FM 14: Sliders gone, thoughts?

[Candre168]

So FM14 sees the end of tactical sliders, something synonymous with the FM series.

How do people feel about this? Are we happy sliders have gone for an 'easier to understand' system based more on shouts? Or will we miss the precision and customisation sliders gave us?

Debate away.

[RTHerringbone]

This has been discussed fairly extensively in here:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/359194-FM14-New-Tactical-Elements

[Candre168]

Sorry, I was curious to see a poll!

If some moderator could remove the 'of' in the first poll option it'd be appreciated.

[RocheBag]

I'm glad they're gone, but not because it's simpler as the OP says. Because it's far more realistic. No manager has the ability to say to his team "I want you to play 14 out of 20 width" and neither should we.

[Candre168]

I'm glad they're gone, but not because it's simpler as the OP says. Because it's far more realistic. No manager has the ability to say to his team "I want you to play 14 out of 20 width" and neither should we.

No manager decides whether to buy a player based on 1-20 attributes either though.

[BiggusD]

I stopped using sliders because I realised that they had become so sensitive in relation to the other players around a given position that I would basically have to re-create a TC tactic the hard way (extensive testing). SI essentially removed other interpretations of the game than the one they had in mind.

So manual adjustment of the sliders became rather useless in FM13. I still hope I get to choose stuff like removing Hold Up Ball or Roaming, though.

I don't think I will miss the sliders - especially if it is true that there are more roles to choose from.

[RTHerringbone]

I don't think I will miss the sliders - especially if it is true that there are more roles to choose from.

It is certain that there are eight new Roles - it was confirmed in one of the earlier video blogs.

[RTHerringbone]

No manager decides whether to buy a player based on 1-20 attributes either though.

Nope, and that's why I'd lose attributes as soon as possible too.

Scouting and the training module should be tweaked to better fit the more conceptual direction the game is going in, in my opinion.

[phnompenhandy]

Nope, and that's why I'd lose attributes as soon as possible too.

Scouting and the training module should be tweaked to better fit the more conceptual direction the game is going in, in my opinion.

Yup, this. It's all moving in the right direction, in my opinion. The shouts, team and individual player instructions are becoming more comprehensive, and what is lost in precision ("close down increase from 12 to 14) is more than made up for in realism.

[USMNT10]

Them getting rid of the sliders is a good sign. Great sign in fact. It means SI is confident with their work. Sliders are for us to make adjustments on their unrealistic performance of the game. Don't need sliders if the sim engine is where they want it to be.

If definitely would be nice in the coming years to see them changing the player rating format. Keep the "under the hood" they have now, just have it displayed to us differently and for the most part in a non points rating scale. Have a scout give a 1-5 rating, and then have speed test results, not point ratings, have strength test results like bench, squat, etc. and different agility test results. Have some type of intelligence test results etc. And then have us users take those, plus on the field performance and decide where a guy should be and if he is a star or not.

[mentalist123]

I strongly support the loss of sliders.

Sliders are tools for previous ME.

Now ME has improved!

[Campbell]

Them getting rid of the sliders is a good sign. Great sign in fact. It means SI is confident with their work. Sliders are for us to make adjustments on their unrealistic performance of the game. Don't need sliders if the sim engine is where they want it to be.

If definitely would be nice in the coming years to see them changing the player rating format. Keep the "under the hood" they have now, just have it displayed to us differently and for the most part in a non points rating scale. Have a scout give a 1-5 rating, and then have speed test results, not point ratings, have strength test results like bench, squat, etc. and different agility test results. Have some type of intelligence test results etc. And then have us users take those, plus on the field performance and decide where a guy should be and if he is a star or not.

I strongly agree with this suggestion. An initial step in that direction might address only the mental and technical attributes, since displaying the physical attributes does not in any way feel unrealistic (i.e. they are just a numeric abstraction of speed/strength/agility test results). As an extension of the current 'fog of war' option, I would like to see an option (a) to hide mental attributes entirely - so that we are forced to deduce mentality from existing descriptions of player personality, personal interactions, on-field performance and commentary etc; and (b) for technical attributes, to give a much more course grained rating, say 'poor' (1-7), 'acceptable' (8-12), 'good' (13-16), 'strong' (17-20). Would these sorts of changes be that difficult to code, if there was the demand?

[USMNT10]

I strongly agree with this suggestion. An initial step in that direction might address only the mental and technical attributes, since displaying the physical attributes does not in any way feel unrealistic (i.e. they are just a numeric abstraction of speed/strength/agility test results). As an extension of the current 'fog of war' option, I would like to see an option (a) to hide mental attributes entirely - so that we are forced to deduce mentality from existing descriptions of player personality, personal interactions, on-field performance and commentary etc; and (b) for technical attributes, to give a much more course grained rating, say 'poor' (1-7), 'acceptable' (8-12), 'good' (13-16), 'strong' (17-20). Would these sorts of changes be that difficult to code, if there was the demand?

Yes. Also, on the viewers end, keep everything 1-5 so that there is a lot of variability or rather a lot of unknown.

So Basically a scouts overall grade 1-5, or 1 star - 5 stars

Strength score 1-5

Speed score 1-5

agility score 1-5

endurance score 1-5

Intelligence score 1-5

and then keep everything else hidden under the hood.

But with the 1-5 star on say, Speed, under the hood, it isn't actually 1-5. It is a higher range. So a guy has a 4 star rating, then his actual under the hood rating can be somewhere within the range of 14-17. But we will never know that actual number. And say his strength rating is 5 (or 5 stars) then under the hood, his strength rating can be anywhere between 18-20. But again, we will never know that actual number. We just know that as a 5 star for his strength, he is regarded as a top tier strength guy. SI could also expand the rating range under the hood beyond the normal 20. It could be expanded to 25, where within each 1-5 star rating, there can be a range of 5 actual pts. So it would look like this:

SPEED(out of 25):

* = 1-5

** = 6-10

*** = 11-15

**** = 16-20

***** = 21-25

or keep it out of 20 so then it would be 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20. But again, we never know those numbers, we just know that the scout gave his speed a 3 star, so then his speed has to be somewhere in the 11-15 out of 25 range. Or rather 9-12 out of 20.

Makes sense?

And again, that would only be for the skills that can be measured in real life. Speed, strength, agility, endurance, etc. And then just keep the rest of the ratings hidden. And just use those physical attributes that were EFFICIENTLY scouted, plus the player's current form on the pitch a long with their past history or altercations, personality issues, or lack there of, leadership roles, etc...to then determine if the guy is capable of being a starter, first teamer, reserve, once in a lifetime, or a guy to avoid all together.

[wwfan]

I'm completely shocked (and happily amazed) by this poll result. It shows how a vocal minority can twist one's perception of the general feeling of the forums.

[wazza]

Glad there gone completely now - the new system makes the game even more realistic than it was b4

[Deano565]

I'm in favour of losing the sliders...

However, I don't agree with getting rid of 1-20 attribute ratings as has been suggested. Of course managers don't rate players according to this system, but they could if they so wished - the SI scouts manage to, after all. And on the whole everyone seems to agree that they provide a pretty accurate rating of the player's abilities. They're easy to quantify and easy to understand - you can see and understand why Lionel Messi has 20 first touch, or why Leighton Baines has 20 crossing.

We all enjoy a game which simulates a job we would all love to have. But lets not over-complicate it to the extent where it just becomes a chore.

[MonsterMunch]

What is the new system?

[Lord Dakier]

The one thing I couldn't stand about the sliders is you have all these master tacticians who spoke like changing a single slider only slightly would completely destroy the tactics they made. Glad they're gone more so because now SI can focus on improving just one system rather than both.

[Campbell]

I'm in favour of losing the sliders...

However, I don't agree with getting rid of 1-20 attribute ratings as has been suggested. Of course managers don't rate players according to this system, but they could if they so wished - the SI scouts manage to, after all. And on the whole everyone seems to agree that they provide a pretty accurate rating of the player's abilities. They're easy to quantify and easy to understand - you can see and understand why Lionel Messi has 20 first touch, or why Leighton Baines has 20 crossing.

We all enjoy a game which simulates a job we would all love to have. But lets not over-complicate it to the extent where it just becomes a chore.

I didn't suggest getting rid of the attribute ratings. The match engine would use them and you can see them if you want to But I think there should be an option, as an extension of the existing 'fog of war', to display fewer and more coarse grained attributes if that is what the user wants. It would make the game much more challenging. And obviously in suggesting this I can see and understand why Messi has 20 first touch and 20 almost eveverything else For that matter, I would be happy to 'grey out' the ability to assess potential ability, or make that much, much less reliable. Cheers.

[arsenalthebest]

very bad decision imo

[TOUGHGUY]

I'm glad they're gone, but not because it's simpler as the OP says. Because it's far more realistic. No manager has the ability to say to his team "I want you to play 14 out of 20 width" and neither should we.

People are so quick to use this as an argument – and then fail to acknowledge it works both ways. I am pretty sure every manager has the ability to say to his team he wants them to play even much deeper than when "drop deeper" is used. Except in the game. Which is disappointing since in fact, even the game acknowledges that variable depth is possible, as various preset tactics have various depths. Only you cannot use them if they are not tied to a given basic tactic. Of course a higher line is generally speaking inherent to an aggressive attacking setup, but not every attacking team adapts the same particular details or can change them in one way only. And I say that as a proponent of 'wordy' tactics.

[Bpz73]

I play since the very first CM and never touched a slider in my life, apart from those relative to defensive line height or closing down (also because the older versions didn't have sliders yet hehe). I will not miss them: i also believe the game will be less ruled by "mathematical" decisions and more by the "feeling". Disagree, however, on taking away the stats (which are 1-200, not 1-20. So two players with 20 in Technique might have a huge difference in quality). A perfect ME and a perfect feedback from the staff would allow us to understand player attributes by ourselves but we still don't have neither of them.

[USMNT10]

I play since the very first CM and never touched a slider in my life, apart from those relative to defensive line height or closing down (also because the older versions didn't have sliders yet hehe). I will not miss them: i also believe the game will be less ruled by "mathematical" decisions and more by the "feeling". Disagree, however, on taking away the stats (which are 1-200, not 1-20. So two players with 20 in Technique might have a huge difference in quality). A perfect ME and a perfect feedback from the staff would allow us to understand player attributes by ourselves but we still don't have neither of them.

No one said to get rid of the ratings. They would still be there, they would just be displayed to us differently, and in more of a realistic format. And the ratings are out of 200? First I ever heard of this.

[Select_screen_name:]

No sliders on the tactical part of the game is obviously best, for reasons already explained.

However, you'd need to convince me more to get rid of the stats 1-20 for players, though. Saying someone is 'good' or just 'below average' doesn't give enough detail about the player ad his style. You can probably only ever decide how good a player is by watching them, which is beyond any sort of match engine ability right now. Until that happens, stats should stay.

[YKW]

I haven't used the tactical sliders almost at all since the TC came in, so I won't miss them.

A greater level of complexity in tactics is needed though, I would argue that there just isn't enough to do.

Good basis for a great system though.

[Bpz73]

No one said to get rid of the ratings. They would still be there, they would just be displayed to us differently, and in more of a realistic format. And the ratings are out of 200? First I ever heard of this.

They are. So, for instance, two players having 17 in their crossing skill could actually be a 171 against a 179 so they have different abilities but the character sheet only shows the rounded down numbers and is 17 for both. For this reason, sometimes your coaches tell you that a player increased his X ability but the numerical value you see is still the same: probably is, let's say, a 171 that became a 172 or 173.

[Argamas]

I think it will be better. The sliders were - in my opinion - too much detail. You were working the game, not the tactics. I hope the new system will chance that

[BiggusD]

I'm completely shocked (and happily amazed) by this poll result. It shows how a vocal minority can twist one's perception of the general feeling of the forums.

tbh I haven't seen that many argue for the classic tactics in FM13.

And I want to say that I disagree with the direction FM is taking, I did last year and I do now. I still like the game, though, so in order to continue to play it I had to use the TC instead since I couldn't be bothered playtesting my way to a classic tactic that did what I wanted the team to do.

When talking about the direction, I mean the removal of "non-canon" tactics and the increased focus on in-match and match-to-match adaptations to the AI opponents. If FM14 follows up on this, "realism" might have been bumped up so much that unless you do exactly the same things as the AI managers your club will peform worse than if you weren't the manager. I don't relish the thought of FM14 being a game of rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock in footballing terms; they have a quick striker - yeah you have to drop deeper; they have an attacking midfielder - you have to employ a defensive midfielder or close the gap between midfield and defense etc etc etc. All attempted strategies are guaranteed to succeed, because if not people would complain about tactical changes not doing anything. The window of natural player adaptation to different circumstances have narrowed down the last few versions - are they now gone?

If, so, what's the point of playing the game?

I hope this is not the case, though, that SI realizes that any given strategy is an attempt at doing something, not success. Real world football see teams fail at what they set out to do every match day and to a large extent, the quality of the players determine who best adapts to that.

[Spart]

tbh I haven't seen that many argue for the classic tactics in FM13.

And I want to say that I disagree with the direction FM is taking, I did last year and I do now. I still like the game, though, so in order to continue to play it I had to use the TC instead since I couldn't be bothered playtesting my way to a classic tactic that did what I wanted the team to do.

When talking about the direction, I mean the removal of "non-canon" tactics and the increased focus on in-match and match-to-match adaptations to the AI opponents. If FM14 follows up on this, "realism" might have been bumped up so much that unless you do exactly the same things as the AI managers your club will peform worse than if you weren't the manager. I don't relish the thought of FM14 being a game of rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock in footballing terms; they have a quick striker - yeah you have to drop deeper; they have an attacking midfielder - you have to employ a defensive midfielder or close the gap between midfield and defense etc etc etc. All attempted strategies are guaranteed to succeed, because if not people would complain about tactical changes not doing anything. The window of natural player adaptation to different circumstances have narrowed down the last few versions - are they now gone?

If, so, what's the point of playing the game?

I hope this is not the case, though, that SI realizes that any given strategy is an attempt at doing something, not success. Real world football see teams fail at what they set out to do every match day and to a large extent, the quality of the players determine who best adapts to that.

Teams will still succeed or fail based on normal football logic though, no? Perhaps standardising things to some extent now will allow for a more liberalised system that makes sense in the future, rather than a free for all that can be very gamey.

[MonsterMunch]

What is the new system?

[Tubey84]

I'm glad the sliders are gone as they were poorly optimised and resulted in players being punished too harshly for one slightly incorrect setting for one player. It's the way the series was heading over quite a few FM iterations and it makes sense to get rid completely now.

However, I'm very concerned that the replacement will be a very dumbed down FM experience. It needs to be pretty damn good to avoid "cookie cutter" tactical sets being developed which restrict players to only one viable way of employing a 4-4-2 etc.

To give a comparison, it's like the "talent trees" in World of Warcraft - for those not aware, it allowed you to customise your playstyle with your characters. What WoW did was streamline the trees so that only one "route" was particularly viable; people sussed the optimum way of playing and all diversity was stripped from the game.

But we'll see. Those saying yay or nay to the new system before playing it are jumping the gun for obvious reasons.

[higgins]

I play since the very first CM and never touched a slider in my life, apart from those relative to defensive line height or closing down (also because the older versions didn't have sliders yet hehe). I will not miss them: i also believe the game will be less ruled by "mathematical" decisions and more by the "feeling". Disagree, however, on taking away the stats (which are 1-200, not 1-20. So two players with 20 in Technique might have a huge difference in quality). A perfect ME and a perfect feedback from the staff would allow us to understand player attributes by ourselves but we still don't have neither of them.

Sorry, but the whole game is ruled by numbers and it will always be, at least under the hood.

Some people simply make confusion between what they're seeing and what's really happening.

[higgins]

I'm glad the sliders are gone as they were poorly optimised and resulted in players being punished too harshly for one slightly incorrect setting for one player. It's the way the series was heading over quite a few FM iterations and it makes sense to get rid completely now.

However, I'm very concerned that the replacement will be a very dumbed down FM experience. It needs to be pretty damn good to avoid "cookie cutter" tactical sets being developed which restrict players to only one viable way of employing a 4-4-2 etc.

To give a comparison, it's like the "talent trees" in World of Warcraft - for those not aware, it allowed you to customise your playstyle with your characters. What WoW did was streamline the trees so that only one "route" was particularly viable; people sussed the optimum way of playing and all diversity was stripped from the game.

But we'll see. Those saying yay or nay to the new system before playing it are jumping the gun for obvious reasons.

Sliders are not the main problem, how they will be replaced is my main concern.

The vocal minority.

[milnerpoint]

Yeah its a good thing for me, the sliders were redundant a while ago when the TC came into it, obviously SI and probably WWFAN are now happier with the state of the TC that they feel they can take away the sliders, which to me, is a really good sign. My only gripe would be it starts to limit everyone to play the same way, but thats a minor thing i guess.

[RTHerringbone]

My only gripe would be it starts to limit everyone to play the same way, but thats a minor thing i guess.

There are limitations and there are limitations.

Whilst sliders allowed a huge amount of combinations, I believe that the "limitations" of the new system still allow 2,000,000+ combinations.

These combinations stem from how you combine formation, strategy, style, role, duty, Team Instructions and Player Instructions.

For those who firmly adhere to the TC structure, it will actually give us more options.

I never changed a slider as I didn't want to inadvertently create a conflict anywhere, or to nullify shouts.

Now, users like me can confidently tweak individual instructions with individual shouts, and hopefully we can influence Team Instructions in the same way.

[Ike013]

You lose so much adaptability and that all for resembling more to awful fifa manager ... I've been playing both games for years so I do know what I'm talking about.

The sliders have always worked and made this game the best ever together with the point rating system.

I wonder who will be the "vocal minority" when sales for the game go down.

[themadsheep2001]

You lose so much adaptability and that all for resembling more to awful fifa manager ... I've been playing both games for years so I do know what I'm talking about.

The sliders have always worked and made this game the best ever together with the point rating system.

I wonder who will be the "vocal minority" when sales for the game go down.

Except this patently isn't true...

[milnerpoint]

There are limitations and there are limitations.

Whilst sliders allowed a huge amount of combinations, I believe that the "limitations" of the new system still allow 2,000,000+ combinations.

These combinations stem from how you combine formation, strategy, style, role, duty, Team Instructions and Player Instructions.

For those who firmly adhere to the TC structure, it will actually give us more options.

I never changed a slider as I didn't want to inadvertently create a conflict anywhere, or to nullify shouts.

Now, users like me can confidently tweak individual instructions with individual shouts, and hopefully we can influence Team Instructions in the same way.

Oh yeah, i ment purely on the basis that everyone has to use the tc, nothing more than that. Like i say i think its a great idea, and because they have done it, it says to me that they are really happy with the TC which can only be a good thing for all of us.

You lose so much adaptability and that all for resembling more to awful fifa manager ... I've been playing both games for years so I do know what I'm talking about.

The sliders have always worked and made this game the best ever together with the point rating system.

I wonder who will be the "vocal minority" when sales for the game go down.

that will be the same minority that cost them sales when they moved to steam only.......

[Soverntear]

The TC in general is amazing for me, the sliders combined with my lack of football knowledge made for a bad combo. But I will miss having them working in conjunction with the TC, the big one being the long shots setting.

[BiggusD]

There are limitations and there are limitations.

Whilst sliders allowed a huge amount of combinations, I believe that the "limitations" of the new system still allow 2,000,000+ combinations.

These combinations stem from how you combine formation, strategy, style, role, duty, Team Instructions and Player Instructions.

For those who firmly adhere to the TC structure, it will actually give us more options.

I never changed a slider as I didn't want to inadvertently create a conflict anywhere, or to nullify shouts.

Now, users like me can confidently tweak individual instructions with individual shouts, and hopefully we can influence Team Instructions in the same way.

And I'll estimate that less than 100 of those two million combinations are actually viable as a wholistic tactic. And I managed to play very quick, precise passing with the same tactic both in League One and now spearheading the Premier League, so regardless of team, formation, strategy and level the football played is very much the same.

Playing against Stokelona or Real MadMillwall feels exactly the same, especially after a few seasons.

I'm 1st and play 343, Arsenal second 343, Manchester City third with 352, Tottenham fourth with 4231. Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea and the rest either 442 or 451/433. The 442 guys do ok, while 451 is almost certain relegation battle. I added a new manager at relegation battler Dortmund because they were rich (almost 100m transfer budget) and they played 451/433. I bought them a quality team and resigned, and the new manager was also awful and used the 451. I made him a World Class manager and gave him 4231 because I bought full backs. Instant top club. Did the same for the same reasons with Chelsea (they had like 15 first team players and no full backs + aging players, so I added £200m), but they are still struggling a month later. I expect improvement next season, though, simply because of a tactic change.

So can we build whatever tactic we like and succeed? Of course. Can the AI? Apparently not. Yes I was surprisingly chanceless against Real Madrid using the 451/433 in the CL final, but my team was so young and nervous that I don't take that as a sign of 451/433 being a strong AI tactic because of that. Usually they are literally chanceless despite having a competitive team. So there are issues like this even though sliders aren't used. It tells you a lot about the tactical limitations in FM.

[VonBlade]

that will be the same minority that cost them sales when they moved to steam only.......

And don't forget the sales they lost when they axed wibble wobble

Or started using facegen.

Or the white skin.

Or the 2D match display.

Or the 3D match display.

It's "ruined forever!!!!" so often that there can't be anyone left who played an earlier version /sarcasm

[etcetera]

And don't forget the sales they lost when they axed wibble wobble

Or started using facegen.

Or the white skin.

Or the 2D match display.

Or the 3D match display.

It's "ruined forever!!!!" so often that there can't be anyone left who played an earlier version /sarcasm

-Still have the black skin

-Still had commentary only with 2D match display.

-Still had commentary only AND 2D match display with 3D match display.

-Do not have show instructions with new TC.

[sjm]

So yeah, what is the new system - it's been asked a few times before in this thread, but I can't find an answer (maybe I'm missing it though). The thread linked to at the top is incredibly long, I can't see myself reading through it all.

If the new system is being limited to a few predefined roles, I'm highly unimpressed. The roles have a lot of problems that removing sliders only exacerbates. If they've been replaced with a different approach then I'm open minded, until I know what that new system is. Then I can choose whether I'm a hater or fanboy...

[SmurfDude]

Good riddance to them I say

[YKW]

Ah, "do not have show instructions with new TC" has made me realise that although I haven't changed a slider in years, I actually ALWAYS use them for reference when creating my tactic. For example showing a players sliders on one pane and then changing his role/duty in a second pane to see what the changes actually relate to. This really solidified my understanding of the game. Am I right in saying that there will be NO way to do this?

What indicators will I have of the differences between roles/duties? Just the 'attributes needed for position' screen? I feel like I could be missing something here.

Surely a manager should know exactly what he is instructing his player to do?? If the differences between the roles (in terms of what they aim to do) are only implied then it seems a bit strange.

[KDR]

Losing the sliders should make things more realistic - having them only caused problems with people setting Creative Freedom very low and then screaming blue murder when their LB with relatively low decision making and concentration got caught too far forward or infield on a counter, even if the team instruction had also been set to 'More roaming' and 'attack/fluid'.

Good riddance to all that. I get the feeling too that, with the new roles added, having fixed slider values for specific players would be rendered useless anyway. If the ME really does show a difference between a Regista and a Trequartista - or if a player can switch between the two and the AI is capable of instructing him to do so - it's going to make a massive (yet also oddly subtle) difference. I'm basically expecting to get my butt kicked a lot more often, at least until I improve my tactical understanding of this version of the game (and probably even then; better in-game feedback from the AssMan/coaching staff would help).

[KDR]

Surely a manager should know exactly what he is instructing his player to do?? If the differences between the roles (in terms of what they aim to do) are only implied then it seems a bit strange.

If anything, the sliders were too precise and rigid when the game had become more dynamic. As I alluded to before, people would come on here complaining about their players not doing exactly what they were instructed to do, when the other side of the coin was to look at and understand their stats and the relation to team as well as individual instructions.

Such precision doesn't exist IRL, either. What the manager intends isn't always what a player understands, and even where the player and manager are on the same wavelength, it doesn't mean that the player will always stick to those instructions in a game situation (it's why you see managers doing their nut on the sidelines, players looking sheepish, knowing they've gone against instructions, etc).

We're all going to have to make sure we understand the roles we assign to players, so hopefully the tool tips, etc, will make salient points clear. After that it's going to down to understanding the players we have, those we'd like to bring in, and paying closer attention to what they're capable of in certain areas - so yes, we'll have really look at the stats for position/role and make sure we understand what it might mean within the wider context of their 'background' stats.

Much more detailed and realistic, IMO. (Next step would be to lose the stats in favour of a more realistic system, i.e. 'Walcott's very quick' or 'His greatest strength is his pace' rather than 'Pace:18 Acceleration: 20'. Equally, you need to be able to point out deficiencies - using Walcott again, his vision isn't always the greatest, his crossing is inconsistent to say the least, and his finishing, while occasionally very accurate and powerful, too often leaves something to be desired (when he's hot, he's hot; when he's not...).

By stating such things boldly, in words rather than more ambiguous stat ratings, would it create too big a risk from a legal standpoint?

[Kenco]

I'd like to see an option in this poll for "Makes no difference to me one way or the other as I don't use sliders".

[YKW]

If anything, the sliders were too precise and rigid when the game had become more dynamic. As I alluded to before, people would come on here complaining about their players not doing exactly what they were instructed to do, when the other side of the coin was to look at and understand their stats and the relation to team as well as individual instructions.

Such precision doesn't exist IRL, either. What the manager intends isn't always what a player understands, and even where the player and manager are on the same wavelength, it doesn't mean that the player will always stick to those instructions in a game situation (it's why you see managers doing their nut on the sidelines, players looking sheepish, knowing they've gone against instructions, etc).

We're all going to have to make sure we understand the roles we assign to players, so hopefully the tool tips, etc, will make salient points clear. After that it's going to down to understanding the players we have, those we'd like to bring in, and paying closer attention to what they're capable of in certain areas - so yes, we'll have really look at the stats for position/role and make sure we understand what it might mean within the wider context of their 'background' stats.

Much more detailed and realistic, IMO. (Next step would be to lose the stats in favour of a more realistic system, i.e. 'Walcott's very quick' or 'His greatest strength is his pace' rather than 'Pace:18 Acceleration: 20'. Equally, you need to be able to point out deficiencies - using Walcott again, his vision isn't always the greatest, his crossing is inconsistent to say the least, and his finishing, while occasionally very accurate and powerful, too often leaves something to be desired (when he's hot, he's hot; when he's not...).

By stating such things boldly, in words rather than more ambiguous stat ratings, would it create too big a risk from a legal standpoint?

I agree entirely about the uncertainty, but it doesn't change the fact that a manager KNOWS what he has told a player to do. Whether he does it or not is a separate issue altogether, and irrelevant to my point. There isn't a manager in the world who watches the sub he brought on continually run to the byline and cross low and then says "Ah, I guess I told him to do that." He KNOWS EXACTLY what he told him to do, that can't be debated.

This element of it seems totally backward. There shouldn't be uncertainty about your instructions. The uncertainty should come from whether or not the players can/will execute the instructions, whether the instructions are the right ones for the situation, how the opponent will respond to the instructions, etc. Not because the manager doesn't know what he has said to the players, it's absurd to suggest that. Realistic? No.

I'm not asking for the sliders back, but what I think is essential is a very detailed explanation and assessment of what SI mean by all of their terms such as False 9 and Regista, and what those archetypal roles actually do. If I have to play the game with no way of knowing what I have told a player to do bar watching him perform, then something is wrong. Perhaps this should go in the manual thread.

I am totally with you on your point about removing stats for players, long time wish of mine.

[HUNT3R]

The TC in general is amazing for me, the sliders combined with my lack of football knowledge made for a bad combo. But I will miss having them working in conjunction with the TC, the big one being the long shots setting.

Something you can still tweak with the new system.