly in advance.

[higgins]

@wwfan:

During my time here on the forums, I never created tactics that beat or undermined the ME. All the tactics I ever made were more for fun and tried (to the best of my ability) to teach interrested gamers when and where to use the different tactics - following the Strategy theory that is evident when looking at the settings that the TC used - so in that context, beating the AI using strategies same as the TC would. I could have made super-tactics but, in reality, it was never in the cards. Giving my experience to show how gamers could win without supertactics and showing what elements one could use to acheive (a relative) success/reach their goals (being avoiding relegation or getting into European Competitions, ect...).

In a way, you are hinting that the ME will be much more difficult to beat than it currently is - which will please a lot of those casual gamers for sure . Finding combinations of Strategies and Shouts are how we will be able to beat the AI - accompanied by the team talk accuracy. This does look kind of complex on the tin, but the overall understanding of the game won't necessarily enlighten many...

Creating tactics was more in the lines of being able to match the AI, not destroy it, and of course I attempted to do this using the TC. The TC had it's limitations when it came to settings - that is why it was a good option to be able to tweak/change some of the settings. This was kind of necessary to avoid some of the annoying options the ME offered - not to alter to something that the AI couldn't cope with. For instance, the 'rarely' department did cause quite a lot of those rant posts of why their players stood around and didn't know what to do with the ball (and ended up doing some ridiculous backpass) - I just could change that so, for example, my center midfielder actually tried to cross the ball after receiving the ball out wide again after a corner kick...

I know that with the current TC/shouts, you can still obtain a lot of the same settings that you could with the old Classic Sytem - it's just that if the tweaking aspect is removed (to personalize/tailor make roles), then it would kind of spell out that we no longer create anything as the example I made with the current Training reality. I am very happy that gamers don't have to bother with Training or tweaking tactical instructions - but what about all those gamers that do want that challenge? If the ideology is that since the casual gamer wants to be left out of those types of decisions - then we all have to follow suit. Since you like analogies so much - it would be kind of like the shoe industry finds out that the majority of people wear size 42 so they were only going to produce that size, now that's really cool for everyone that uses size 42, but that would mean if you use size 46, well, then, you're simply out of luck...

Very true, unfortunately the game is going in another direction and looking for a different and probably larger audience.

[wwfan]

@wwfan:

During my time here on the forums, I never created tactics that beat or undermined the ME. All the tactics I ever made were more for fun and tried (to the best of my ability) to teach interrested gamers when and where to use the different tactics - following the Strategy theory that is evident when looking at the settings that the TC used - so in that context, beating the AI using strategies same as the TC would. I could have made super-tactics but, in reality, it was never in the cards. Giving my experience to show how gamers could win without supertactics and showing what elements one could use to acheive (a relative) success/reach their goals (being avoiding relegation or getting into European Competitions, ect...).

In a way, you are hinting that the ME will be much more difficult to beat than it currently is - which will please a lot of those casual gamers for sure . Finding combinations of Strategies and Shouts are how we will be able to beat the AI - accompanied by the team talk accuracy. This does look kind of complex on the tin, but the overall understanding of the game won't necessarily enlighten many...

Creating tactics was more in the lines of being able to match the AI, not destroy it, and of course I attempted to do this using the TC. The TC had it's limitations when it came to settings - that is why it was a good option to be able to tweak/change some of the settings. This was kind of necessary to avoid some of the annoying options the ME offered - not to alter to something that the AI couldn't cope with. For instance, the 'rarely' department did cause quite a lot of those rant posts of why their players stood around and didn't know what to do with the ball (and ended up doing some ridiculous backpass) - I just could change that so, for example, my center midfielder actually tried to cross the ball after receiving the ball out wide again after a corner kick...

I know that with the current TC/shouts, you can still obtain a lot of the same settings that you could with the old Classic Sytem - it's just that if the tweaking aspect is removed (to personalize/tailor make roles), then it would kind of spell out that we no longer create anything as the example I made with the current Training reality. I am very happy that gamers don't have to bother with Training or tweaking tactical instructions - but what about all those gamers that do want that challenge? If the ideology is that since the casual gamer wants to be left out of those types of decisions - then we all have to follow suit. Since you like analogies so much - it would be kind of like the shoe industry finds out that the majority of people wear size 42 so they were only going to produce that size, now that's really cool for everyone that uses size 42, but that would mean if you use size 46, well, then, you're simply out of luck...

I realised I was being harsh on your methodology with my "beat the ME/AI" claim and that you are far more purist than that, but my point still stands. Your approach is a gaming one. You teach people to play against the AI by using a complex formula of "employ strategy A when you expect the AI to do B, then strategy C when you expect the AI to do D" and so on. That's a gaming solution, not a football one. It's an advanced, complex and creative gaming solution, but it is still a gaming solution.

You seem to suggest that people who aren't following such a system are casual and not true gamers. Well, I don't, and I do take FM reasonably seriously I want the decisions that matter to be spread throughout the game. I want to know that I managed to win a title because I kept my team more focused and less nervous during squeaky bum time, or a decision to play a semi-unfit big game player at the right time grabbed me a key win, or a key tactical switch against a team sitting deep soaking up pressure resulted in a huge last minute goal. I don't want to win because I have a training system that outmatches anything the AI has, or a tactical system that constantly gives me an in-match advantage, no matter how small. All the developments in FM in recent years have been pushing towards that way of playing. If you think it is casual, then we are speaking from different positions and never the twain shall meet.

What is going to happen to common folks like myself if we don't pussyfoot around statements we don't agree with? Does being a mod give you the right to be more direct than I can be?

Have you been infracted? You can be as direct as you like. Just be civil.

[wwfan]

Very true, unfortunately the game is going in another direction and looking for a different and probably larger audience.

As with my reply to Loversleaper, I don't see how making the game more accessible is a bad thing, nor that it is an attempt to attract casual gamers. PaulC is constantly on record as saying he wants FM to be harder. That's hardly going to appeal to a casual gaming attitude.

The changes are forcing people out of a certain way of thinking about FM into a new one. There'll be some pain during the switch and a few people may fall by the wayside because they refuse to accept the new way of playing. That's unfortunate, but there it is.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Shouts are not just in-match elements, but are strategies and styles in themselves. You can use them reactively, but you can also employ them to shape a tactical philosophy. It's 100% "your" tactic.

I really hope you can save a group of shouts 'in' a tactic as well as a separate group in FM14. It's a pain having to select it separately each game and something one can easily forget to do if playing at a fast pace. Otherwise I mostly agree. In my current game I started with a base tactic, then watched matches extensively and gradually added shouts to shape it further until I was happy with the way it plays. The result is definitely different to anything anyone else has done tactically. But the thing with shouts though is that some of them change too many things. For example, I wanted my team to play wider but I definitely didn't want to focus passing down flanks because the tactic is outmanned there. Now I can manually change it in FM13 but it looks like in FM14 I'd be stuck. Hopefully there is a solution to niggles like this.

[Svenc]

As with my reply to Loversleaper, I don't see how making the game more accessible is a bad thing, nor that it is an attempt to attract casual gamers. PaulC is constantly on record as saying he wants FM to be harder. That's hardly going to appeal to a casual gaming attitude.

I think by optionally restricting the AI's use of the concepts SI could still develop a game that can both attract casual as well as the hardcore alike. Whether they might do such (maybe by branching out and releasing an altogether new game full stop), only time will tell. It is worth remembering that FMC already was proposed to SEGA as an all new release, which they declined. Personally I'm glad though that they aren't cutting corners on their core experience as it looks. It is unfortunate that many consider the core experience to be too overwhelming by now, too hard, etc. One day I might dislike the direction FM is heading in too, who knows? I'd still applaud that decision, as there appears a clear vision behind the thing, has been for twenty years looking at the early design documents you can see in "Football Manager Stole My Life". Whether successful or no, you can see the roots of many of the new overhauls straight back in those early 1990s documents. From day one the Collyers wanted to develop a management game in which the player for once isn't the center of the world, but part of a world that revolves around him. AI managers can do in principle everything a player does, they talk to their players, storm out of press conferences, apply their prefered formation and tactics, and if the human player is sacked, the world just moves on.

As such every single human player in theory being able to revolutionize the world of football tactics as the world knew them and outmode the opposition has never been a desired target, arguably. The player was meant to see level to the AI manager, and vice versa. In relative terms, we know it's never going to be as good as a well-versed human. Still, that's not going to happen with the tools of input that were applied along the ride. This, a vision with user feedback considered, is much better than any design by committee. The casualties along that bumpy ride weren't caused by a shift in design philosophy, but rather a shift in technology. If the AI wasn't much cop previously and the ME allowed for tons of exploits, that naturally lend to an easier game.

Usually when classic series see a streamlining "to attract a wider audience" it is the hardcore that suffers as the core design is based around the optional helping hands for newcomers rather than the design of old and the helping hands being optional. Take the quest compass of The Elder Scrolls for instance, there are many times where using it is mandatory, as the design (text, visual clues, etc.) doesn't lend itself to the player looking for signs and objectives himself. In older games players had to explore spaces and ask about directions from locals themselves, there wasn't any compass and arrow pointing them right there. That was an inherent part of the design and considered as such by the quest designers. Also applies for many other games and series, from blinking loot to mission objectives appearing on-screen all the time. If you want those often fairly instrusive clues to be turned off, you're either bang out of luck or can't do as they're an inherent part of the world and game's design.

[RTHerringbone]

It's pretty absurd to play a game where you select roles for players and you don't know/can't see the instructions for these roles. IRL when a manager gives his players roles on the team he knows what these roles are and how they are different from one another. We have to rely on vague in-game descriptions.

I disagree with this. Whilst the descriptions don't give us chapter and verse about every setting for a Role, they do give enough information about the concept behind the Role.

If you look at wide midfield Roles, I believe there is enough differentiation between Winger, Inside Forward, Defensive Winger and Wide Midfielder to allow the user to know what Role suits what they want to achieve. The additional information we get about Duty then allows us to refine that selection.

With regard to Role selection, it is a funnel, which in FM14 appears to offer an extra level of refinement compared to FM13. Top of funnel is Role, middle of funnel is Duty, bottom of funnel is Player Instructions

[higgins]

As with my reply to Loversleaper, I don't see how making the game more accessible is a bad thing, nor that it is an attempt to attract casual gamers. PaulC is constantly on record as saying he wants FM to be harder. That's hardly going to appeal to a casual gaming attitude.

The changes are forcing people out of a certain way of thinking about FM into a new one. There'll be some pain during the switch and a few people may fall by the wayside because they refuse to accept the new way of playing. That's unfortunate, but there it is.

My only concern is that harder doesn't always mean more realistic, harder could mean more random or pre-determined.

I hope the game could prove me wrong, as I said before.

[themadsheep2001]

My only concern is that harder doesn't always mean more realistic, harder could mean more random or pre-determined.

I hope the game could prove me wrong, as I said before.

Why would they ever make the game harder by being more random or pre determined?

[higgins]

I think by optionally restricting the AI's use of the concepts SI could still develop a game that can both attract casual as well as the hardcore alike. Whether they might do such (maybe by branching out and releasing an altogether new game full stop), only time will tell. It is worth remembering that FMC already was proposed to SEGA as an all new release, which they declined. Personally I'm glad though that they aren't cutting corners on their core experience as it looks. It is unfortunate that many consider the core experience to be too overwhelming by now, too hard, etc. One day I might dislike the direction FM is heading in too, who knows? I'd still applaud that decision, as there appears a clear vision behind the thing, has been for twenty years looking at the early design documents you can see in "Football Manager Stole My Life". Whether successful or no, you can see the roots of many of the new overhauls straight back in those early 1990s documents. From day one the Collyers wanted to develop a management game in which the player for once isn't the center of the world, but part of a world that revolves around him. AI managers can do in principle everything a player does, they talk to their players, storm out of press conferences, apply their prefered formation and tactics, and if the human player is sacked, the world just moves on.

As such every single human player in theory being able to revolutionize the world of football tactics as the world knew them and outmode the opposition has never been a desired target, arguably. The player was meant to see level to the AI manager, and vice versa. In relative terms, we know it's never going to be as good as a well-versed human. Still, that's not going to happen with the tools of input that were applied along the ride. This, a vision with user feedback considered, is much better than any design by committee. The casualties along that bumpy ride weren't caused by a shift in design philosophy, but rather a shift in technology. If the AI wasn't much cop previously and the ME allowed for tons of exploits, that naturally lend to an easier game.

Usually when classic series see a streamlining "to attract a wider audience" it is the hardcore that suffers as the core design is based around the optional helping hands for newcomers rather than the design of old and the helping hands being optional. Take the quest compass of The Elder Scrolls for instance, there are many times where using it is mandatory, as the design (text, visual clues, etc.) doesn't lend itself to the player looking for signs and objectives himself. In older games players had to explore spaces and ask about directions from locals themselves, there wasn't any compass and arrow pointing them right there. That was an inherent part of the design and considered as such by the quest designers. Also applies for many other games and series, from blinking loot to mission objectives appearing on-screen all the time. If you want those often fairly instrusive clues to be turned off, you're either bang out of luck or can't do as they're an inherent part of the world and game's design.

AI should be improved though, limiting human managers is the wrong way to build a more balaced game imo, poor AI team building is a classic example, after some years the game becomes too easy; it seems that SI are too concerned to avoid human tactical exploits instead of refining the AI of the game.

[Cleon]

AI should be improved though, limiting human managers is the wrong way to build a more balaced game imo, poor AI team building is a classic example, after some years the game becomes too easy; it seems that SI are too concerned to avoid human tactical exploits instead of refining the AI of the game.

How do you know this isn't the first step of the first stage of actually refining the AI? SI might have decided this is what needs to be done to actually make the AI better and try and make it more sophisticated. They might have fixed AI squad building too for FM14 we don't know until we actually play it.

[higgins]

How do you know this isn't the first step of the first stage of actually refining the AI? SI might have decided this is what needs to be done to actually make the AI better and try and make it more sophisticated. They might have fixed AI squad building too for FM14 we don't know until we actually play it.

It could be, of course.

[Äktsjon Männ]

AI should be improved though, limiting human managers is the wrong way to build a more balaced game imo, poor AI team building is a classic example, after some years the game becomes too easy; it seems that SI are too concerned to avoid human tactical exploits instead of refining the AI of the game.

The user won't necessarily be limited with these changes though. You'll have to accept that for this discussion to go anywhere. You might even gain more control. If instructions in FM14 and further have a more pronounced effect on ME then that is increased control. Micromanaging sliders only gives you the illusion of total control. Allowing the user an access to sliders narrows the options SI have in terms of allowing tactical variety and still having a balanced ME. At least that's how I see it, we won't know either way until the game is released but the point remains - no sliders does not have to equal less control.

[ShirazS]

How do you know this isn't the first step of the first stage of actually refining the AI? SI might have decided this is what needs to be done to actually make the AI better and try and make it more sophisticated. They might have fixed AI squad building too for FM14 we don't know until we actually play it.

The above highlighted bit is key here. We are just speculating until we actually try the demo.

[Äktsjon Männ]

How do you know this isn't the first step of the first stage of actually refining the AI? SI might have decided this is what needs to be done to actually make the AI better and try and make it more sophisticated. They might have fixed AI squad building too for FM14 we don't know until we actually play it.

There have been hints of role based squad building AI in their marketing tidbits. It seems to me that they're trying to tie tactics, training and squad building into a one much more coherent system instead of different modules that can't interact with each other. That is possibly a huge step towards better long term challenge from the AI.

[ceefax the cat]

So in FM14 there will be no opportunity to fine tune... This could be it for me.

Example: first thing I did when FM13 came out was create a 4312 based around working the ball through the midfield in such a way as the fullbacks would be arriving on the edge of the box just as the ball got there. It was all about momentum in those final 2 or 3 passes, leading to the fullback bombing in behind the opposing back four. I started with a TC framework, spent a bit of time tweaking passing, mentality and tempo settings and finally got more or less the style of play I was after. That then became my standard starting tactic. I wasn't seeking to exploit the match engine, just get my team to time its buildup to best effect. It turned out I needed my midfielders to play a little more directly, my strikers to play a little deeper and my fullbacks to be a little more aggressive, than any default setting would allow.

That process, for me, was the most enjoyable, 'real' part of the game. Rather than just saying 'control the game - oh yeah, and try to work the ball into the box' I'd shaped my team so that it played just the way I wanted. Now I can't do that. The process ends once I've told my fullbacks to get forward and the team to play it a bit shorter, which is nowhere near as satisfying.

To do away with the sliders and keep it satisfying, we're going to need at least some tools for tactical micromanaging. This could be the start of the best tactical interface yet because Lord knows the sliders were horribly flawed, but there needs to be something, some way of going through the buildup with a fine toothcomb (as a manager might) and really getting it all to click. If I can't load up FM 14 and go through my little imaginary conversation with the team ("No, we need to play the pass into the final third slightly sooner, so the fullback isn't left standing on the edge of the box...") then straight away, for me it's a much worse game.

Maybe the new options system is the future, but in that case there must be more of them - far more, including things that are currently PPM's. "Switch ball to opposite flank", "Get into opposition box", "Come deep to get ball", "Look for one-twos" all spring to mind. More "pass to" controls would be handy too - as in, I don't just want to tell my right back to play it a bit longer, I want to tell him - and only him - to stick it on Peter Crouch's head. Or I want to tell my ball-playing centreback - and only him - to knock it down the line ahead of Matt Jarvis. You get the idea. These options are not enough.

[themadsheep2001]

So in FM14 there will be no opportunity to fine tune... This could be it for me.

Example: first thing I did when FM13 came out was create a 4312 based around working the ball through the midfield in such a way as the fullbacks would be arriving on the edge of the box just as the ball got there. It was all about momentum in those final 2 or 3 passes, leading to the fullback bombing in behind the opposing back four. I started with a TC framework, spent a bit of time tweaking passing, mentality and tempo settings and finally got more or less the style of play I was after. That then became my standard starting tactic. I wasn't seeking to exploit the match engine, just get my team to time its buildup to best effect.

That process, for me, was the most enjoyable, 'real' part of the game. Rather than just saying 'control the game - oh yeah, and try to work the ball into the box' I'd shaped my team so that it played just the way I wanted. Now I can't do that. The process ends once I've told my fullbacks to get forward and the team to play it a bit shorter, which is nowhere near as satisfying.

To do away with the sliders and keep it satisfying, we're going to need at least some tools for tactical micromanaging. This could be the start of the best tactical interface yet because Lord knows the sliders were horribly flawed, but there needs to be something, some way of going through the buildup with a fine toothcomb (as a manager might) and really getting it all to click. If I can't load up FM 14 and go through my little imaginary conversation with the team ("No, we need to play the pass into the final third slightly sooner, so the fullback isn't left standing on the edge of the box...") then straight away, for me it's a much worse game.

Maybe the new options system is the future, but in that case there must be more of them - far more, including things that are currently PPM's. "Switch ball to opposite flank", "Get into opposition box", "Come deep to get ball", "Look for one-twos" all spring to mind. More "pass to" controls would be handy too - as in, I don't just want to tell my right back to play it a bit longer, I want to tell him - and only him - to stick it on Peter Crouch's head. Or I want to tell my ball-playing centreback - and only him - to knock it down the line ahead of Matt Jarvis. You get the idea. These options are not enough.

How can you possibly come to any kind of judgement without actually seeing the full game? Who says you haven't got the tools? I think people are too keen to come to definitive judgements without having the full picture, let alone actually putting things into practice in the ME itself.

[ceefax the cat]

If the tools are there, they certainly didn't show up in the video SI put on YouTube explaining the new system, or anywhere else, and I really think they would have, had they been included in the game. I might be wrong but... Well I'm not

[Loversleaper]

You seem to suggest that people who aren't following such a system are casual and not true gamers.

Let's face it, the strategy theory offers a system, one that enables FM gamers to be more successfull/rewarding if they knew what strategy (more or less) fits the next upcomming match + what shouts to use. If that were not true then you are implying that you can win the Champions League by using a Defensive Strategy. As you mentioned about opponents soaking up pressure, in this case you would have to know how to put them more under-pressure so the opponent won't sit back and pass the ball around the back and keep possession - running down the clock. So, taking this into consideration, it won't matter if you were a casual gamer or a hardcore gamer - the rules of the system will apply to all...

I am not totally convinced that media handling is realistic enough for it to be a major contributer to the outcome of long term success. Ok, in the big Leagues, the big teams will, of course, be under the spot light more than most other teams - but that is not reflcted in the game. You have the same reality if you are in the Blue Square South as you have in the EPL. To be honest, I haven't really been able to wrap my head around how to use media & team talks to my advantage. I just know that some of the team talk options are ones that I should stay away from...

[furiousuk]

I just know that some of the team talk options are ones that I should stay away from...

... with some teams and some situations.

Build a different team in a different situation and you can (and perhaps should) use those team talk options (that’s how it is supposed to work anyway i.e. every option has equal value although their situational value differs, the same as how wwfan explained the roles and duties system)

[wwfan]

If that were not true then you are implying that you can win the Champions League by using a Defensive Strategy.

I'm not just implying. I've won the CL with Southampton using a Defensive Strategy for at least 75% of the games and won everything with Barcelona without going above a Counter Strategy for 4-5 seasons. Your Strategy Theory is just one way of doing things.

[yonko]

Are you a beta tester? Or why do you know how and how bad/well it works exactly in advance.

No, I'm not a beta tester. But I can see from the match day video posted a few weeks ago, that since sliders are removed we do not have the ability to "see" the default instructions for each role. So we would have to select roles and adjust instructions via individual shouts without knowing what these instructions are to begin with. Kind of like shooting in pitch black conditions. I'm not ok with that.

If there are no more sliders I hope there is some other form of letting us know what the instructions are for each role and how are they differ from on another for each role. For example what is the difference in instructions between a Regista and DLP or between False Nine and DLF/CF or between a Shadow Striker and Attacking Midfielder?

Have you been infracted? You can be as direct as you like. Just be civil.

If I'm direct as I want to be I would have an infraction.

I disagree with this. Whilst the descriptions don't give us chapter and verse about every setting for a Role, they do give enough information about the concept behind the Role.

No, they don't.

If you look at wide midfield Roles, I believe there is enough differentiation between Winger, Inside Forward, Defensive Winger and Wide Midfielder to allow the user to know what Role suits what they want to achieve. The additional information we get about Duty then allows us to refine that selection.

Sure we know the difference between Winger, Inside Forward, Defensive Forward, etc., because we can see their instructions in FM13. But what is the difference between the new roles and the existing roles for some of the other positions? Can we see their instructions anywhere?

With regard to Role selection, it is a funnel, which in FM14 appears to offer an extra level of refinement compared to FM13. Top of funnel is Role, middle of funnel is Duty, bottom of funnel is Player Instructions

I don't see that refinement in FM14 from the match day video Miles has posted. The funnel does exist in FM13 because we can see the instructions. I select roles based on their instructions, not their descriptions.

[higgins]

Some people simply don't understand that instructions define roles in real football, not vice versa.

In FM if we can't see instructions we can't understand roles.

[Spart]

Some people simply don't understand that instructions define roles in real football, not vice versa.

In FM if we can't see instructions we can't understand roles.

I doubt that's the case to be honest looking at once been announced so far.

With the way we'll be forced to make more use of the team and individual shouts, instructions look like they will define the roles in the new system, just like in real life.

Take the Half-Back role for instance. In its description it explicitly states how the role affects the defenders based on the pre-set instructions of what such a role usually consists of. Your shouts would then alter and tweak that behaviour. Users just need to learn what these positions are.

I do think the mixed use of Enganche/Trequartista, False 9/DLF, Regista/FLP etc. is a bit misleading though and needs more explanation so that people better understand SI's definitions. That should and can be done through a decent bit of writing in a guide rather than sliders.

Sounds more like real football to me. If you want your winger to cut inside more, tell him to do so etc.

[qadsawee79]

Can someone please confirm whether the match plan wizard is included in FM or just in FMC?

[Spart]

Can someone please confirm whether the match plan wizard is included in FM or just in FMC?

It's for FMC.

[dsch]

... with some teams and some situations.

Build a different team in a different situation and you can (and perhaps should) use those team talk options (that’s how it is supposed to work anyway i.e. every option has equal value although their situational value differs, the same as how wwfan explained the roles and duties system)

The team talk options are a good example of where I'm afraid the tactical roles could end up. Right now, there is no possibility for new players to use the team talk system with any great finesse. What tends to happen is they get burned a few times, then decide to just ignore the thing or use a couple of safe options found through trial and error. Perhaps some will find their way onto the forums and read up on the underlying logic of the system, how it relates to personality and match situation. And yet, I would contend that even the state-of-the-art expertise on the forums is still fuzzy on many of the details, and what we do know has been gleaned from either trial and error (perhaps formalised as experiments, but experiments are just a name for trial and error en masse), or from consulting the numbers and attributes with an editor.

But everyone knows what 'aggressively' or 'calmly' means! Everyone knows what 'I have faith in you' means! ---The trouble is, the game engine models real-world situations with numbers, and there are many possible ways of doing this modelling, one just as valid as another, but which make a great difference to how the game plays out. What seems to be happening with the roles is there first one level of abstraction from real-world tactics to numbers and formulae in the match engine, and another level of abstraction on top of that from the numerical/algorithmic match engine to pithy verbal descriptions. The motivation behind the TC seems to be an attempt to let the player work directly with real-world tactics, and that is admirable, but only if we assume that the two levels of abstraction will cancel each other out

[dsch]

[This is supposed to continue from previous post. Can't edit for some reason.]

Obviously there are a range of possible outcomes, and I don't think it will be disastrous, or anything like it. The most likely outcome I can see is that casual players won't notice much of a difference, and those who are more dedicated will come to the forums for the kind of numerical and mechanistic clarifications that are now sought for team talks and personality types.

[furiousuk]

(perhaps formalised as experiments, but experiments are just a name for trial and error en masse)

Experiments are the exact opposite of this. They prove or disprove (or do neither) an hypothesis, you could refer to it as an assumption.

The team talk options are a good example of where I'm afraid the tactical roles could end up.

(I've been on holiday so I've only skim-read through this so I'll apologise now if I've misconstrued some of the opposing points) The idea, I believe, is that the new system actually removes the need to experiment in the scientific methodology of performing experiments, which is what some people have sought to do with the number-based system of sliders. True, they haven't actually done experiments because isolating variables in FM is impossible and its stupid anyway in an FM sense. The idea with words rather than numbers is that you learn in a human way, rather than a scientific way.

By removing sliders and numbers and all that abstraction you have to act in a way commensurate with how you would in real life. You learn to play FM and make decisions in FM in much the same way as you do in real life i.e. you do something based on judgement, you measure the outcome and you alter (or not) your approach next time and you also generalise that learning (experience) to other similar situations—if this is what you meant by trial-and-error then I get it

In order for FM to attain a new level of immersion then this shift has to happen.

However,

it is not contusive to meta-gaming. In meta-gaming you use sources of information from outside of the sphere of the game with which to make decisions (forums are metagaming of course but I'm aligning that with a manager asking another manager for advice which is perfectly realistic). Now, the sliders and numbers are in the gaming environment so that's all cool but they have no grounding (neither do player attributes but thats a whole different kettle). Moving the width slider from 12 to 16 means absolutely nothing to me unless I've made certain connections regarding the actual game. 'Playing wider' is a term that (because I know English and have some knowledge of how that pertains to football) I immediately understand—there is no gap (or abstraction) towards whether that means 4 clicks on a slider, or 7, or 1, it just is. Once I have made that decision I go through the normal human learning ritual of experience.

The problem I guess is that the wording of the roles has to align with your own interpretation of that word, and that, I think, is a fair point. You not only have to know what an Advanced Forward is but you have to know what FM considers an AF. This is an abstraction of course, but it is at least a word-driven one rather than a number based one. For any mathematician devising a 'picture' from a simple set of numbers isn't that difficult (edit: actually, it is difficult but good mathematicians learn to do this well) but it still requires some mental agility. Learning what something is and then using that is something that we all do (and constantly revise our opinion of what it is). So, learning what an AF is and then using that is a skill that every FMer will possess because we are all human and live in the real world (conversely, the AI absolutely can not do this, no AI—most of animals struggle—that I know of currently can although some are getting closer but you'd need a better computer to run it!).

[siambluebird]

Played with both over 12 years.

I can't begin to say how much better it has been to just use the TC. The sliders always felt like I was trying to solve a puzzle to win.

The TC has changed how I approach the game. Now, I focus on getting my team to play football how I want them to play. Then I start to focus on the results. Where did it break down? Why did we concede? Why didn't we score? I now feel I can begin to develop a sound game plan that has increased my enjoyment of the series no end.

Sliders did not give me the concept of holistic football that the TC has done. Sliders forced the game on me and I treated it as a game in itself. Being free of the sliders was like unlocking a set of handcuffs!

The new additions for FM14 now seem to add even more to my earlier observation. I will be able to start to expand an individuals role in my team philosophy more than I could in FM13.

I just can not accept that people do not get pleasure out of building their own style of football through instructions and shouts, and then being able to sit back and analyse matches using footballing terms.

How much I hated the "maybe just one more notch forward of backward" days!

[Beardeye]

I want to know that I managed to win a title because I kept my team more focused and less nervous during squeaky bum time

can you shed any light on what a user playing FMC can do during squeaky bum time? As there are no team talks or press conferences, or a motivation widget telling you who is nervous/complacent, the only thing I can think of doing is buying players with right personality, but given the fact that the pressure attribute is hidden, this is trial and error?

[qadsawee79]

@Spart Thanks mate for the answer

[Spart]

@Spart Thanks mate for the answer

No worries!

[däkkä]

but given the fact that the pressure attribute is hidden, this is trial and error?

Personality and media-handling. Look for players that are resilient, spirited, jovial or iron willed for personality and evasive and/or unflappable for media-handling if you want good pressure handling.

[dsch]

The idea with words rather than numbers is that you learn in a human way, rather than a scientific way.

By removing sliders and numbers and all that abstraction you have to act in a way commensurate with how you would in real life. You learn to play FM and make decisions in FM in much the same way as you do in real life i.e. you do something based on judgement, you measure the outcome and you alter (or not) your approach next time and you also generalise that learning (experience) to other similar situations—if this is what you meant by trial-and-error then I get it

This actually directly addresses the point I want to make. It looks like the numbers and abstraction will not be removed, but will instead be hidden. This is fine if there is one logically necessary and sufficient way to use numerical abstraction to model a game of football, but as long as that isn't the case, there's going to be more hidden numbers. The folks on the tactics forum do a great job of using the sliders, in conjunction with the TC, to implement a vision of how they want football to be played, and their (your) expertise is precisely not only in having such a vision, but also knowing the model used by the ME well enough to implement it. It might well be that the new TC will be as flexible, once the hidden numerical values of its descriptions have been sussed out, but I think it is overly optimistic to think that it will offer an immediate or unmediated access to real life tactics.

Edit: I should hasten to add that I don't think I am familiar enough with the sliders that their removal will be actually detrimental to myself. Just trying to bridge the apparent gulf of understanding between the various positions in the thread.

[furiousuk]

This actually directly addresses the point I want to make. It looks like the numbers and abstraction will not be removed, but will instead be hidden. This is fine if there is one logically necessary and sufficient way to use numerical abstraction to model a game of football, but as long as that isn't the case, there's going to be more hidden numbers. The folks on the tactics forum do a great job of using the sliders, in conjunction with the TC, to implement a vision of how they want football to be played, and their (your) expertise is precisely not only in having such a vision, but also knowing the model used by the ME well enough to implement it. It might well be that the new TC will be as flexible, once the hidden numerical values of its descriptions have been sussed out, but I think it is overly optimistic to think that it will offer an immediate or unmediated access to real life tactics.

Edit: I should hasten to add that I don't think I am familiar enough with the sliders that their removal will be actually detrimental to myself. Just trying to bridge the apparent gulf of understanding between the various positions in the thread.

Yeah, this is the bit that I think we need to move away from though.

I think the whole point of the system is that as end-users (gamers) our understanding of the numbers actually just gets in the way of the decisions we are actually making. Sure, we work out (sometimes very complex) systems for managing that complexity, and some of us really enjoy it (I use to love creating numerical systems) but all that is is an intermediate step to making our players do something close to what we want. Why not remove that complexity and let us get immediately on with 'controlling' (managing) our players? We talk using language, not numbers, so why not do the same in FM?

When we come around to using the language that the game provides then we don't care what the numbers are doing underneath, it makes no difference to us whatsoever. If my DL is too far forward I need to tell him to play deeper, before I could do that using sliders and checkboxes and such (numerical), now I'm forced to do it using language—the same stuff I use everyday! Whether FM should actually take the stance of forcing this decision on the user (us) is at the heart of the matter of course but it is the way most computing is going, I for one think it's about time too but it always must be a pain point.

Sure, underneath the system needs some numbers, no getting away from it (yet) with computers but as a user of that system I don't need to know how it works, only that it does and I gauge if it does or not by using it (i.e. by experience of whether that system meets my expectations or not).