FM 14: Sliders gone, thoughts?

[Ike013]

What did that one notch higher or lower accomplish that cannot be accomplished with the new set up?

I'm sure it's possible to get the same result, it will only take way longer to do it.

[styluz_05]

Hugely positive move, with the sliders a lot of the time guess work with what might moving it this way a little or that way a little actually achieve.

In principal the new team and player instructions should allow me and everyone else to get their teams playing the exact way they want them to.

Think its a brilliant move and happy with the changes.

Just think the changes make it a whole lot easier for the player, to get their tactic exactly how they would like them, doesn't now take a genius to spend hours working out how to get the sliders to exactly where they need to be.

[Ike013]

Moving the slider 1 notch had no visible difference. It's only when you went from one extreme to the other that you would notice any changes. You only ever had a false sense of control with the sliders due to this. A user used to believe making a 1 notch change would make a difference and be noticeable on the pitch, when reality is you wouldn't have seen the changes because it wasn't drastic enough.

In my humble opinion it did make a difference as after making these small changes the match balance could shift the whole way around.

[milnerpoint]

It makes a difference. At this point you have to explain then why you prefer a player with creativity 13 instead of one with 12. Is it a visible difference? No, but you still prefer the 13 one.

Why? Because it makes the difference in combination of every other variable. The fact that is not visible is not true.

There is that moment where your defender is a few meters out of position and that is because that single setting with all his attributes, and the situation of match and everything makes him decide to stay there. And if you could change that setting a little you could had lead him to make the right decision to stay more on guard in that situation without changing a lot of other settings that defend/support/attack do and that interfere with other decisions of the players in other situations.

Ok well explain why you feel having it at 13 was better than 12.

Your description could have nothing at all to do with his creativity, what makes you so certain that one slider was the difference?

This is exactly the problem with the sliders, people attributed things that could have nothing to do with the slider, to changing one notch on a slider, and spoke as if they knew it was gospil. The reality is, none of us bar one or two very skilled FMer's knew exactly what each one did, the rest of us guessed.

[RTHerringbone]

It makes a difference. At this point you have to explain then why you prefer a player with creativity 13 instead of one with 12. Is it a visible difference? No, but you still prefer the 13 one.

Why? Because it makes the difference in combination of every other variable. The fact that is not visible is not true.

There is that moment where your defender is a few meters out of position and that is because that single setting with all his attributes, and the situation of match and everything makes him decide to stay there. And if you could change that setting a little you could had lead him to make the right decision to stay more on guard in that situation without changing a lot of other settings that defend/support/attack do and that interfere with other decisions of the players in other situations.

In my view, a slider notch here and there, and a point up or down on an attribute, makes no visible difference.

There are so many factors which drive what you see on screen, that to imply that a point here or there makes a perceptible difference, and that only that point or two is changing what you see, is a little optimistic.

[Svenc]

I think in this case, that is the single notches, what was said here about the team talks applies, perhaps more drastic, even: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/354390-Team-Talks-Ruining-Game-Experience?p=8790306&viewfull=1#post8790306

However, even in the rare cases when a team talk has an exceptionally good or bad effect on a player or players, tracking one particular action within the match down to the team talk is a massive leap of faith.

[...]But if the user has only seem visible feedback from the team talk (a bad reaction) it can be easy to connect the two and attribute the behaviour in the ME solely on the team talk reaction.

Let's snap and twist that around a bit:

However, even in the rare cases when a slider tweak has an exceptionally good or bad effect on a player or players, tracking one particular action within the match down to a tweaked notch is a massive leap of faith.

[...]But if the user has only seem visible feedback from the tactical UI (a slider notched differently) it can be easy to connect the two and attribute the behaviour in the ME solely on the slider tweak.

Anybody who fundamentally disagrees must be FM Neo flying all high troughout the ME matrix, being able to bend it entirelly to his will, which is quite an achievement given the many variables, some of which random, influencing play. :-)

[YKW]

What do you feel you are missing? Honest question. I ask because frankly the slider/no slider debate is now moot. They are gone now. Which makes the information left all the more important. is it the concept of a certain role that eludes you, for example?

My major problem can be expressed the same as Ike013 said. Maybe we have different reasons, but I can give you mine anyway.

His quote was "that's the biggest problem with the new TC, you don't know exactly how each role is defined, at least not exactly enough to my kind of likings."

On FM12 I would cross-reference my role and duty and selections with the actual changes to sliders, using the two pane view. I would rarely change any sliders, my use was not about exploiting the game, or creating a game-breaking tactic. This really helped me a lot with choosing players for positions, what roles to use and when, and which type of players to try and bring in. For example, something subtle like an Advanced Forward having loose marking and a Target man having tight marking. The game made so much more sense as a result of being able to do this.

In this context it's not the lack of control that I dislike, but the lack of feedback about your choices. Obviously, through playing the game you will gain experience of what roles are best used where and when and how the different roles manifest in differing behaviour in the ME, but I think just a description of the roles isn't enough for any manager to make a choice between them.

Not being able to change the sliders may very well be brilliant for the game, but hiding them (and not providing any new system to give us a similar level of certainty about our instructions) will certainly make the game less understandable for me personally.

In terms of a suggestion, suppose you create a tactic. Once it is complete, considering you designed it, you should be able to tell things like:

1. Who is most likely to be scoring your goals, and what type of goals they are likely to be.

2. Where a goal is most likely to be supplied from, and where it is most likely to be converted.

3. Which players are likely to pass the ball to which other players, and what direction and distance those passes are likely to have been.

Could there be some sort of feedback screen which could somehow show us things like this? For example after creating my tactic I could access the assessment screen and it would show me some basic probabilities across various categories. Imagine a pitch showing your formation, say a 4-3-2-1, with a changing percentage value above each playing position.

Suppose I choose "Goals" from the drop-down menu. My striking position is ranked at 72%, my LW (perhaps an inside forward) is ranked at 65%, and my CBs are ranked at 44%. All other rankings are low. These rankings are ignorant of the players at your disposal, it would be your job to create a tactic that a high chance of goals for say your striking position, and then to fill that position with a player who could take advantage of that.

In the same example, I could hover over the 44% for my CB positions, and a popup may tell me (Header: 98%, Finish 4%, Long Shot 4%), indicating that my tactics probably have both of the CB positions in advantageous positions for corners. If I change my corner instructions and leave the CBs deep, then the feedback screen may now only rank the CB positions chance of a goal at 6%.

Other selectables in the drop down could be: Assists, Shots, Through Balls, Long Shots, Crosses, Short Pass (and most likely recipients), Long Pass (and most likely recipients), Headers, Fouls. With the feedback screen showing your player positions and the chance that each position will be likely to commit any one of the actions.

Exploits and guesswork are both undesirable. This idea, or something like it if you can see what I am getting at, would stop both.

You could even positively implement the guesswork a real life manager has to do. What if, using my idea above, your pre-match preparation could involve guessing your opponents line up, checking the "assess against anticipated opposition" box on the feedback screen, and then mulling over which different players and tactics could best serve you in the next match. For example, if I guess that John Terry will be starting against me in the next match, then my CB position ranked at 44% chance goal (98% chance header) would likely drop, given the dominance of Terry in the air.

These are thought processes that we all go through, so some sort of feature like this would really help.

No exploits, no guesswork.

[HUNT3R]

My major problem can be expressed the same as Ike013 said. Maybe we have different reasons, but I can give you mine anyway.

His quote was "that's the biggest problem with the new TC, you don't know exactly how each role is defined, at least not exactly enough to my kind of likings."

On FM12 I would cross-reference my role and duty and selections with the actual changes to sliders, using the two pane view. I would rarely change any sliders, my use was not about exploiting the game, or creating a game-breaking tactic. This really helped me a lot with choosing players for positions, what roles to use and when, and which type of players to try and bring in. For example, something subtle like an Advanced Forward having loose marking and a Target man having tight marking. The game made so much more sense as a result of being able to do this.

In this context it's not the lack of control that I dislike, but the lack of feedback about your choices. Obviously, through playing the game you will gain experience of what roles are best used where and when and how the different roles manifest in differing behaviour in the ME, but I think just a description of the roles isn't enough for any manager to make a choice between them.

Not being able to change the sliders may very well be brilliant for the game, but hiding them (and not providing any new system to give us a similar level of certainty about our instructions) will certainly make the game less understandable for me personally.

In terms of a suggestion, suppose you create a tactic. Once it is complete, considering you designed it, you should be able to tell things like:

1. Who is most likely to be scoring your goals, and what type of goals they are likely to be.

2. Where a goal is most likely to be supplied from, and where it is most likely to be converted.

3. Which players are likely to pass the ball to which other players, and what direction and distance those passes are likely to have been.

Could there be some sort of feedback screen which could somehow show us things like this? For example after creating my tactic I could access the assessment screen and it would show me some basic probabilities across various categories. Imagine a pitch showing your formation, say a 4-3-2-1, with a changing percentage value above each playing position.

Suppose I choose "Goals" from the drop-down menu. My striking position is ranked at 72%, my LW (perhaps an inside forward) is ranked at 65%, and my CBs are ranked at 44%. All other rankings are low. These rankings are ignorant of the players at your disposal, it would be your job to create a tactic that a high chance of goals for say your striking position, and then to fill that position with a player who could take advantage of that.

In the same example, I could hover over the 44% for my CB positions, and a popup may tell me (Header: 98%, Finish 4%, Long Shot 4%), indicating that my tactics probably have both of the CB positions in advantageous positions for corners. If I change my corner instructions and leave the CBs deep, then the feedback screen may now only rank the CB positions chance of a goal at 6%.

Other selectables in the drop down could be: Assists, Shots, Through Balls, Long Shots, Crosses, Short Pass (and most likely recipients), Long Pass (and most likely recipients), Headers, Fouls. With the feedback screen showing your player positions and the chance that each position will be likely to commit any one of the actions.

Exploits and guesswork are both undesirable. This idea, or something like it if you can see what I am getting at, would stop both.

You could even positively implement the guesswork a real life manager has to do. What if, using my idea above, your pre-match preparation could involve guessing your opponents line up, checking the "assess against anticipated opposition" box on the feedback screen, and then mulling over which different players and tactics could best serve you in the next match. For example, if I guess that John Terry will be starting against me in the next match, then my CB position ranked at 44% chance goal (98% chance header) would likely drop, given the dominance of Terry in the air.

These are thought processes that we all go through, so some sort of feature like this would really help.

No exploits, no guesswork.

Seems like a lot of hand-holding, but ignoring that for the moment. How would those percentages be calculated? The chances of your striker scoring will be different depending on opposition, formation, home/away, form, team talks, etc etc

I don't see how that could be calculated at all.

[milnerpoint]

Nothing in football is guarenteed, the minute they start making it like that is the day it will lose any appeal to me.

[HUNT3R]

My major problem can be expressed the same as Ike013 said. Maybe we have different reasons, but I can give you mine anyway.

His quote was "that's the biggest problem with the new TC, you don't know exactly how each role is defined, at least not exactly enough to my kind of likings."

On FM12 I would cross-reference my role and duty and selections with the actual changes to sliders, using the two pane view. I would rarely change any sliders, my use was not about exploiting the game, or creating a game-breaking tactic. This really helped me a lot with choosing players for positions, what roles to use and when, and which type of players to try and bring in. For example, something subtle like an Advanced Forward having loose marking and a Target man having tight marking. The game made so much more sense as a result of being able to do this.

In this context it's not the lack of control that I dislike, but the lack of feedback about your choices. Obviously, through playing the game you will gain experience of what roles are best used where and when and how the different roles manifest in differing behaviour in the ME, but I think just a description of the roles isn't enough for any manager to make a choice between them.

Not being able to change the sliders may very well be brilliant for the game, but hiding them (and not providing any new system to give us a similar level of certainty about our instructions) will certainly make the game less understandable for me personally.

I've thought about this a little more. I think I do see what you are trying to get at, but I don't agree with your suggestion.

What about a small graphical representation of your tactic on the tactics screen that plays out random passages of play without any opposition? Imagine the old wibble-wobble style, but more fluid. Your formation will start in it's defensive shape (which is the one you choose on FM), the ball randomly given to one of your defenders and from there they play as if they're playing a proper match. They're following your passing length, tempo, RFD, RWB etc instructions so that you can see it being played out. Once it gets to the forward and a shot is taken, the ball randomly drops at the feet of another defender and another passage of play starts. This time the play might shift down the one flank and you'll see how the different players shift and make runs in keeping with their role.

Think of it as a training simulation or something along those lines. This way you'll be able to see how each position acts relative to where the ball is and relative to all the other positions on the team.

Actually, maybe there should be an opposing team in the graphic. Maybe even arranged in the same formation as your next opponent is likely to field. They'd be allowed to close down, but not tackle, just to show how your team would play with the ball.

[Da_Funk]

Ok well explain why you feel having it at 13 was better than 12.

Your description could have nothing at all to do with his creativity, what makes you so certain that one slider was the difference?

This is exactly the problem with the sliders, people attributed things that could have nothing to do with the slider, to changing one notch on a slider, and spoke as if they knew it was gospil. The reality is, none of us bar one or two very skilled FMer's knew exactly what each one did, the rest of us guessed.

My example wasn't necessary referring to creativity, I took creativity like I could take every other single attribute.

If I put the mentality slider up the player will look more for forwards possibilities instead of backwards one.

If I have that notch up I have a higher probability of this happening. The exact problem with sliders, and people who writes things like your last two lines, is that when you click something it needs immediately something to happen, something appear. It's about probability, it's not necessary a 100% extreme modification.

If I move the mentality up I have a higher probability of a player moving forward when he might decide to hold his position, making a vertical pass instead of an horizontal one, making a shot instead of pass. Mentality was a pivot. This is what it was, in conjunction with all the other setting you forge your role. What was all the mess about the whole sliders demon? Mentality? Creative freedom wasn't understandable? Passing wasn't understandable? Closing down wasn't understandable?

What is the difference between your DLP and Regista? A few notches of all the above? If so, how can you tell me that it's a VISIBLE difference between these role?

What visible difference you see when you play a Sweeper Goalkeeper instead of a normal one?

In my view, a slider notch here and there, and a point up or down on an attribute, makes no visible difference.

There are so many factors which drive what you see on screen, that to imply that a point here or there makes a perceptible difference, and that only that point or two is changing what you see, is a little optimistic.

Still when you evaluate a player you prefer one instead of another because it has one or two points more there instead of there. It's the same thing. Tell me why then you believe and have faith in attributes. Right now we're in the same position, me with a slider system, you with attributes. Still I am the blind one and you're not, why? Why do you accept attributes as they are? Why are you playing that 16 elevation player instead of that 14 one as a Target Man? Because it makes difference. I can accept attributes have more weight according to an individual instruction, what you don't accept is that an individual instruction has less weight and a small modification of it has a small impact.

I repeat myself, you say to your player to position himself 10 meters deep (don't tell me you don't please, when you shout you change the duty you say that too, just don't know how). Why can't I decide to let him drop only 5 meters or even more, 15?

With 5 or 15 I simply mean more or less than the initial 10, don't take that literally, it's not necessarily about the 1 meters (which is one of your wrong support argument).

I have a striker, he can ideally drop until midfield, it's 50 meters, half-pitch. In true life I go to my striker and show him how much he can or cannot drop, how much he can generally even move on the side.

With TC I have absolutely no idea to where he'll drop, and I should have to know before the match, not that I have to watch the match to see if False Nine is more similar to my idea than DLF. At least with a slider I knew I was in 0-10 under the 50% of the potential available movement range for example.

A player with 18 long shots has a higher probability to make an effective long shots.

A player with long shots often (which is the same thing of long shots shout btw) has a higher probability to decide to execute a long shot. This is the concept, it's the same. Still you're saying that my long shots often (which, I repeat, is the same thing of long shots) is a false god and your button is working.

And yes there so many factors which drive what you see on screen, but no one is requesting that in the immediate next action some sparkle has to happen.

Every setting, from individual instructions to attributes to others, are part of a chain, what is so difficult to understand? It's not optimistic to believe that sliders did have an effect, they did.

You say a player pass more direct or pass less direct and that's it.

I can say a player to pass more direct. Am I satisfy of it? I can change again, and again and again. I can say how to pass with 20 different approaches. Isn't it visible? Yes, it is but you don't want see. Because a player makes for example 60 passes in a game, and after 3 matches he's done 180 passes. That notch up changed the approach, the direction of some of that 180 passes just that you don't know. It may be 2 of them, 5 of them or 10 of them. They can be 10 easy passes or 2 assist but hey it is a difference.

[OZIL77]

I personally would like the sliders back but if they don't probably won't buy a new fm

[OZIL77]

players be taking long shots from too far away from goal even if you choose shoot less often so thats why I liked the old player instructions more accurate more effective

[BiggusD]

I completely disagree, what gets removed is the ability to do things which cause unrealistic effects in the match engine which gives the player an unfair and not true-to-life advantage.

You seem to assume that for a tactic to be "working" (I'm taking this as "good") it has to have these exploits, and not need to be adapted for the opposition. I don't know your history on here, but it sounds to me like the thought process of someone who used to either create or download ready made tactics on here. Forgive me if that's incorrect, but it's the mindset I've seen there tonnes of times before.

To me a working/good/effective tactic is one that does the following:

- Plays football matching the fundamental style you wish to play

- Gets the most out of your team from a performance aspect, even if not the individual players

- Exploits the inherent weaknesses in the opposition's tactic

- Without causing any weaknesses which the opposition's tactic will be able to exploit

Now, consider that 2 of those 4 points relate to the opposition, I would expect a good tactic to need to be one which varies based on the opposition. Even if that's just a "type" of opposition, an opposition's ability level, or their tactic/shape. Is there anything there you'd disagree with.

That means that there are tonnes of creative ways to solve the problem ahead of you as a manager (problem being how to beat the opponent), but now the methods used to do this are different, and I'd argue more akin to the way that a real life football manager would manage his team. Could we be given more control: yes, and I'd hope that's the next step in the progress of the FM tactical set-up, but I don't think your assertion that you have to play a certain way is in any way true.

What do you consider "creative tactical creation"?

Why would a good tactic need to be one which varies based on the opposition? The parameters must be wrong for you to come to that conclusion:

1. A good tactic dominates (big) chance creation and possession against weaker or similar opponents

2. A good tactic dominates (big) chance creation against stronger opponents as well

3. It must be able to break down parked buses

4. It must be able to counter efficiently when pushed back

... and that without major changes. Strategic changes must be considered big. Formation changes as well. Changing up duties and roles of a few players aren't that big of a change. I don't think that the shouts change that much. Some more than others.

Basically, a working tactic is not broken down by the opponent's attempt to park the bus, or push forward with long balls. Then it is not a solid tactic. I mean, on a bad day, sure, an extra man in the midfield or in the defense is necessary - but if you have to change stuff around because the opponent throws just about anything at you, you're in trouble. The "tactical gurus" on here say they don't, and so you shouldn't either.

Real life managers may change stuff around in some special matches, but mostly, they have a system they believe in and what we see when we watch and notice that they play a bit differently is more likely to be the dynamic nature of the match and football itself or differences in how players interpret their roles or the match, than actual intended adjustments.

I am not arguing FOR sliders by the way. I am not lamenting that they are gone. I stopped using them once I understood that any coherent tactic I could come up with would still be within the predetermined range of coherence in the game. If you go outside of those boundaries, the tactic will fall apart. The sliders was just a tool to create tactics, and so is the TC. As long as the outcome of any outside-the-box tacticical experiment gets a stamp of disapproval by the ME, the TC is a much more efficient tool to build with, but I want people to be aware that we are now back to the 5 variants of CM94 except there are now 55 variants to choose from. Or something. It doesn't matter which you use, except for cosmetic reasons.

I am also, despite what some say, not arguing that you HAVE to play in a certain way - just that some ways are more efficient than others because there are and always will be imbalances in the ME. So, since I mostly play a two-player game with a friend who downloads really good tactics, I have no interest in mediocrity since I must win almost all the matches in any season AND cope with what he throws at me. So far I have managed to create tactics which are competitive with what he finds on the web, but usually he takes the lead early on in the savegames we play because I need to assemble the right team before I get that edge. That was the case in both FM11, FM12 and 13. In the latest few savegames we have played, I come in second behind him the first two-three seasons, so it is clear that I would have won if playing alone. So would most other human users as well, I presume (so most managers are happy with their tactic). The important bit here is that if my tactic is only slightly better than what the AI would have managed with the same team, I wouldn't stand a chance - not to mention inferior tactics led by a human user who is good at changing stuff around or building teams so that they win against the AI anyways. That's not good enough.

[YKW]

The significant thing about the percentages would be the differences between them, not the actual figures themselves. For example, it is just a quick way to see that in formation a the majority of the goalscoring responsibility is on the striker, whereas in formation b it is on the AML/AMR, with the striker assisting.

In terms of how the percentages are calculated, forget that for a moment and simply quantify the chance with either high, low or medium. Overall and roughly speaking, strikers would have a high chance of scoring, midfielders medium, and defenders low. If I have 1 striker and deep wide men, then that will increase the chance of my midfield positions getting a goal. A box-to-box role would have more chance of a goal than a deep lying playmaker, etc.

It's my tactic, so I should know how am I planning on creating and scoring goals.

I've thought about this a little more. I think I do see what you are trying to get at, but I don't agree with your suggestion.

What about a small graphical representation of your tactic on the tactics screen that plays out random passages of play without any opposition? Imagine the old wibble-wobble style, but more fluid. Your formation will start in it's defensive shape (which is the one you choose on FM), the ball randomly given to one of your defenders and from there they play as if they're playing a proper match. They're following your passing length, tempo, RFD, RWB etc instructions so that you can see it being played out. Once it gets to the forward and a shot is taken, the ball randomly drops at the feet of another defender and another passage of play starts. This time the play might shift down the one flank and you'll see how the different players shift and make runs in keeping with their role.

Think of it as a training simulation or something along those lines. This way you'll be able to see how each position acts relative to where the ball is and relative to all the other positions on the team.

Actually, maybe there should be an opposing team in the graphic. Maybe even arranged in the same formation as your next opponent is likely to field. They'd be allowed to close down, but not tackle, just to show how your team would play with the ball.

I am totally with you here, my idea actually came from trying to come up with a modernised wibble-wobble. I would simply add the ability to select the starting position of the ball to your idea, and perhaps show it in 3D if possible. Something along these lines is desperately needed imo.

[mfprez]

[deleted]

[Svenc]

for instance, a Ball Winning Midfielder would be taking long shots despite the fact he can't shoot, pressing all over the pitch when an equally viable definition of a Ball Winning Midfielder is one who does not press all over the park, but in stays in deeper positions adjusted using the mentality.

You can still do all of that, for what it is worth. User customization will likely only be improved, but not to the extent as previously possible, as the ME has to rely on certain defined concepts in order to make a few extra steps. From a coding point of view you've got to go by something, rather than "anything". Also no game AI will ever be able to conceptualize anything out of sliders itself, that's why its completely static pre-sets of old are luckily a thing of the past.

I'm not buying that the new system adds realism. It's a more macro-system of using shouts and roles that are now even more poorly defined in terms of their effect on the ME without the visual representation of sliders, not to mention the that concepts evolve all time and are in themselves only guides to the reality which is not static or fixed but ever changing. It's no more or less realistic.

This is a valid argument. But it might be worth pointing out that FM was never meant to be a game creating a world in which the human player takes center stage and is (theoretically) able to re-invent tactics as the world knew them each. But one in which he is but another manager just like his AI counterparts. That's a design philosophy that dates all the way back to Champ Man 1, actually.

There may be still headroom for the risky and quirky and creative, but only within the same tool sets available as the AI employs. Maybe some design will look a tad differently once another MMO version of FM is due, if it ever will happen.

What was all the mess about the whole sliders demon? Mentality? Creative freedom wasn't understandable? Passing wasn't understandable? Closing down wasn't understandable?

You tell 'em: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/108695-Ditch-the-quot-mentality-quot-slider-altogether

[Da_Funk]

You tell 'em: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/108695-Ditch-the-quot-mentality-quot-slider-altogether

I remember that thread. Not that we don't need to find new and better ways to deal with instructions, but what is it all about, one single slider?

Is all "the sliders is for cheaters/exploit hunter" argument all around one slider?

Is all "the user don't understand what they are doing/what sliders do(PLURAL)" because of mentality?

Forget about sliders okay, they're done, they're past.

Forget about the fact that under the TC/Roles there still the old sliders with the same values.

I take my Robben, put him on the Right AMF position and Inside Forward.

I decide to put him on the left, and use him as Winger, as he is lefty and it's not a good idea to use him as Inside Forward on that side.

What is changed? Movement for sure (cut inside vs hug sideline), cross, then what? Movement with ball? Well that's not important, I can check the instruction/shout and change.

What else? Is closing down changed? Passing? How should I know? How can I interfere with this? How can I be sure that I can have the same closing down and off/def awareness as before?

Let's bring back sliders.

What is the difference between IForward and Winger? I take my player from the right to the left, I change the cut inside in hug sidelines, I teach him to cross more with a tick, I decide about movement with ball. Was it so difficult? 2 clicks? Do I need 50 pages (as someone stated) to transform a IForward in a Winger? And I know for sure that my closing down and mentality is not changed, and I can work them if I want to change off/def awareness. I'm not saying that with that sliders it was all cookies and candies but hey now with roles I don't what effectively they do. And if in doubt you're telling me "Set and watch a match. Try it".

[wwfan]

I can absolutely support any argument in which the user claims he doesn't understand the conceptualisation of a role because the language is too imprecise. It's fundamental. If you don't know what you are asking a player to do, then there's a problem with design. Any such examples should be brought to SI's attention in the bug forum or the general feedback thread.

However, I find it very weird that the same people rightly highlighting some of these issues (albeit without specific examples) then claim that being able to set a slider to 13 or 14 solves the problem. Thus far, I haven't seen anybody being able to quantify the difference between 1 or 2 or 3 notches of a slider. The argument seems to be that even though you don't know exactly what you are doing, the illusion of control is better than the loss of the illusion. I genuinely don't get that.

What is also strange to me is that everyone in the thread that I'd consider as having a good hold on how the sliders work is arguing against them, whereas those who don't really know how they work want them to stay.

[Govnar1]

OK,... 2) Define where your choice is severely limited ( bear in mind there are circa 2,000,000 combinations)...

That's ridiculous. As RTHerringbone has already stated, there are 2,000,000 different tactical combinations. That was actually the combination available for the TC in FM13. With the new additions to the system, there will be close to a billion possible tactical combinations. How can that be limiting? What possible number of tactical combinations are required for a tactic to be "yours"? Two billion, three billion?

I know, i picked that bit purely because you were saying you liked to beat the game, not have a go or anything

Whilst the sliders could make you tactically creative, they made it far to easy to actually beat the AI in terms of throwing completely unrealistic tactics at it, that it was completely unable to comprehend. Im glad that ability has been taken away.

With 2,000,000 combinations possible, i dont really see whats being restricted to be honest. Things are just set out differently, in 6 months time when everyone has figured it out this will have died off.

There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 1.00001, so what? FM still lacks basic options like separate mentality for defensive and offensive phase of play and numerous other must have instructions and concepts!

...Open slider control allowed for chaos, which is actually limiting in itself. It also allowed for micro-control, which is, certainly for less than world-class players, incredibly unrealistic....

This just means one thing: bad implementation. You know whats really unrealistic? High number of tackles and interceptions doubling number of possession cycles in past few iterations of game and now one seems concerned with that.

I am for removal of sliders as I hope that it will help AI compete, but some of the arguments written above are just wrong.

[wwfan]

There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 1.00001, so what? FM still lacks basic options like separate mentality for defensive and offensive phase of play and numerous other must have instructions and concepts!

Mentality is a non-real world concept. An SI construct. Why does it have to have two separate settings? What other "must have" concepts are missing? It's easy to be critical when the critique is so abstract and woolly.

This just means one thing: bad implementation. You know whats really unrealistic? High number of tackles and interceptions doubling number of possession cycles in past few iterations of game and now one seems concerned with that.

I am for removal of sliders as I hope that it will help AI compete, but some of the arguments written above are just wrong.

This thread isn't about tackles and interceptions. Don't just assume that because we're not talking about them here that nobody is concerned about them.

[Sussex Hammer]

How is the new system implemented? I'm not playing the Beta so haven't seen it but as with last years TC are the roles designed by the use of sliders but hardcoded and invisible in the background?

[wwfan]

How is the new system implemented? I'm not playing the Beta so haven't seen it but as with last years TC are the roles designed by the use of sliders but hardcoded and invisible in the background?

They are informed by slider settings, but have also been "isolated" to make them more distinguishable. Consequently, for example, how a DC interprets a certain passing and mentality combo will produce a different outcome than how a LDC interprets the same settings, as the latter will be more likely to clear the ball when in slightly risky situations. This kind of subtle differentiation was impossible with free sliders.

[Sussex Hammer]

Must confess I always thought it was a shame that there wasn't an option in the past to turn a "classic tactic" into a TC Tactic like you could have turned a TC Tactic into Classic. Would have been intrigued to have seen what my classic tactics looked like when turned into roles!!

[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

[Govnar1]

Mentality is a non-real world concept. An SI construct. Why does it have to have two separate settings?

Because you (or AI) could than instruct players to play very cautions in defensive phase but to take greater risks in offensive phase.

What other "must have" concepts are missing? It's easy to be critical when the critique is so abstract and woolly.

Option to tell fullbacks that only one can join attack at any given time, similar goes for midfield parings. How about dummy pressing, football classic since mid 70s? Or ability to instruct striker to play on brink of offside but to drop back in offensive play? Ability to set different formations in defensive and offensive phase is another must have. Than we need to be able to set instructions for transition and so on. Many teams today split play (and instructions) in even more segments; defense/transition/offense is really basic breakdown of play.

[wwfan]

Because you (or AI) could than instruct players to play very cautions in defensive phase but to take greater risks in offensive phase.

That happens by default anyway.

Option to tell fullbacks that only one can join attack at any given time, similar goes for midfield parings. How about dummy pressing, football classic since mid 70s? Or ability to instruct striker to play on brink of offside but to drop back in offensive play? Ability to set different formations in defensive and offensive phase is another must have. Than we need to be able to set instructions for transition and so on. Many teams today split play (and instructions) in even more segments; defense/transition/offense is really basic breakdown of play.

All of which can be enabled to a far greater degree with a concept informed ME and AI. A free slider ME prevents all of the above, as free slider movement can instantly break any of the concepts.

[Govnar1]

That happens by default anyway.

When? At all mentality settings? What if you want it other way around (as Barcelona at times) risk in defensive phase, caution in offensive phase?

All of which can be enabled to a far greater degree with a concept informed ME and AI.

When did I argue otherwise? I only said that missing such basic stuff is affecting realism more then (semi-broken) sliders did.

A free slider ME prevents all of the above, as free slider movement can instantly break any of the concepts.

It can, but it doesn't have to. On the other hand omission of above mentioned inevitably breaks many modern concepts, just as behavior of tree man defenses (and lack of ability to influence it) in FM breaks them, and behavior and especially positioning of defenders/defense line in anticipation of pass from goalkeeper, and goalkeepers rarely/never launching counterattacks...

[wwfan]

When? At all mentality settings? What if you want it other way around (as Barcelona at times) risk in defensive phase, caution in offensive phase?

Other settings than mentality determine how your team attacks and defends. Pressing and d-line will be far more relevant to the defensive phase than mentality is.

When did I argue otherwise? I only said that missing such basic stuff is affecting realism more then (semi-broken) sliders did.

Didn't suggest you did, only that the new system can facilitate a move in that direction.

It can, but it doesn't have to. On the other hand omission of above mentioned inevitably breaks many modern concepts, just as behavior of tree man defenses, behavior and especially positioning of defenders/defense line in anticipation of pass from goalkeeper, goalkeepers rarely/never launching counterattacks...

Here I disagree. A free slider system will inevitably break the kind of conceptual behaviour you are asking for. A conceptually informed AI/ME will slowly but surely be able to do all the above as it becomes more and more sophisticated.

[Mintah]

When did I argue otherwise? I only said that missing such basic stuff is affecting realism more then (semi-broken) sliders did.

It can, but it doesn't have to. On the other hand omission of above mentioned inevitably breaks many modern concepts, just as behavior of tree man defenses (and lack of ability to influence it) in FM breaks them, and behavior and especially positioning of defenders/defense line in anticipation of pass from goalkeeper, and goalkeepers rarely/never launching counterattacks...

Have you actually tried playing a three man defense in FM14? It works very well in FM14. If there is one thing I have learned from playing CM/FM for the past 12 years, it is that SI is dedicated to improvement through iteration. Just because something is missing in this years version doesn't mean it is not being worked on by SI for future versions of the game. Just as three man defenses were "broken" in FM13 but work well in FM14, I have full faith that when SI finds a way to make a concept work in the ME we will see it.

[Govnar1]

Have you actually tried playing a three man defense in FM14? It works very well in FM14. If there is one thing I have learned from playing CM/FM for the past 12 years, it is that SI is dedicated to improvement through iteration. Just because something is missing in this years version doesn't mean it is not being worked on by SI for future versions of the game. Just as three man defenses were "broken" in FM13 but work well in FM14, I have full faith that when SI finds a way to make a concept work in the ME we will see it.

Don't take it to heart I am well know for being conspiracy theoretician and a bad guesser as well as author of abstract and woolly critiques.

[BiggusD]

Here I disagree. A free slider system will inevitably break the kind of conceptual behaviour you are asking for. A conceptually informed AI/ME will slowly but surely be able to do all the above as it becomes more and more sophisticated.

Here's the thing. Very few in this thread argues that a "conceptually informed" ME is a bad idea. Not even I do that. The problem is the general direction the game has been taking the last few years, in my opinion. It leaves the human players with a few rather streamlined playing styles, because there's an authorative "judge" in the ME that renders most combinations obsolete for reasons of "realism". There are correct tactical setups and there are incorrect tactical setups.

Just to point out a thing here, I am in my 10th season with Portsmouth now in FM13 and I have not been playing what I can label "my tactic". I stole it, a 343, from AI Roma and made some small changes. I don't really have a problem with that. However, I am of the pragmatic sort - I play what works; I don't care how it works. I empathize with those who want to implement their own playing style, though, if they are unlucky enough to have that judged incorrect by the ME.

[Svenc]

There are correct tactical setups and there are incorrect tactical setups.

If just about anything would work, it would be a poor simulation of football, though. E.g. the FBs always providing cover plus two to three midfielders shielding the d-line kind of tactics so common for FM 2012. They relied on something that wouldn't work in real-life, that is through balls to isolated wingers/forwards who couldn't have been marked efficiently out of the game prior to 2013. Additionally, the AI never would go forward with enough men to break these teams down. That's a numbers game that plain wouldn't work in real-life football as defenders more often would kill the space of the lone attackers right there. Now the problem is that nobody knows fully what makes football really tick. But at least those simple rules of space SI can apply. With truly superior forwards and wingers who frequently open space by themselves, it appears this is still doable to an extent, (I remember someone posting a tactics that was basically 7 defenders booting the ball up to Messi, Hazard or Lewandowski or something and still winning the Prem), which in this case isn't wholly unrealistic and can be rooted straight to the match action and succesfull isolated moves of superior players rather than team play (which will obviously be non-existent right there). If you isolate somebody like Kroos and leave him out of options, he will simply hit home a screamer every once in a while, and in FM 2013 I build such imbalanced tactics on purpose with Bayern, which then caused Ribery's or Robben's many many successful runs causing trouble and winning CL games all by itself. Even if that was just a creaky 1-0 caused by one of them eventually breaking through and being fouled in the box and one of the lads converting the pen in the aftermath.

Still haven't played enough of FM 2013 to judge fully, but obviously also noted how physical players were weighted far more favorably than before (Crouch etc. being top scorers, very frequently). So far I was always able to implement various styles though successfully prior, from very direct ones not at all concerned about keeping the ball, exploiting the flanks and hoofing the ball into the area from all over the pitch to posession based ones with heavy pressing to ensure the ball was kept and retained and various ones in between. Each approach got better the better players I had for it, naturally. And that is just "base tactics", it's easy to forget in-match decision making such as closing shop and simply keeping the ball and seeing the time out when talking tactics, or vice versa in attempts to snatch a late equalizer. Admittedly I was never keen on looking for something that was inherently superior to something else, which, in a computer game, there will likely always be, sometimes to smaller, sometimes to bigger extent, in particular against AI opponents rather than human ones. If what is true what you said about the super dribblers fix which caused SI to boost the performance of wide players in formations with but two players on the flanks, I can see how in FM 2013 just picking such a formation would give you an advantage already, in particular against the more common formations with two FBs or WBs and wingers. After all, it would mean that the wide players would have been boosted in defense whilst you still enjoyed the advantage in the centre of the pitch without that trade-off on the flanks when defending.

Still I was able to implement various styles prior. This being a game, it will never quite be like the real thing though, naturally. However it just can't be that everything can be a viable option, as otherwise it would be a poor sim of football. Obviously any sports simulation is influenced by the bias of its creators, and their outlook on the simulated sports. Most of the tactics that were killed off up until FM 2013 were done so because they really wouldn't work in real football though. Even if nobody knows why teams win or lose matches, which is one of the main reasons why there are so many different styles and philosophies in the real sports, and even though there are various tactics viable depending on context, the rule of space which ruled out those 2012 tactics for instance is universal to the sports.

I'm really curious where this will go from here. I mean, maybe it will fail, and a couple versions down the road will be turned and shifted around again. However, I hope it's not just the roles that are getting isolated and be adressed as such, but also the strategies or mentalities, if you will, same as the team fluidity, and whatever will be added thereafter. Not only in-match, but beyond. Whilst there so far is a flawed and simple algorithm by which your style is judged by (I think it's simply the shot count to determine whether the fans are bored or applaude your attacking style), there could be truly be modeled one of the universal dichotomies in football, and that is that between pragmatism and idealism/style. If you encourage pragmatical styles and win, all might be well. If you do such and start losing points, at some clubs this might come back to haunt you. (Just as a simple example).

[Govnar1]

Wasn't it Wenger who once said, "buy tall players"? You can train them in everything else, but you can't make them taller. There should be an inherent example, to an extent, for a physically dominant player who is also skilful over an equally skilful but less physically good player. It might have been too much in FM13, but it will always be there.

Almost forgot, original quote by Red Auerbach* is "you can't teach height".

*Oddly enough he preferred small fast players!

[BiggusD]

If just about anything would work, it would be a poor simulation of football, though. E.g. the FBs always providing cover plus two to three midfielders shielding the d-line kind of tactics so common for FM 2012. They relied on something that wouldn't work in real-life, that is through balls to isolated wingers/forwards who couldn't have been marked efficiently out of the game prior to 2013. Additionally, the AI never would go forward with enough men to break these teams down. That's a numbers game that plain wouldn't work in real-life football as defenders more often would kill the space of the lone attackers right there. Now the problem is that nobody knows fully what makes football really tick. But at least those simple rules of space SI can apply. With truly superior forwards and wingers who frequently open space by themselves, it appears this is still doable to an extent, (I remember someone posting a tactics that was basically 7 defenders booting the ball up to Messi, Hazard or Lewandowski or something and still winning the Prem), which in this case isn't wholly unrealistic and can be rooted straight to the match action and succesfull isolated moves of superior players rather than team play (which will obviously be non-existent right there). If you isolate somebody like Kroos and leave him out of options, he will simply hit home a screamer every once in a while, and in FM 2013 I build such imbalanced tactics on purpose with Bayern, which then caused Ribery's or Robben's many many successful runs causing trouble and winning CL games all by itself. Even if that was just a creaky 1-0 caused by one of them eventually breaking through and being fouled in the box and one of the lads converting the pen in the aftermath.

Still haven't played enough of FM 2013 to judge fully, but obviously also noted how physical players were weighted far more favorably than before (Crouch etc. being top scorers, very frequently). So far I was always able to implement various styles though successfully prior, from very direct ones not at all concerned about keeping the ball, exploiting the flanks and hoofing the ball into the area from all over the pitch to posession based ones with heavy pressing to ensure the ball was kept and retained and various ones in between. Each approach got better the better players I had for it, naturally. And that is just "base tactics", it's easy to forget in-match decision making such as closing shop and simply keeping the ball and seeing the time out when talking tactics, or vice versa in attempts to snatch a late equalizer. Admittedly I was never keen on looking for something that was inherently superior to something else, which, in a computer game, there will likely always be, sometimes to smaller, sometimes to bigger extent, in particular against AI opponents rather than human ones. If what is true what you said about the super dribblers fix which caused SI to boost the performance of wide players in formations with but two players on the flanks, I can see how in FM 2013 just picking such a formation would give you an advantage already, in particular against the more common formations with two FBs or WBs and wingers. After all, it would mean that the wide players would have been boosted in defense whilst you still enjoyed the advantage in the centre of the pitch without that trade-off on the flanks when defending.

Still I was able to implement various styles prior. This being a game, it will never quite be like the real thing though, naturally. However it just can't be that everything can be a viable option, as otherwise it would be a poor sim of football. Obviously any sports simulation is influenced by the bias of its creators, and their outlook on the simulated sports. Most of the tactics that were killed off up until FM 2013 were done so because they really wouldn't work in real football though. Even if nobody knows why teams win or lose matches, which is one of the main reasons why there are so many different styles and philosophies in the real sports, and even though there are various tactics viable depending on context, the rule of space which ruled out those 2012 tactics for instance is universal to the sports.

I'm really curious where this will go from here. I mean, maybe it will fail, and a couple versions down the road will be turned and shifted around again. However, I hope it's not just the roles that are getting isolated and be adressed as such, but also the strategies or mentalities, if you will, same as the team fluidity, and whatever will be added thereafter. Not only in-match, but beyond. Whilst there so far is a flawed and simple algorithm by which your style is judged by (I think it's simply the shot count to determine whether the fans are bored or applaude your attacking style), there could be truly be modeled one of the universal dichotomies in football, and that is that between pragmatism and idealism/style. If you encourage pragmatical styles and win, all might be well. If you do such and start losing points, at some clubs this might come back to haunt you. (Just as a simple example).

No I don't say that "anything should work". It is just that you can't play a quick, direct passing game, aiming to finish attacks quickly, while keeping men behind the ball and avoid taking risks. Such a Scandinavian take on football is not really functional in FM. Aggressively trying to win possession on your own half and then launch a quick attack is attacking football in FM, and involves taking risks and pushing up. Playing like Barcelona means using Counter or Defend strategies and Support/Defend duties while being highly aggressive, closing down all over the pitch and max pushing up. Can't be done in FM14. Can be done in FM13 but it is unlikely to work well.

My 343 attacking tactic produces quick play like Barcelona sometimes because it is an attacking tactic with two defensive central midfielders and two relatively defensive wide midfielders (who will build up play), but the Wide Midfielders on Support often run forward and stay as the 4th and 5th striker while my midfielders and the defenders pass the ball to each other. I could have fixed this by manually setting their RfD to Rarely, I suppose, but that would likely make the tactic worse. So the behaviour of the WM-S is not actually that of providing support in many cases; they don't make themselves available for a pass. The same with my DLF-A's - they should have operated deeper at Support but they don't, so I opt for a greater chance of an early through ball instead. They run forward and stay there both at A and S. My central Trequartista should drop deeper but he does not always do so when he should have. So despite all my efforts, quite often my two central midfielders become isolated in the midfield while 5 players set to operate as links between midfield and attack operate as poachers waiting idly for a pass instead of actually make themselves available for a pass. Why? Because in FM13 the RfD instruction is simply put a run delay that does not involve football intelligence at all. Often is a 0 second delay, Sometimes a 3 second delay and Rarely a 10 second delay. Or something like that. They always run forward, eventually, and then stay there (apart from defenders).

In reality, all players have a single RfD instruction: go forward when it is a good idea to go forward (and receive a weighted pass into the space in front of you), otherwise make yourself available for a pass to feet. And then there is still the discussion of whether these movements are tied to what the manager tells a player to do and what his natural inclination is. Tell the classic English dribble-winger to cut inside like Hazard and he might be a bit uncomfortable even though he would be suitable for it. Torres has the football intelligence and technique to link play, but he plays like a poacher regardless of what Mourinho tells him to do. No-one really believes that Mourinho tells him to lurk around the box and thus disrupt the space of his three attacking midfielders right? Do all of Tevez's managers tell him to harass the midfielders and run all over the pitch?

Maybe being "the manager" is a bit exaggerated in England?

[Arsenal Rule]

I hate change but I do like how its been done to be honest, in fact im enjoying the tactical side a lot more now in general because of the charges!

[ham_aka_stam]

Why would a good tactic need to be one which varies based on the opposition? The parameters must be wrong for you to come to that conclusion:

1. A good tactic dominates (big) chance creation and possession against weaker or similar opponents

2. A good tactic dominates (big) chance creation against stronger opponents as well

3. It must be able to break down parked buses

4. It must be able to counter efficiently when pushed back

... and that without major changes. Strategic changes must be considered big. Formation changes as well. Changing up duties and roles of a few players aren't that big of a change. I don't think that the shouts change that much. Some more than others.

Basically, a working tactic is not broken down by the opponent's attempt to park the bus, or push forward with long balls. Then it is not a solid tactic. I mean, on a bad day, sure, an extra man in the midfield or in the defense is necessary - but if you have to change stuff around because the opponent throws just about anything at you, you're in trouble. The "tactical gurus" on here say they don't, and so you shouldn't either.

Real life managers may change stuff around in some special matches, but mostly, they have a system they believe in and what we see when we watch and notice that they play a bit differently is more likely to be the dynamic nature of the match and football itself or differences in how players interpret their roles or the match, than actual intended adjustments.

I am not arguing FOR sliders by the way. I am not lamenting that they are gone. I stopped using them once I understood that any coherent tactic I could come up with would still be within the predetermined range of coherence in the game. If you go outside of those boundaries, the tactic will fall apart. The sliders was just a tool to create tactics, and so is the TC. As long as the outcome of any outside-the-box tacticical experiment gets a stamp of disapproval by the ME, the TC is a much more efficient tool to build with, but I want people to be aware that we are now back to the 5 variants of CM94 except there are now 55 variants to choose from. Or something. It doesn't matter which you use, except for cosmetic reasons.

I am also, despite what some say, not arguing that you HAVE to play in a certain way - just that some ways are more efficient than others because there are and always will be imbalances in the ME. So, since I mostly play a two-player game with a friend who downloads really good tactics, I have no interest in mediocrity since I must win almost all the matches in any season AND cope with what he throws at me. So far I have managed to create tactics which are competitive with what he finds on the web, but usually he takes the lead early on in the savegames we play because I need to assemble the right team before I get that edge. That was the case in both FM11, FM12 and 13. In the latest few savegames we have played, I come in second behind him the first two-three seasons, so it is clear that I would have won if playing alone. So would most other human users as well, I presume (so most managers are happy with their tactic). The important bit here is that if my tactic is only slightly better than what the AI would have managed with the same team, I wouldn't stand a chance - not to mention inferior tactics led by a human user who is good at changing stuff around or building teams so that they win against the AI anyways. That's not good enough.

Because a good tactic cannot be expect to have zero weaknesses. Every tactic does. If a team plays a different number of forwards, the minimum number of designated defenders to deal with them changes. If they pack the midfield, you're going to have to change the way you play unless your players are of such high quality that it doesn't matter.

You state that changing duties and role aren't that big of a deal, yet you say changing formation (i.e. dropping a CM to DM or a ST to AM) is a big change? I don't get that, they're two ways of achieving the same thing. In real life, if a manager wanted his most defensive CM to drop back further to counter a specific threat, he'd do that. It wouldn't be a difference between a "role" and a "position". But unfortunately things like that need to exist in a game.

I don't get your last paragraph, in fact I don't even know what you're arguing against now...

[milnerpoint]

There isnt a single infallible tactic in the world of football, even the mighty Barca team of a few seasons ago were vulnerable to a very specific way of playing.

[BiggusD]

I don't get your last paragraph, in fact I don't even know what you're arguing against now...

I have higher demands for what a tactic must do than many other people.

And no if a tactic packs the midfield the tactic I use must be able to cope with that without me changing stuff. If they play four or five forwards there are less midfielders and defenders to cope with my team, same with the midfield. 3-6-1 = only one striker to worry about, and I might play over or around the midfield anyways. Doing the whole "oh they have a 5-man midfield I must also play five midfielders then"- thing is against everything I stand for both regarding FM and in real life.

Also, I said that if the team has a bad day for some reason (i.e morale/motivation), adding more men to the midfield and/or the defense might be a good idea, but not as an adjustment -before- the match starts.

[Svenc]

No I don't say that "anything should work". It is just that you can't play a quick, direct passing game, aiming to finish attacks quickly, while keeping men behind the ball and avoid taking risks. Such a Scandinavian take on football is not really functional in FM. Aggressively trying to win possession on your own half and then launch a quick attack is attacking football in FM, and involves taking risks and pushing up. Playing like Barcelona means using Counter or Defend strategies and Support/Defend duties while being highly aggressive, closing down all over the pitch and max pushing up. Can't be done in FM14. Can be done in FM13 but it is unlikely to work well.

You are confusing the strategies with fixed styles, I think. Going a more risk-averse strategy in the TC of old involves players generally picking passes of lower risk, but counter can be actually made very direct in key attacking passes (get ball forward, more direct, etc.), which is personally how I'd emplement a Scandinavian style, as the counter tick box also has some tempo covered when the situation arises (which with dropping deeper against opposition pushing forward, it frequently would). Of course you'd also need to implement options available up-front when the ball is won back deep. In terms of mechanics, the strategies largely lay mentality and defending structures (pressing higher when higher when going "attack", dropping off when "defend"), but in accordance with other sliders, such as passing, that makes for conundrums. And playing styles. Strategies are just a part of that puzzle.

Equally, that's not how RFD ever has worked, as firstly it would make for a mess with defending players (most crucially midfield anchor and holding men) providing no cover at all, and secondly none of the strategies would have an influence on the positioning of players, their timing of runs (nor would the shout look for overlap work anymore, greatly upping mentality for the FB/WBs so that they start to make their runs earlier and maxing RFD to ensure they'll always make that run). If I'm wrong, please some of the officials correct me, haven't played much of FM 2013, and if it changed, well, that's the good old sliders for you... :-) Apart from that, in general I agree with you though. Obviously there is a lot of stuff you cannot implement exactly like you want it to, and this is always going to be the case. But then a lot of real life football is up for interpretation.. if you see a side keeping men behind the ball and hoofing the ball forward ASAP when it is won back, could that really considered a defensive mentality when translated to FM or something else.

Popular anecdote had it that Egil Olsen's Norway of the 1990s made for spectators in the stands all gather behind the two goals, and the main stands being isolated, as their style had involved no midfield play whatsoever, instead the defenders always always always lumping the ball directly to target men up front even when option for more sensible build-up was available. I watched the World Cup in 1994 and 1998 in which they participated, but I think this popular anecdote is a bit exaggerated for entertainment value, as else they'd have had worse ball retention than England facing cultured opposition of calibre and would have been punished dearly for it, in particular against Brazil in 1998, their finest hour on that level.

[HaydarAli]

They should be a 4th option in the poll:

"I'm glad sliders are gone, but I'm sceptical about the new tactic system (lack of information of default instructions)"

The results of the survey would be more credible.

[Da_Funk]

I can absolutely support any argument in which the user claims he doesn't understand the conceptualisation of a role because the language is too imprecise. It's fundamental. If you don't know what you are asking a player to do, then there's a problem with design. Any such examples should be brought to SI's attention in the bug forum or the general feedback thread.

It's not necessary a UI or TC or language problem. How many managers are out there? How many formations do they create? How many players do they have at disposal? You'll never fill all the needs. There are too many shades when you build your formation or instruct a defender.

In the end you have a system that you'll find somehow restrictive and forces you to go search and ask in a forum for a very simple thing you could previously.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/363742-(FM14)-Setting-Playmaker

2000000 combinations uh? Go tell dafuge.

However, I find it very weird that the same people rightly highlighting some of these issues (albeit without specific examples) then claim that being able to set a slider to 13 or 14 solves the problem. Thus far, I haven't seen anybody being able to quantify the difference between 1 or 2 or 3 notches of a slider. The argument seems to be that even though you don't know exactly what you are doing, the illusion of control is better than the loss of the illusion. I genuinely don't get that.

No example?

I take my Robben, put him on the Right AMF position and Inside Forward.

I decide to put him on the left, and use him as Winger, as he is lefty and it's not a good idea to use him as Inside Forward on that side.

What is changed? Movement for sure (cut inside vs hug sideline), cross, then what? Movement with ball? Well that's not important, I can check the instruction/shout and change.

What else? Is closing down changed? Passing? How should I know? How can I interfere with this? How can I be sure that I can have the same closing down and off/def awareness as before?

Let's bring back sliders.

What is the difference between IForward and Winger? I take my player from the right to the left, I change the cut inside in hug sidelines, I teach him to cross more with a tick, I decide about movement with ball. Was it so difficult? 2 clicks? Do I need 50 pages (as someone stated) to transform a IForward in a Winger? And I know for sure that my closing down and mentality is not changed, and I can work them if I want to change off/def awareness. I'm not saying that with that sliders it was all cookies and candies but hey now with roles I don't what effectively they do. And if in doubt you're telling me "Set and watch a match. Try it".

These are examples, these are questions that are avoided. Because "I don't know"? So I switch a role and I don't know what kind of changes it brings?

If I switch a IForward in a Winger do I know the differences in closing down and similar? Or do I have an ILLUSION (since you like this argument so much) that perhaps it's the same or it's different. Or do I have to HOPE that it's the same or different. The "unable to quantify a notch of slider" argument is toilet paper, since you have a match analysis tool that shows you movement range, passes and much more. I even wrote that in bold: with a slider I knew I was in 0-10 under the 50% of the potential available movement range for example. Can you tell with the actual system where should my DLF approximately drop and fall? It's not that a notch of a slider needs to solve every instant problem in every occasion, you still don't get that. The illusion argument is toilet paper too, since you were the one who wrote a guide of 50 pages (citation), which became a sort of bible, and you were giving suggestions for years according to this guide and sliders. Was it all a lie? Was FM a lie and a FRAUD for decades? You're supporting this thesis and you have to admit it then.

You genuinely don't get that but still accept without any problem that a +1/-1 in an attribute is not that important. I don't see flames and counter flames on the attributes, why's that? And after a decade I still see "what attributes are important here and there", regardless of any description you can give. No war against numerical attributes, why?

You can't tell me "the new system is implemented in this way and will be expanded and improved in the next versions". Of course it will be improved, it must be like everything in a game, but in the stores and in the forum we discuss about what the game offers this year, right now. You can't tell me this system, actually is better than the previous one. It's not that I'm not supporting you. It's that as a user who knows something about football and about managerial games I refuse to accept it as a shared truth.

[Da_Funk]

They are informed by slider settings, but have also been "isolated" to make them more distinguishable. Consequently, for example, how a DC interprets a certain passing and mentality combo will produce a different outcome than how a LDC interprets the same settings, as the latter will be more likely to clear the ball when in slightly risky situations. This kind of subtle differentiation was impossible with free sliders.

I'd like to know why this was technically not possible. It doesn't convince me. If I move a player from DC to LDC in the tactic screen, the game automatically switch the role and gives the player the different routine. It should be like when I take a striker and put him in the midfield, the game switch his routine because he knows he's awful there.

[milnerpoint]

This new system is definitely better than the previous one, because its more universally friendly to everyone, its no longer only for those who understand sliders and what they did. I think you'll find across the board, the general feeling is, the new way is better, but needs improving to be as adjustable as the previous one.

[Fond Foat]

This is a valid argument. But it might be worth pointing out that FM was never meant to be a game creating a world in which the human player takes center stage and is (theoretically) able to re-invent tactics as the world knew them each. But one in which he is but another manager just like his AI counterparts. That's a design philosophy that dates all the way back to Champ Man 1, actually.

Well said, and I think this has been largely forgotten. I want to be in charge of a lower team and struggle like hell to get anywhere. I am just one of a world full of managers trying to succeed. Why should I be able to set up a simple tactic with a lower team and all of sudden think i deserve to be the best in the world. The better the AI gets the more this will become achievable.

[ham_aka_stam]

I have higher demands for what a tactic must do than many other people.

And no if a tactic packs the midfield the tactic I use must be able to cope with that without me changing stuff. If they play four or five forwards there are less midfielders and defenders to cope with my team, same with the midfield. 3-6-1 = only one striker to worry about, and I might play over or around the midfield anyways. Doing the whole "oh they have a 5-man midfield I must also play five midfielders then"- thing is against everything I stand for both regarding FM and in real life.

Also, I said that if the team has a bad day for some reason (i.e morale/motivation), adding more men to the midfield and/or the defense might be a good idea, but not as an adjustment -before- the match starts.

Then perhaps they're unrealistic?

You might only have one striker to deal with, but you could be wasting 3 CBs back there (depending on your chosen formation) to deal with him. Surely that requires a change?

[mfprez]

[deleted]

[bigdunk]

I'd like to know why this was technically not possible. It doesn't convince me. If I move a player from DC to LDC in the tactic screen, the game automatically switch the role and gives the player the different routine. It should be like when I take a striker and put him in the midfield, the game switch his routine because he knows he's awful there.

If it's just the case that a limited DC has 2 notches lower passing than a normal DC (or something to that effect), then yes it could be done with the old slider system. What couldn't be done is have a Limited DC on passing 2 Mentality 2, play differently to a Normal DC on the exact same settings. Without being tied to the sliders, you can keep the majority of the players game the same, but just tweak the way he responds to slightly risky situations when he has possession in his own half. So they would both still look to play the ball out from the back if there was no pressure, but under pressure, the Limited DC would hoof it a lot quicker.

[milnerpoint]

There should at least be sliders viewable as an unmodifiable option in order for users to gain a clearer visual understanding of what the shouts are doing comparatively to other shout options as this would aid the user in gaining a better picture of the play style they are creating.

What would that gain unless you have innate knowledge of what each slider means in the first place?

[YKW]

There should at least be sliders viewable as an unmodifiable option in order for users to gain a clearer visual understanding of what the shouts are doing comparatively to other shout options as this would aid the user in gaining a better picture of the play style they are creating.

This. If not the sliders, then some other feature to the same effect.