FM14 - New Tactical Elements

[miguelalves]

Cut-inside will be hard-coded "on" for IFs, as it is an inherent part of the role.

Does that mean that in a future update or at least the 31th October we will not read that cut-inside is unavailable ?

[wwfan]

Does that mean that in a future update or at least the 31th October we will not read that cut-inside is unavailable ?

It's unavailable because it is hard-coded "on". Other greyed out instructions are unavailable because they are hard-coded as "off" for the role. I've raised this as not being clear enough, but am not sure how or if it will be changed.

[miguelalves]

It's unavailable because it is hard-coded "on". Other greyed out instructions are unavailable because they are hard-coded as "off" for the role. I've raised this as not being clear enough, but am not sure how or if it will be changed.

Well, at least you have raised it

[Fond Foat]

It's unavailable because it is hard-coded "on". Other greyed out instructions are unavailable because they are hard-coded as "off" for the role. I've raised this as not being clear enough, but am not sure how or if it will be changed.

Good to hear you raised this wwfan. It can get confusing

[Auqakuh]

It's unavailable because it is hard-coded "on". Other greyed out instructions are unavailable because they are hard-coded as "off" for the role. I've raised this as not being clear enough, but am not sure how or if it will be changed.

They could just add a tooltip for hard-coded instructions. Or, rather, two. For example, "This instruction is an essential part of this player's role, and thus is automatically in use," and its opposite.

[Auqakuh]

I'm not doing anything wrong, I'm watching full match mate. 36 shots, 17 off target, 19 on, 6 clear cut chances, 1 scored. They get 1 ccc (frankly I thought they had three), they score. My defenders can't anticipate long balls - they go in totally the wrong direction. They have hogh ant ratings, one and all. Kyle Walker gets skinned every time by folks with much less pace than he does. And most of all, all my shots are saved by a keeper who gets a 6.6 rating at the end.

Broken.

Your opposition instructions are wrong, or there's something wrong with your marking. The defenders appear to go in the "wrong direction" because they are moving to mark a player who is running in the opposite direction, leaving them stranded.

I get this issue if I pay attention to my assman telling me that X forward needs to be marked tightly AND closed down. Pick one or the other, not both, else you get crotchpunched on long balls.

That's totally a technical term.

As for Walker... there's something iffy about wide play. Pretty sure that's a known issue.

[wwfan]

They could just add a tooltip for hard-coded instructions. Or, rather, two. For example, "This instruction is an essential part of this player's role, and thus is automatically in use," and its opposite.

That's not a bad solution. I'll suggest it.

[sakrai]

What happened to the "Play through defense" shout? Is it gone for good? Thanks.

[Auqakuh]

I assumed it had been folded into "work ball into the box".

[Madminister]

While we're at it. What about "Pass to feet?" is that part of shorter passing or?

[RTHerringbone]

They could just add a tooltip for hard-coded instructions. Or, rather, two. For example, "This instruction is an essential part of this player's role, and thus is automatically in use," and its opposite.

Good idea.

I think something has to be done ideally, as it is an unnecessary grey area.

Just just adding a red border to locked out instructions, and a green border to locked in instructions would be pretty clear.

[miguelalves]

Good idea.

I think something has to be done ideally, as it is an unnecessary grey area.

Just just adding a red border to locked out instructions, and a green border to locked in instructions would be pretty clear.

Awesome ideia

[Barkers]

Any playmaker Role chosen automatically becomes your playmaker.

If you select more than one playmaker, the focus of passes towards them will be evenly split.

i dont want to have a specific playmaker though.

i just want the settings/instructions that the playmaker role has. i dont want to channel my play through the individual...

[RTHerringbone]

i dont want to have a specific playmaker though.

i just want the settings/instructions that the playmaker role has. i dont want to channel my play through the individual...

Then just tweak the Player Instructions of a non-Playmaking Role to fit your interpretation if what a Playmaker is.

That way, they won't be explicitly targeted by him team mates, but will still perform a playmaking sort of job with all play channeling through him.

As an example, you could choose a generic, neutral midfield Role like central midfielder and then ask him to Play Shorter, Try More Risky Passes, Dribble Less etc.

I'm at work, so don't know which (if any) of those instructions are available to that Role, but you get the idea.

[Barkers]

i really dont understand why specific instructions are greyed out for players. i can live with out sliders for with tempo etc but why grey out specific player instructions?

ive always set up my wide guys to have pretty much all their sliders for runs from deep, cross ball, run with ball, try through balls to normal. now they are locked to often?

wish i had looked at this thread before ordering yesterday.

[wwfan]

i really dont understand why specific instructions are greyed out for players. i can live with out sliders for with tempo etc but why grey out specific player instructions?

ive always set up my wide guys to have pretty much all their sliders for runs from deep, cross ball, run with ball, try through balls to normal. now they are locked to often?

wish i had looked at this thread before ordering yesterday.

They are not locked to often. They are locked to often for some roles, but not for others. Just pick a role that you can adapt to perform as you wish, and ignore one that is hard-coded to perform in a manner you don't like.

[Barkers]

so wide midfielder with attack duty:

so the instructions greyed out are

a)not applicable to that role/position and should be ignored

b)does it mean the player will hold up ball, cross more often, cross from byline etc by defualt?

[miguelalves]

so wide midfielder with attack duty:

so the instructions greyed out are

a)not applicable to that role/position and should be ignored

b)does it mean the player will hold up ball, cross more often, cross from byline etc by defualt?

If you just put your mouse on top of the grey instructions you will be able to read a box unavailable for this role" or something like this

[TOUGHGUY]

Then just tweak the Player Instructions of a non-Playmaking Role to fit your interpretation if what a Playmaker is.

That way, they won't be explicitly targeted by him team mates, but will still perform a playmaking sort of job with all play channeling through him.

As an example, you could choose a generic, neutral midfield Role like central midfielder and then ask him to Play Shorter, Try More Risky Passes, Dribble Less etc.

I'm at work, so don't know which (if any) of those instructions are available to that Role, but you get the idea.

Ah, but what if he wants to play the non-playmaking playmaker (euurghh) with the settings of a playmaker and have the individual instructions available as well. Surely this is by no means far fetched and in no way game breaking or illogical. I know I am just repeating what I had said already in this thread but I just don't understand the reasoning behind some of the decisions. In most cases I can, the roles are largely logical as is the step away from sliders, but in this particular case I don't see the real life or 'match engine safe' reasoning behind it.

[RTHerringbone]

Ah, but what if he wants to play the non-playmaking playmaker (euurghh) with the settings of a playmaker and have the individual instructions available as well.

Sorry, I don't quite understand this point, could you clarify please?

If you create a playmaker out of a generic Role, whose individual instructions do you want available?

[TOUGHGUY]

The ones that you exhaust by shaping that role in the first place. Sure the options make it possible to shape something resembling a playmaker (role) out of a more neutral preset, but first I'm not sure they will reflect it perfectly and second, even if that was not an issue, you are limited in how you can make use of this faux role further. That this – and not a simple, dedicated playmaker option – is the solution seems to me somewhat limiting and unnecessarily complicated.

[RTHerringbone]

The ones that you exhaust by shaping that role in the first place. Sure the options make it possible to shape something resembling a playmaker (role) out of a more neutral preset, but first I'm not sure they will reflect it perfectly and second, even if that was not an issue, you are limited in how you can make use of this faux role further. That this – and not a simple, dedicated playmaker option – is the solution seems to me somewhat limiting and unnecessarily complicated.

The other argument is, simply, why would you want to "create" a playmaker but not channel play through him?

[RiverReveal666]

Do the stars that show a players suitability to a role have any bearing on how he will perform or are they just a guideline to how he might perform? I was going to use Kagawa as an Treq but he is under 2 stars for that role compared to 4 stars as a playmaker. Is there any underlining system that will nerf him if I choose to play him as a Treq instead of a playmaker?

Just to echo some points above, an easy visual indication of whether a player instruction is greyed out because they can't or have to perform the function would be ideal. Instead of grey, green for locked on and red for locked off would be good.

Edit: I have some other questions about the playmaker role in general. If you decide to exploit the flanks but also play with a playmaker in the Att mid center then which style of play gets priority? Do the defensive players look for the wide players to exploit the flanks or through the playmaker in the center as play is channeled through him?

[TOUGHGUY]

Surely that is not an outlandish concept? That a technically gifted player with good vision might be better utilized with the role settings of a playmaker without the explicit need to channel all play through him or have him share this focus with a similar player is a fairly straightforward and reasonable idea. That a good passer of the ball is asked to make better/more specialized use of his skills when he is in possession does in no way imply he has to be the dedicated playmaker in the FM sense of the word.

[RTHerringbone]

Surely that is not an outlandish concept? That a technically gifted player with good vision might be better utilized with the role settings of a playmaker without the explicit need to channel all play through him or have him share this focus with a similar player is a fairly straightforward and reasonable idea. That a good passer of the ball is asked to make better/more specialized use of his skills when he is in possession does in no way imply he has to be the dedicated playmaker in the FM sense of the word.

It's not outlandish at all.

We can attempt to create a "faux" playmaker by editing another Roles' settings to create a ball player, who will not be treated as a passing pivot for his team. He might not perfectly mirror a Playmaker, but the essence of the Role would be there. If you then want to try to modify this player again, beyond his now exhausted player instructions, then a different Role would have to be edited to match whatever it is you now want him to be.

Bottom line is, if you want to further edit a Role that you'd already tweaked to become a form of playmaker, then the argument stands that maybe you didn't want him to be a non-focused playmaker in the first case.

[Da_Funk]

Good idea.

I think something has to be done ideally, as it is an unnecessary grey area.

Just just adding a red border to locked out instructions, and a green border to locked in instructions would be pretty clear.

On the bottom "Key" bar you can add a grey circle and the text "Unavailable". You can use the blue color for "Always active".

If there's not enough space to add both on the bar or if with the added blue there are too many colors (it might be too much clownish), you can color the text inside the button for example.

So you have the green "selected" button with a no-white text for the "Always active", for example.

You still have to tell the user about the differences somewhere though.

[RTHerringbone]

On the bottom "Key" bar you can add a grey circle and the text "Unavailable". You can use the blue color for "Always active".

If there's not enough space to add both on the bar or if with the added blue there are too many colors (it might be too much clownish), you can color the text inside the button for example.

So you have the green "selected" button with a no-white text for the "Always active", for example.

You still have to tell the user about the differences somewhere though.

Yes, a key, coloured text or coloured borders would be very useful.

Coloured borders or coloured text would presumably be quicker in development terms, as they wouldn't get held up by translation issues you get when adding new text, but there would need to be a communication to let users know what all these new colours meant.

[Fond Foat]

Surely that is not an outlandish concept? That a technically gifted player with good vision might be better utilized with the role settings of a playmaker without the explicit need to channel all play through him or have him share this focus with a similar player is a fairly straightforward and reasonable idea. That a good passer of the ball is asked to make better/more specialized use of his skills when he is in possession does in no way imply he has to be the dedicated playmaker in the FM sense of the word.

I think the point is you can set enough shouts for a standard central midfielder to make him a very effective creative player without actually channeling the ball through him. If you make him an advanced playmaker you will get the ball played through him because you have marked him as the playmaker. It is actually quite logical really.

[Da_Funk]

Yes, a key, coloured text or coloured borders would be very useful.

Coloured borders or coloured text would presumably be quicker in development terms, as they wouldn't get held up by translation issues you get when adding new text, but there would need to be a communication to let users know what all these new colours meant.

And what it will be very awesome is to see the "Always active" and "Unavailable" instructions somewhere when you select the role of a player, so when you scroll them you have immediately this information. Maybe it's redundant but might be something immediate and useful.

[Barkers]

i really dont understand why anything needed to be changed in the TC.

these changes should have been implemented into the dumbed down classic mode maybe for people who havnt got the time to play about and tweek settings but the full game? takes alot of control away imo.

[Fond Foat]

i really dont understand why anything needed to be changed in the TC.

these changes should have been implemented into the dumbed down classic mode maybe for people who havnt got the time to play about and tweek settings but the full game? takes alot of control away imo.

I think that was part of the thinking behind the change Barkers. The manager should give the player an instruction and then the players attributes will decide how well that instruction is carried out rather than trying to control a player with a piece of string. From your last few posts it is obvious you have not take to the new system, but there is a reason a lot of people do like it. Firstly, it has not been dumbed down, and there are a lot of tweaks you can make. Just because you are not moving a slider back and forward a notch or two does not mean that attempting to find the right instructions and the right role for the players in your team is simple. How about trying it for a week or two and see what you think then.

[ham_aka_stam]

Do the stars that show a players suitability to a role have any bearing on how he will perform or are they just a guideline to how he might perform? I was going to use Kagawa as an Treq but he is under 2 stars for that role compared to 4 stars as a playmaker. Is there any underlining system that will nerf him if I choose to play him as a Treq instead of a playmaker?

Just to echo some points above, an easy visual indication of whether a player instruction is greyed out because they can't or have to perform the function would be ideal. Instead of grey, green for locked on and red for locked off would be good.

Edit: I have some other questions about the playmaker role in general. If you decide to exploit the flanks but also play with a playmaker in the Att mid center then which style of play gets priority? Do the defensive players look for the wide players to exploit the flanks or through the playmaker in the center as play is channeled through him?

No, the stars are based on an average of the attributes the game thinks are important for that role. Which, as you probably know, are a little shaky. The players don't suffer any penalty for playing a role they don't get stars in, like they would being played out of position.

For your edit, I'm pretty sure you'll have both being targeted equally (the playmaker, and the wings). You'll probably find central players who aren't the playmaker receive less of the ball, unless by action of the playmaker or the wide players. That's awkwardly worded, but I hope it makes sense.

i really dont understand why anything needed to be changed in the TC.

these changes should have been implemented into the dumbed down classic mode maybe for people who havnt got the time to play about and tweek settings but the full game? takes alot of control away imo.

I disagree. These changes have allowed SI to do things like have the CBs move wide when a HB is played in front of them, or have a false 9 dropping deep trigger more runs from those around him. Your options aren't dumbed down, just changed so that they have to be accessed differently.

The only loss of control I don't like personally is the playmaker/targetman issue, but I've not seen a problem play-wise from it so far, so I'm just getting on with it and not worrying about it.

[RTHerringbone]

i really dont understand why anything needed to be changed in the TC.

these changes should have been implemented into the dumbed down classic mode maybe for people who havnt got the time to play about and tweek settings but the full game? takes alot of control away imo.

There is enough information in this thread, and in the latter stages of the one linked below, to answer these questions.

TC changed because sliders were removed; SI couldn't remove sliders without giving users control over the default Roles and Templates.

In it's current guise, the TC-only user now has far more control than ever before.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/362969-FM-14-Sliders-gone-thoughts

In addition, FMC is not "dumbed down". It is on precisely the same tactical level as Simulation mode - it is the interactions and team talks that have been streamlined or removed in FMC.

[TOUGHGUY]

We can attempt to create a "faux" playmaker by editing another Roles' settings to create a ball player, who will not be treated as a passing pivot for his team. He might not perfectly mirror a Playmaker, but the essence of the Role would be there. If you then want to try to modify this player again, beyond his now exhausted player instructions, then a different Role would have to be edited to match whatever it is you now want him to be.

Bottom line is, if you want to further edit a Role that you'd already tweaked to become a form of playmaker, then the argument stands that maybe you didn't want him to be a non-focused playmaker in the first case.

I can't help but feel that is a slightly evasive answer, if it is an answer at all. I do want him to be as close to the playmaker settings as possible. I want him to have the instructions and options of a playmaker. The initial settings might allow to move the player towards the former to some degree, but the latter – further customization – will be impossible. The game allows for these tweaks when a playmaker role is picked, leading me to believe there is nothing particularly wrong with wanting them, but they are impossible using this makeshift approach/

Your suggestion to use a different role as a base does not offer a solution either, as regardless of which role is edited, this limitation will be present. Not to mention that these options are not necessarily to be implemented when 'creating' the role, so to speak, but one might want to access them during a game. Except that won't be possible either.

To me this is looks like a case of too many hoops to jump through to achieve (and even then not fully) something that is otherwise entirely viable and present in the game – the playmaker roles – except with the potentially unnecessary baggage of always being coupled with being the designated playmaker setting.

None of the above would even be an issue if these two concepts were not tied together. To put it crudely, not every good passer of the ball needs to be the creative fulcrum of a team. But all good passers of the ball should be able to be told to play even riskier passes.

[themadsheep2001]

I can't help but feel that is a slightly evasive answer, if it is an answer at all. I do want him to be as close to the playmaker settings as possible. I want him to have the instructions and options of a playmaker. The initial settings might allow to move the player towards the former to some degree, but the latter – further customization – will be impossible. The game allows for these tweaks when a playmaker role is picked, leading me to believe there is nothing particularly wrong with wanting them, but they are impossible using this makeshift approach/

Your suggestion to use a different role as a base does not offer a solution either, as regardless of which role is edited, this limitation will be present. Not to mention that these options are not necessarily to be implemented when 'creating' the role, so to speak, but one might want to access them during a game. Except that won't be possible either.

To me this is looks like a case of too many hoops to jump through to achieve (and even then not fully) something that is otherwise entirely viable and present in the game – the playmaker roles – except with the potentially unnecessary baggage of always being coupled with being the designated playmaker setting.

None of the above would even be an issue if these two concepts were not tied together. To put it crudely, not every good passer of the ball needs to be the creative fulcrum of a team. But all good passers of the ball should be able to be told to play even riskier passes.

It's not an evasive answer at all.. Good passers of the ball who are not the fulcrum can be told to play even riskier passes. It's infact exactly what I am doing in my side right now.

[Cleon]

It's not an evasive answer at all.. Good passers of the ball who are not the fulcrum can be told to play even riskier passes. It's infact exactly what I am doing in my side right now.

I've also adopted this approach on my current save

[RTHerringbone]

I can't help but feel that is a slightly evasive answer, if it is an answer at all. I do want him to be as close to the playmaker settings as possible. I want him to have the instructions and options of a playmaker. The initial settings might allow to move the player towards the former to some degree, but the latter – further customization – will be impossible.

I wonder if you actually want a Playmaker at all to be honest.

A good passer is a good passer. He doesn't need to be in a Playmaker Role to pass, and any Role that you can encourage to try More Risky Passes will have the capacity to influence the game in a "Playmaking" way. As such, why so obsessed with retaining the available instructions of a Playmaker?

I'm not sure what your angle is. I think you are either seeking open, customisable Roles, or in a roundabout way, you are trying to present this as an example of a the new system "forcing a lack of control" - a general quote doing the rounds, not one of yours.

[ajsr1982]

I wonder if you actually want a Playmaker at all to be honest.

A good passer is a good passer. He doesn't need to be in a Playmaker Role to pass, and any Role that you can encourage to try More Risky Passes will have the capacity to influence the game in a "Playmaking" way. As such, why so obsessed with retaining the available instructions of a Playmaker?

I'm not sure what your angle is. I think you are either seeking open, customisable Roles, or in a roundabout way, you are trying to present this as an example of a the new system "forcing a lack of control" - a general quote doing the rounds, not one of yours.

I could be wrong, but I think what he's getting at is that he wants to be able to select a player with a DLP role without having him as one of the designated playmakers, and he doesn't want to have to go to the trouble of modifying a non-playmaking role to do so, as it is a) a bit of a pain, and b) won't exactly do what he wants.

Personally, I don't see it a huge issue given that passing is one of the fundamental skills important to pretty much all midfield roles.

[TOUGHGUY]

I wonder if you actually want a Playmaker at all to be honest.

A good passer is a good passer. He doesn't need to be in a Playmaker Role to pass, and any Role that you can encourage to try More Risky Passes will have the capacity to influence the game in a "Playmaking" way. As such, why so obsessed with retaining the available instructions of a Playmaker?

I'm not sure what your angle is. I think you are either seeking open, customisable Roles, or in a roundabout way, you are trying to present this as an example of a the new system "forcing a lack of control" - a general quote doing the rounds, not one of yours.

I would like the playmaker role and the playmaker option to be separate. Hence the 'good passer' bit. I would like to utilize a player with the settings of a playmaker role but without focusing on him as the designated playmaker. I thought I couldn't be more clear – after all I started this discussion with a reply to your own answer to Barkers about this particular issue. Ajsr1982 is spot on. Customizable roles would be neat and lack of control is certainly a discussion worthy topic but that's not at all what I am getting at right here and now.

[spiros13]

One of best false 9 was ManU's Paul Scholes

[RTHerringbone]

I would like the playmaker role and the playmaker option to be separate. Hence the 'good passer' bit. I would like to utilize a player with the settings of a playmaker role but without focusing on him as the designated playmaker. I thought I couldn't be more clear – after all I started this discussion with a reply to your own answer to Barkers about this particular issue. Ajsr1982 is spot on. Customizable roles would be neat and lack of control is certainly a discussion worthy topic but that's not at all what I am getting at right here and now.

OK. Well, in a nutshell, you can't get what you want with the way the Playmaker Roles now trigger the old "Playmaker tick box".

The closest you can get, is something along the lines of what I said earlier, which, as you state, might not suit your needs.

From a purely logical point of view, I can see why this approach has been used.

Ordinarily, if you have someone with all the redeeming qualities of a Playmaker, then it seems appropriate that play should be channeled towards that player / those players.

If SI get loads of feedback suggesting that this is a wrong approach, and the tick boxes for this (and Target Man) should be brought back, maybe they will.

[TOUGHGUY]

Well, yeah, I realize it does boil down to that – hence my suggestion or rather hope it might change. I can see the reasoning as well, particularly as in the current iteration of the game it makes the playmaker roles stand out even more and indeed help them do 'what it says on the tin' in a way, but at the same time I believe that simply having a more creative midfield role is not a particularly uncommon concept. Over in another thread I used someone else's example of Modric who hardly was Real Madrid's go to man but would easily be described using the playmaker role duties. As I said it's hardly a major issue, and in fact the target man option receiving the exact same treatment might be much more problematic as unlike playmakers who can be somewhat crudely remade its run onto/feet/head functionality seems impossible to replicate.

[RTHerringbone]

As I said it's hardly a major issue, and in fact the target man option receiving the exact same treatment might be much more problematic as unlike playmakers who can be somewhat crudely remade its run onto/feet/head functionality seems impossible to replicate.

The Target Man supply is linked to the Team Passing setting. Shorter will Pass To Feet, More Direct will Pass To Head.

If you Pass Into Space, you'll play passes for him to run onto.

[TOUGHGUY]

Oh yes I have read that somewhere, by Cleon in the GD I think, I was thinking more about the options in and of themselves rather than how they affect the current target men roles – whose supply might be logically tied to other settings. It was the general application of the target man functionality without being tied to a target man role set to hold up the ball which is what I had in mind, or more eloquently put 'being the target man' and 'targeting the man' as dafuge says in this thread.

[miguelalves]

Nice debate here, but let me try something different...

why does a FB (support) has the option to cut inside available ????

[james_wilko]

I imagine it`s for when you`re playing a fullback on the side of his weaker foot who has good long shots, so he can cut inside from deep and have a crack at goal.

[HaydarAli]

Hi everybody,

I've created 2 threads that might interest you.

The first one talks about the importance of an overview of default instructions for the tactic creation and the second one is about the possibility of tweaking those default instructions.

Here are the links to the threads:

1. Suggestion for the Lacunas of the New Tactic System

2. Creation of Own Roles and Styles of Play

I would really appreciate it if you take the time to read them.

Of course, all replies are welcome and encouraged!

PS: don't forget to participate to the poll!

Ali

[dooro23]

Stupid me (as in I) just realised something... Is it possible, that tight marking is off by default for every role?

[miguelalves]

Why can't a FB cross from deeper positions with a supporting role ????

[Shakes]

Why can't a FB cross from deeper positions with a supporting role ????

I'm guessing that is a default instruction for the role.