Is SI getting too technical with tactics?

[hoddle1404]

This may sound like a like a suggestion or someone may have brought up this before But I’ve got tell this after playing FM, back then called CM for 20 yrs..

1993 was the year, I gotta be grateful for a not so close friend introducing me this great game about managing a football club.. Overjoyed that I could manage spurs, buy players, sell players, set up your squad and winning the league.. Everything was as simple as abc.. Basic tactics.. Basic positions.. Just plug in your best payers and start the game.. The simple bars and the commentary text is the only way we know whether we are playing well or bad.. No 2D or 3D to check on movement of players when my team was losing. But everything was simple, enjoyable and importantly less stressful.

Each year SI upgraded the version of the game with the advancement of technology and the game got harder and more realistic and finally the year came when everyone hoped for a 3D. Tactics too were developed and now each position, players have a role and a duty. This is what everyone wanted, more control of the players and the tactics. And of cause I am one of those fans very happy at work of SI of giving what we wanted. But I got to be honest. I realised tactics and training has become too technical to understand and conceptualise.

I guess in real life, managers tell the players of their position and give instructions on his duties on what he has to do on the field. That is what SI has given us in FM14. Getting rid of the traditional sliders and introducing instructions. That’s is how it is done in real life. But the big question is do we need a predefined role and duty for each player and a predefined team mentality and fluidity?

If I’m a manager who position my player as striker, I will give him instructions on what he has to do on the field. Not telling my player you going to be my poacher or deep lying forward or F9 or so on. Yes these are roles and they have different pre-set instructions accordingly. But in real life you give instructions to player based on how we want them to play and based on their abilities.

For example, there isn’t much difference between deep lying forward and a F9. Both roles have to drop deep and have more or less similar pre-set instructions. Yes both roles have different explanations but from the 2D, their movements are much the pretty same and what difference can we see. Even a complete forward or trequartista drops deep. I believe all primary objective of a forward you are to score goals. Additional instructions should be given for their movement and contribution towards the play.

I’m sure if we look at the forum, many FM gamers are still confused on the tactics aspect and wondering why their tactics is not working. Thank god we got some kind souls who take their time and effort contributing some useful articles like the mentality ladder and 12 step guide. But to be frank, those explanations are too technical and just hard to conceptualise. Things should be kept simple. I play two strikers. One striker instructing to be drop deeper or roam and the other to make runs and while staying up. If my striker is not performing well then I should tweak his instructions and not keep experimenting what is the role he will fit into. A manager should instruct on how he wants his players to play base on their attributes and not base on the explanation on those roles and the highlighted attributes.

Another thing which I find it very weird in FM14, if I set my team to very fluid and attacking, why is the team instructions such as Be more Disciplined and Much deeper Defensive are not being greyed out. I wondered what will be my players’ mentality if I want them to attack but still able to instruct Much Deeper defensive. It just doesn’t make sense. I feel when you attack and very fluid there are higher chances where u will have high defensive line by default and playing a more open game. Maybe the experts in the SI team knows how a team will play with such instructions but as a normal FA gamer we find it contradicting and hard to conceptualise.

Lastly I think the training needs some changes. I love the match training and SI has a done a great job in implementing that. But I am not too sure that I want the players to train one particular aspect the whole week. The only option which is available is the balanced training. But I’m sure that I want my players to train attack and a bit of defend and fitness. The individual training is also a great feature which makes a player train his weaknesses in his attributes. But I suggest training a role should be taken off and make a player train to improve multiple attributes instead of a single attributes. For example I can train my M(L/R) to improve his crossing and passing only and not make him train the whole attributes of a winger.

To sum up, this is not a complaint. This is just a suggestion that SI can develop tactics and training easier to conceptualise. What I’m trying to say is that the motive is not to create tactic to guarantee success in every match but to create a tactic how I want it to be played and build on that. Having basic team instruction and more player instructions to tell what they should do in that position, not based on roles and duty. A ball playing defender and a limited defender are able to play as stopper. So what is their movement with the balls and off the balls? Isn’t a stopper is a stopper?

In FM that is the main objective of a manger to build a team, train his players and win matches to reach the goals of a club. SI has come this far to bring more realism to the game. At the same time tactics should kept simple and easier for us to conceptualise and not worrying to understand technical details of it.

[sporadicsmiles]

I think that you can see player roles not so much as a way of telling a player 'You are a deep lying forward', but more as a convenient short-hand so you do not have to manually create a deep lying forward from instructions. You can imagine that, were you able to enter the world of FM, you would actually coach the player in playing to a specific role, but simply stating this in a tactic is a much nicer way to handle it in a simulation. I am not really sure how else it could be done, and of course you can modify with PIs until you have the exact balance you wish.

I disagree on a couple of your points though.

I believe all primary objective of a forward you are to score goals.

For me, this is not true. I currently have a formation I play with a lone striker, and his job is not only to score goals but to drag defenders out of shape, create space for runners from midfield or the wings to exploit. His doing this is central to my tactic being successful. I am happy if he has 0 shots on target but his movement leads to two goals. This is I guess part of the fluidity that now comes into the game; rigidly speaking, strikers score, defenders defend and midfielders create. As you add more fluidity, players can contribute to different areas of the game. At least this is how I see it.

if I set my team to very fluid and attacking, why is the team instructions such as Be more Disciplined and Much deeper Defensive are not being greyed out.

I do not find this contradictory at all. Can you not want to be attacking, but to also keep players deeper? This could translate into a fast, direct approach that starts from deeper in your own half, or not as deep in the oppositions, thus perhaps serving to draw out a team who are sitting in deep. In the game, setting 'attacking' or 'defensive' sets various parameters such as depth of defensive line, the tempo, the directness, to certain default values (better people than me could explain this in much greater depth than I, that is rather hand-wavy I know and not particularly helpful). Anyway, the upshot of that is, attack + deeper defensive line does not equal defensive + deeper defensive line. You are modifying a different starting point, so you would not get the same result.

I think you may make some interesting points about training. I admit that this is one element of the game that I tend to neglect, so I am not very knowledgeable on how everything works in there. But the ability to go more in depth would be useful - it is after all one of the most important aspects of a coach's job.

[ctfm2012]

I like the game don't me wrong. It's been growing thats for sure, but like everything that grows it has it's faults somewhere unless your lionel messi. I would say from my experience FM14 has been the most challenging and bogged down version. This time round I had to spend a lot of time delving into the new tactics/shouts during the game. I never stick with the same shouts for a whole game. I change shouts during a half and every half for all games all season. Let alone tactics. I'm still not convinced this is bringing out realistic scorelines e.g. a number of dissalowed goals during the match and many other areas. I'll wait for 2015 and hope it's an improvement. Just my views thats all.

[YKW]

I agree with your sentiment 110%! I know people do not want yet another long post from me on the subject, so I'll be brief.

If I’m a manager who position my player as striker, I will give him instructions on what he has to do on the field. Not telling my player you going to be my poacher or deep lying forward or F9 or so on. Yes these are roles and they have different pre-set instructions accordingly. But in real life you give instructions to player based on how we want them to play and based on their abilities.

..is the most pertinent paragraph imo.

The interface for both tactics and training is very good and very usable, so from that perspective both can be seen as successes. However I feel the implementation of both (particularly tactics) is VERY suspect, and for me not at all fun or rewarding. The roles are imaginary, subjective and needlessly remove me from what I actually want to control.

With ball: Initial position, movement, passing, dribbling, shooting.

Without ball: Initial position, closing down (movement), marking and tackling.

I have probably missed one or two, but my point is that the above is what a manager uses to form his tactics. The idea of telling players to play a role which a) the manager didn't define (and can't define;) b) which any two managers could interpret differently; and c) which for some reason assumes that changing one instruction changes other instructions, is monumentally flawed. Monumentally. It is easy to consider this simply by thinking of the translations of the roles into languages other than English which have their own lingo and connotations attached to that lingo. I am hugely doubtful that the implications in England of "deep lying striker" match up exactly with any of the terms used in other countries to indicate the same role (ie 'Backwards Striker.') Imo that shows there is a fundamental flaw in conveying the idea.

I am content with it as a stepping stone to a better system, but I'm not convinced that it is even slightly good from a gameplay (not useability) standpoint. I am also even less convinced that it has anything at all to do with real football management.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

It's just fallen into one of the few traps all annual games do. It grew too fast with far too little documentation (official) about it.

I say that because;

1) It's grown too fast -

You can see this with the sloppy parts of the game, team talks, player interaction, the media aspect - Not all of them work as intended, or as good as they should do. I feel SI introduce a new feature and it's usually 3 or 4 iterations later that it finally works properly. Media has had an overhaul but is still limited in its options, player interaction is downright broken, team talks have always divided the crowd because;

2) There's not enough official and clear documentation;

Most of the information explaining features and whatnot is from forums, staff or volunteers or players working it out. There's not enough in the nice juicy manual, I don't think the tutorial or tooltips or whatever do it justice. I think the Tactics board has already identified so many issues; for example, the confusion about fluid/rigid, attacking/control/counter. The gamer and the fan examine those words in different contexts and when a writer doesn't establish what the word means in a clear and concise manner you'll have confusion from both sides. Just look at the myths about Determination, look at the confusion about player roles and abilities and so on.

If they take their time, stop adding more shiny features, refine and fix all those that are existing in the game and describe them in a way that the majority of people will come to consensus on the topic and some confusion may be eradicated. I personally think the tactical side of things is improving, its accessible but, information translation on the screen is sometimes poor; Ignore your assman is something everyone says, it's something no-one should be saying with any regularity tbqh.

[HUNT3R]

If I’m a manager who position my player as striker, I will give him instructions on what he has to do on the field. Not telling my player you going to be my poacher or deep lying forward or F9 or so on. Yes these are roles and they have different pre-set instructions accordingly. But in real life you give instructions to player based on how we want them to play and based on their abilities.

But this doesn't happen in FM either. You're not simply telling him, "Play as a Poacher".

You're telling him:

"Sit on the shoulder of the last defender and look to break the defensive line and run onto through balls from the midfield. Run at your marker and cross the ball, if required, but your main aim is to put the ball in the back of the net."

"Focus on getting us goals, not getting involved with play too much. Stay relatively central to sniff out opportunities in the box."

That's what you're telling him. On top of that, there are Player Instructions to also help and you can even check what attributes are required to play the position to give you more of an idea of the type of player needed and what he'll be doing.

Beyond that, you can also watch matches to see exactly what he's doing. I realise that the current system can be improved and I've said so myself, but you're not completely lost in FM14.

[THOG]

The tactical system hasn't really changed at all beyond sliders now being hidden. I agree that things could be better explained, but any difference in difficulty would be a result of changes in other areas.

[Lawlore]

But then you're led into the kind of conflicts where you have a player who you want to play in a particular way, who has the attributes to play in that particular way, but who is rated as being poor at playing in that role, or who is recommended instead to play in a different role despite their attributes in that role being weaker. There is nothing obvious to gauge why someone is recommended in one role and not another- all we have are the attributes, which don't agree.

The issue almost feels like it's working the wrong way round. We are having to choose a role, based on similar textual descriptions, which provides certain instructions and requires focus on certain attributes. Instead, it should be vice versa- we already know which attributes we want that person in that position to focus on, and we know which instructions we want to give them, so the game should provide us with the appropriate role from that input.

As I've said before- making bad tactical decisions is one thing, that's part of football, and managers are free to do that. But being unable to communicate your own intentions to your players is not, and that's where people are getting tripped up.

[looknohands]

I miss the sliders. There, I've said it!

An earlier idea of mine was to implement sliders in conjunction with the pre-defined roles; each instruction ("shoot more," for example) would have 5 sliders, with 1 representing an instruction to avoid shooting the ball at all costs (central defenders) and 5 representing take advantage of any chance to fire at the net (out-and-out strikers.) Not only would this allow us to get visual feedback on the difference between the mentalities of a false nine compared to a deep-lying forward (instead of vague text summaries) but this would also allow the player to customize roles better to suit the team and individuals.

[wwfan]

I miss the sliders. There, I've said it!

An earlier idea of mine was to implement sliders in conjunction with the pre-defined roles; each instruction ("shoot more," for example) would have 5 sliders, with 1 representing an instruction to avoid shooting the ball at all costs (central defenders) and 5 representing take advantage of any chance to fire at the net (out-and-out strikers.) Not only would this allow us to get visual feedback on the difference between the mentalities of a false nine compared to a deep-lying forward (instead of vague text summaries) but this would also allow the player to customize roles better to suit the team and individuals.

What the removal of sliders does is to provide PaulC the opportunity to tailor behaviour to roles in a much more fine-tuned way. With sliders, it was impossible to do this as the slider settings had to work the same way across the pitch. Whilst in FM14, these behavioural differences are minimal, the development potential is enormous and exciting.

As soon as you begin making sliders central again, this potential disappears.

[hoddle1404]

For me, this is not true. I currently have a formation I play with a lone striker, and his job is not only to score goals but to drag defenders out of shape, create space for runners from midfield or the wings to exploit. His doing this is central to my tactic being successful. I am happy if he has 0 shots on target but his movement leads to two goals. This is I guess part of the fluidity that now comes into the game; rigidly speaking, strikers score, defenders defend and midfielders create. As you add more fluidity, players can contribute to different areas of the game. At least this is how I see it.

Yes I do agree. But then again your lone striker movement is a secondary objective according to your game plan. Naturally every manager expects their striker to find the net so in that sense i'm telling the primary objective of a forward is to score goals. What i'm trying to highlight is instead of the specific roles, we instruct the players on their movements and contribution. I do not see much of a difference between a deep lying forward and a F9. Both roles start as a up front and then drop deep. Both roles have the ability to pull away the defenders and I can almost set similar instructions to both roles. Only the definition of the roles are different but during the match the movements are almost the same and maybe a slight difference due to the ability of the players.

[hoddle1404]

But this doesn't happen in FM either. You're not simply telling him, "Play as a Poacher".

You're telling him:

"Sit on the shoulder of the last defender and look to break the defensive line and run onto through balls from the midfield. Run at your marker and cross the ball, if required, but your main aim is to put the ball in the back of the net."

"Focus on getting us goals, not getting involved with play too much. Stay relatively central to sniff out opportunities in the box."

That's what you're telling him. On top of that, there are Player Instructions to also help and you can even check what attributes are required to play the position to give you more of an idea of the type of player needed and what he'll be doing.

Beyond that, you can also watch matches to see exactly what he's doing. I realise that the current system can be improved and I've said so myself, but you're not completely lost in FM14.

Yes maybe those instructions are the same to what a poacher means. But if we look at Defoe, he is a natural poacher who gets the ball, run with it and blast it towards goal. But there are times that you can see him dropping deep instead of sitting at shoulder of the last defender and yet he still perform the duty of a poacher. Yes if I want him to drop deep I could assign him deep lying forward. But the idea is I just want him to be the main goal getter but just drop deeper instead of sitting at shoulder of the last defender. There are roles which enables to drop deep but each roles have different definition and these definitions gives us a different perception of how the player will move and contribute and not the way I want him to.

[HUNT3R]

Yes maybe those instructions are the same to what a poacher means. But if we look at Defoe, he is a natural poacher who gets the ball, run with it and blast it towards goal. But there are times that you can see him dropping deep instead of sitting at shoulder of the last defender and yet he still perform the duty of a poacher. Yes if I want him to drop deep I could assign him deep lying forward. But the idea is I just want him to be the main goal getter but just drop deeper instead of sitting at shoulder of the last defender. There are roles which enables to drop deep but each roles have different definition and these definitions gives us a different perception of how the player will move and contribute and not the way I want him to.

That's fine. The description says he won't get involved too much, not that he won't get involved at all.

If you find he's not involved enough for your liking, ask him to play as an Advanced Forward then.

[David91]

What the removal of sliders does is to provide PaulC the opportunity to tailor behaviour to roles in a much more fine-tuned way. With sliders, it was impossible to do this as the slider settings had to work the same way across the pitch. Whilst in FM14, these behavioural differences are minimal, the development potential is enormous and exciting.

As soon as you begin making sliders central again, this potential disappears.

CM03/04 had textual instructions. Not as many as now, but textual. Sliders were a step up, not down. For example, in FM12 and 13, tiki-taka could be almost perfectly replicated with passing sliders, so after scoring, my defence was passing the ball between themselves, not even wanting to come forward and try to score another goal. Now, even with low tempo, low mentality and short passing, players tend to try and exploit the space opponent leaves. What if I don't want that? What if I want to keep the ball after 1:0 and - do nothing, like Spain on EURO 2012? Show me how is that possible in FM14.

[s1111]

What the removal of sliders does is to provide PaulC the opportunity to tailor behaviour to roles in a much more fine-tuned way. With sliders, it was impossible to do this as the slider settings had to work the same way across the pitch. Whilst in FM14, these behavioural differences are minimal, the development potential is enormous and exciting.

As soon as you begin making sliders central again, this potential disappears.

Why make this change this year then? All we're left with now is a half hearted broken system that's neither here nor there. The sliders are still there but we can't see them and so have no idea what we're instructing players to do. Neither have we seen any of the potential of the new system. Nothing should have been changed until there was a full functioning system ready to go. The FM14 tactics system is terrible quite frankly and has caused no end of frustration for people because we've lost both the control and the visualisation of tactics that the sliders gave us with absolutely no benefit coming in return.

[valehannes]

What do you mean we have no idea what we're instructing the players to do? The instructions are reasonably clear.

[hoddle1404]

What do you mean we have no idea what we're instructing the players to do? The instructions are reasonably clear.

Instructions are clear but it's the definition of roles that separates these instructions. If you look at the advanced forward and a poacher, they have almost similar default instruction and all I have to do is to select one or two instructions to make it similar between these two roles. So that means both roles have different definition but similar movement and contributions?

[edgar555]

Why make this change this year then? All we're left with now is a half hearted broken system that's neither here nor there. The sliders are still there but we can't see them and so have no idea what we're instructing players to do. Neither have we seen any of the potential of the new system. Nothing should have been changed until there was a full functioning system ready to go. The FM14 tactics system is terrible quite frankly and has caused no end of frustration for people because we've lost both the control and the visualisation of tactics that the sliders gave us with absolutely no benefit coming in return.

Whilst I understand the point you're trying to make, when exactly should they do it? Whichever iteration they choose then it would cause these same issues. At some point they have to bite the bullet and go with it. They've chosen this one. Personally I feel that a lot of the 'issues' are massively inflated in people's heads. It's been a tough learning curve for some on FM14 (including me) yet it's by no means 'impossible' 'unplayable' or ever to quote the OP 'too technical'. It's just difficult.

[themadsheep2001]

CM03/04 had textual instructions. Not as many as now, but textual. Sliders were a step up, not down. For example, in FM12 and 13, tiki-taka could be almost perfectly replicated with passing sliders, so after scoring, my defence was passing the ball between themselves, not even wanting to come forward and try to score another goal. Now, even with low tempo, low mentality and short passing, players tend to try and exploit the space opponent leaves. What if I don't want that? What if I want to keep the ball after 1:0 and - do nothing, like Spain on EURO 2012? Show me how is that possible in FM14.

Tiki taka is not about not the getting the ball forwards, its about controlled rotational movement of the ball, using possession as both a means of a defence and a means of attack to find and create clear moments of goal scoring opportunity. They dont do nothing with the ball, they rotate it till they can find the right moment. If they cant, they keep rotating the ball.

If you want to keep the ball and maintain deep possession it's actually quite possible.

[hoddle1404]

When we look at the term trequartista, there is no specific definition for such role. It's a term used in Italy and wen I google its a term used for a player behind the striker. He is just a attacking mid or a playmaker. There is no specific meaning to it. It was much more simpler when we had to choose who will be our playmaker in previous FM. There isn't a need to confuse us with these roles when they have similar meaning. Even an Enganche is a term used in South America which is also a playmaker and of coz in FM enganche role restrict his movements. it is much simpler to choose a player who has the attributes to be a playmaker and we set up his instructions on his movements and contributions.

[HUNT3R]

Why don't you just use the description SI gives you?

[hoddle1404]

Why don't you just use the description SI gives you?

The question is.. Does all the roles have a clear description of the player movements and contributions. we are only visualising the player's roles with the description given. our understanding and perception can go wrong.

[HUNT3R]

The question is.. Does all the roles have a clear description of the player movements and contributions. we are only visualising the player's roles with the description given. our understanding and perception can go wrong.

Well, why don't you start with the descriptions and see if there's something you don't agree with? Like I said, using the descriptions, key attributes and PI screen you can get a decent idea of what a player will do. If all that fails, watching the ME works too.

[ndebergerac]

Tiki taka is not about not the getting the ball forwards, its about controlled rotational movement of the ball, using possession as both a means of a defence and a means of attack to find and create clear moments of goal scoring opportunity. They dont do nothing with the ball, they rotate it till they can find the right moment. If they cant, they keep rotating the ball.

If you want to keep the ball and maintain deep possession it's actually quite possible.

This exactly. It finally looks like I've put together a tactic to do just this. Patient build up, the famous triangles, 65% possession, conceding a goal, on average, every 5 games. Despite being a big club with plenty of top class attacking players, I rarely have more than 15 shots total per game.

Yes maybe those instructions are the same to what a poacher means. But if we look at Defoe, he is a natural poacher who gets the ball, run with it and blast it towards goal. But there are times that you can see him dropping deep instead of sitting at shoulder of the last defender and yet he still perform the duty of a poacher. Yes if I want him to drop deep I could assign him deep lying forward. But the idea is I just want him to be the main goal getter but just drop deeper instead of sitting at shoulder of the last defender. There are roles which enables to drop deep but each roles have different definition and these definitions gives us a different perception of how the player will move and contribute and not the way I want him to.

I use my loan striker in the DLF(s) role. This doesn't mean he sits in between the defense and midfield, but rather sits on the shoulder looking for the through ball. When that opportunity doesn't present itself, which it rarely does given my setup, he drops into the hole and links up with the midfield. This may not work as well with a fast paced attacking tactic, the slow patient passing game allows him this freedom. Giving a player a specific role, doesn't mean he acts like a robot.

[YKW]

What the removal of sliders does is to provide PaulC the opportunity to tailor behaviour to roles in a much more fine-tuned way. With sliders, it was impossible to do this as the slider settings had to work the same way across the pitch. Whilst in FM14, these behavioural differences are minimal, the development potential is enormous and exciting.

As soon as you begin making sliders central again, this potential disappears.

This sounds good but I have been wary of this for a while, and I think it might be a slightly awkward direction to go in. I think the 'behavioural differences' that you are talking about should be attached to players NOT roles, essentially becoming an extension of preferred moves and giving the players some much needed identity.

Seeing as Jermain Defoe has been mentioned I'll use him as the example. I have also had the benefit of watching him play live almost 100 times over the course of his career. The ONLY time his game has changed was after he missed out on the world cup squad for Theo Walcott. He began hassling defenders much more aggressively and dropping much deeper to try and be more involved in the game (this was the major criticism of his play.) I don't think it actually helped him, but it was a permanent change in his approach to the game.

The suggestion seems to be that if I was managing Defoe in 2005 that I would be able to drastically effect his behaviour on the pitch, when it seems pretty obvious to me that he will revert to doing the same thing again and again regardless. Telling him he is a DLF is not going to suddenly make him try through balls and telling him he is a TM isn't going to start making him try knock downs to others. On the one hand it would be bad management to try and tell Defoe to do either of these things, but on the other hand telling him to do it isn't going to improve the chances that he will successfully do it - which will be the case once these hard coded 'behavioural differences' are programmed, imo.

On the one hand, it would be great to select a target man and poacher and have specific behaviour that would arise as a result of this. However, Target man/Poacher or Big Man/Little Man isn't tactical set up, it is something innate to the players you have chosen. Berbatov and Keane could fit this description, however if I take off Berbatov for Defoe (otbe) will Defoe attempt the same plays as Berbatov? The answer is no way.

Keane and Defoe quite famously could not play together. Why? Because their tendencies were too similar. Tactics could not change this. Gerrard and Lampard? Same problem, their tendencies are too similar. However in the system you are suggesting it would be very simple to overcome this problem, because changing a role would suddenly change their tendencies.

For me, a players game is determined by (and in this order): Tendencies, Abilities, Instructions.

The MOST significant effect on a players actions on the pitch is their tendencies, ie their ingrained style of play. Having generic 'maneuvers' that can be performed by roles or combinations of roles is not at all positive for me. I see it as a continuation down the road of "tactics or else" when in actuality, choosing a player who naturally does those maneuvers is basically the whole idea of transfers.

Suppose I have two identical players in terms of attributes, positions, personality etc. Say their attributes are all 10. What you are suggesting is that differences in the play of these two players will only be determined by tactics. If I have two midfield roles, for example AP and BWM, they should be able to interchange imperceptibly. That's a really flawed concept imo, because I think it shows that without something extra the implication is that all that determines a players action is his instructions. The reality is that even identical players with identical skills AND identical instructions will still behave differently, dictated by their life up to that point.

If a player likes to do X then he can do it regardless of his role, and probably will still do it regardless of his role. My most likely action as manager is not to tell Defoe to do something different (which he isn't used to and which he doesn't want to do) but to just drop him for a player who wants to do what I want him to do. Alternatively I can build my team around what Defoe wants to do.

I'm really worried that players and their identity are becoming redundant.

Suggestions:

- Roles become descriptions of players, like the media description.

- Players should have a 'tactical personality' ie favoured formation and position within that formation, even preferred team mate types.

- Scout reports show the preferred playing areas of a player, as well as their favoured passing direction, length etc, with more or less detail/accuracy depending on the quality of the scout.

- Tactics become about getting the right players more than getting the right tactics.

The effect of this would be the user being able to focus more on his best players, by trying to create the right tactical environment for them specifically. It would make transfers and scouting MUCH more interesting, difficult and rewarding. It would ADD not TAKE AWAY from the individualism and identity displayed in the match engine. I also think it would improve the implementation of 'superstars' in the game world - hard coding at an individual player level could for instance make it much easier to make Messi and Ronaldo much more prolific, as they are in real life.

So overall I am for it, but not in the way it is being suggested. To me it just seems a bit backward.

[Cheshire Gaz]

Excellent post YKW. I completely agree that tactical behaviour should start at player level. I have some ideas about how tactics should be modelled, not sure if they'd be too popular though. Ideally (for me) there should be 2 main setups, possession based or counter attack based. Next choose a formation. How the team play will then be decided by player style first, then individual instructions. Ditch Fluidity and Mentality, hell I'd even ditch roles and just use instructions. So 2 choices of starting tactic, no roles, let the flaming commence ;-p.

Agree with the scouting ideas as well.

Gaz

[Lyssien]

I think the 'behavioural differences' that you are talking about should be attached to players NOT roles, essentially becoming an extension of preferred moves and giving the players some much needed identity.

The problem with that is that it would be a nightmare for the gamer to understand and get accustomed to how each player behaves. In FM14, it took me around 3 seasons watching full games to understand what each DM role does, and I am sure I 'm still missing a lot. Now imagine if I had to keep track of each player's tendencies, the way you describe it.

It sounds to me that it would be too much from a gameplay point of view. Trying to figure out the different roles at different mentalities and different fluidities is already a mountain of work. In addition, a new version of FM is produced every year. I already think that the tactical side of the game is not learnable within a year for the slightly advanced gamer.

However, if they found a way to keep it simple...

[YKW]

The problem with that is that it would be a nightmare for the gamer to understand and get accustomed to how each player behaves. In FM14, it took me around 3 seasons watching full games to understand what each DM role does, and I am sure I 'm still missing a lot. Now imagine if I had to keep track of each player's tendencies, the way you describe it.

It sounds to me that it would be too much from a gameplay point of view. Trying to figure out the different roles at different mentalities and different fluidities is already a mountain of work. In addition, a new version of FM is produced every year. I already think that the tactical side of the game is not learnable within a year for the slightly advanced gamer.

However, if they found a way to keep it simple...

Yeah I agree to an extent. However a manager can talk to his players, so if I was respected by my players then they would tell me how they like to play. All it would need would be an expanded 'Information' tab with a more detailed position familiarity (you know the one where the circles are green, or orange etc), an expanded set of preferred moves, and perhaps a permanently "open" player conversation tab, or 'manager relationship' tab, which would just have a list of things that the player in question has told me, wants from me, or is happy/unhappy about (ie being played out of position, or in a wrong formation, etc.) There is such a huge difference between playing in a strike partnership and playing as a lone striker (amongst other comparisons) so I feel that this should be brought into the game, in the form of player tendencies, or preferences.

[sosasoser]

Yeah I agree to an extent. However a manager can talk to his players, so if I was respected by my players then they would tell me how they like to play. All it would need would be an expanded 'Information' tab with a more detailed position familiarity (you know the one where the circles are green, or orange etc), an expanded set of preferred moves, and perhaps a permanently "open" player conversation tab, or 'manager relationship' tab, which would just have a list of things that the player in question has told me, wants from me, or is happy/unhappy about (ie being played out of position, or in a wrong formation, etc.) There is such a huge difference between playing in a strike partnership and playing as a lone striker (amongst other comparisons) so I feel that this should be brought into the game, in the form of player tendencies, or preferences.

If they were to do all of that, they couldn't just stop there. They would need a way for scouts to discover those tendencies with varying degrees of accuracy or players would be shooting blind in the transfer pool. It would be horrible to spend big money to get a player only then to be able to discover that he doesn't fit your system well and you'll either need to dump him or rebuild everything around him which might require a slew of other transfer moves. Then, the AI managers would needed to be coded to handle all of that information again with varying degrees of success based on the managers' attributes.

In the end, it would require extensive rebuilds of the tactics system, scouting system, transfer system, player interaction system and AI. That's an awful lot to do in any single version of the game. It's likely it would take several versions to work everything out just to bring the new system on par with the current system, let alone make it better. The current tactics system might not be perfect, but it's certainly good enough not to make all of that work necessary in my opinion. I'd much rather see incremental improvements on what we already have.

[YKW]

If they were to do all of that, they couldn't just stop there. They would need a way for scouts to discover those tendencies with varying degrees of accuracy or players would be shooting blind in the transfer pool. It would be horrible to spend big money to get a player only then to be able to discover that he doesn't fit your system well and you'll either need to dump him or rebuild everything around him which might require a slew of other transfer moves. Then, the AI managers would needed to be coded to handle all of that information again with varying degrees of success based on the managers' attributes.

I'm with you, it would be difficult to implement. Especially in terms of the AI. The bolded I would actually like to happen though, because it is realistic. Clubs spend ages scouting players, this needs to be in the game. Personally it just frustrates me when I play that the transfer market is so boring, and made difficult in nonsensical ways ie transfer fees. Getting the right player is one of the hardest things a club can do! There needs to be waaaaaaaay more uncertainty about player ability and suitability. Also, it could be a good opportunity to bring back the "agent sends you a video of his player" news though. I would like to see scouting include this feature. The video wouldn't need to be generated in a match, I would just need to see a few clips of his 'special move,' be it shooting from distance with power/accuracy, beating his man on the outside and crossing back to the penalty spot, or cutting inside dribbling and going for goal. The more I scout the player the more likely my scout will be able to provide me with a video of his play. It could be pretty generic, ie two players with the same tendency would appear exactly the same in the scout video, because it just a different skin for a preprogrammed animation.

In the end, it would require extensive rebuilds of the tactics system, scouting system, transfer system, player interaction system and AI. That's an awful lot to do in any single version of the game. It's likely it would take several versions to work everything out just to bring the new system on par with the current system, let alone make it better. The current tactics system might not be perfect, but it's certainly good enough not to make all of that work necessary in my opinion. I'd much rather see incremental improvements on what we already have.

The scouting system undeniably needs an extensive rebuild. It is very poor. I also happen to think that the player interaction and transfer system also need the extensive rebuild that you mention. Tactics I suppose have been rebuilt and are currently being further rebuilt, personally I think the philosophy behind it is backwards. Other ideas I have posted with the clause that I wouldn't expect to see it possible in the game for some generations, and I can see that that also applies to this idea. However, while I am equally happy to see incremental improvements I think there is a definite case to be made that the improvements aren't actually leading anywhere good. In fact, tactics in particular I think are going in the exact wrong direction, and I had this impression upon playing the demo of 13, so it isn't a knee jerk or bitter reaction.

Time will tell I suppose.

[sosasoser]

I'm with you, it would be difficult to implement. Especially in terms of the AI. The bolded I would actually like to happen though, because it is realistic. Clubs spend ages scouting players, this needs to be in the game. Personally it just frustrates me when I play that the transfer market is so boring, and made difficult in nonsensical ways ie transfer fees. Getting the right player is one of the hardest things a club can do! There needs to be waaaaaaaay more uncertainty about player ability and suitability. Also, it could be a good opportunity to bring back the "agent sends you a video of his player" news though. I would like to see scouting include this feature. The video wouldn't need to be generated in a match, I would just need to see a few clips of his 'special move,' be it shooting from distance with power/accuracy, beating his man on the outside and crossing back to the penalty spot, or cutting inside dribbling and going for goal. The more I scout the player the more likely my scout will be able to provide me with a video of his play. It could be pretty generic, ie two players with the same tendency would appear exactly the same in the scout video, because it just a different skin for a preprogrammed animation.

The issue with that is that it's a game. It can't be made so realistic that playing it becomes a full-time job and that players need to have the ability and knowledge of real football managers to have some success. I took a few versions off because I simply didn't have time to play. I'm afraid if all of that became necessary to scout players I simply wouldn't have time for the game again. SI also need to be mindful that to keep earning money to produce new versions of the game they have to be able to attract new players. That's not going to happen if they make it too difficult to find players in the game who will work for you. Many new players will just give up out of frustration and not purchase the next version. The system as it is now works. Yes, it could use some improvements, but I don't think a major overhaul is required.

Perhaps its because I took a few versions off, but the current tactical system seems light years better than the old system to me. It beats the heck out of arrows and sliders. The best tactics now actually resemble real football unlike the horrible ME-breaking messes they used to be. Sure, there is a steeper learning curve, but it's not that steep especially considering the yeoman's work some people are doing in the tactics forum to help people learn and understand the system.

[wwfan]

Before this conversation continues, it is perhaps useful to remember that players have their own tendencies that override tactical instructions, their Player Preferred Moves. Some players have none, so can be melded tactically in any which way you choose. Others have lots, and will express that behaviour despite tactical instruction. These can be trained into or out of the player.

If you think that player tendencies completely override tactical planning, then you've obviously not been watching the World Cup. Greece are a great example. For two matches, dour, defensive and dull. Basically, playing like Greece. Then one match of direct, exciting football.

Likewise, I can understand that it can be a difficult learning curve to get used to the new tactical system and that the documentation and in game descriptions are lacking. However, to call it broken and half-hearted is harsh and misguided. It's been in FM since FM10, but suffered under the misapprehension it was a newbies tool. Now the sliders have gone, those that haven't learned to embrace it have been forced to adapt without all the previous help and visual clues of the previous versions. You can blame SI for producing inadequate documentation, but not for giving you no time to get used to the system before the removed sliders.

[THOG]

YKW, I think you make a good point in that individual style and player style/role preferences could be better represented, but I think your overall suggestion would take things too far to the opposite extreme. I would argue that your viewpoint aligns with what would be a "Very Fluid" philosophy in the game. You do not like a lot of top-down instruction and prefer for players to express themselves, and it's certainly true that a player resistant to instruction might thrive in such an environment. The Defoe/Redknapp relationship is a good example of that, but I would not draw too general a conclusion from that. Many managers do impose a lot of top-down instruction and many players can adapt readily between vastly different roles. At one end, you have Redknapp, but on the other, you have Mourinho and Capello. At one end, you have Defoe, but on the other, you have James Milner.

Ideally, as the game grows, both extremes and everything in between will be better represented.

[Lawlore]

Before this conversation continues, it is perhaps useful to remember that players have their own tendencies that override tactical instructions, their Player Preferred Moves. Some players have none, so can be melded tactically in any which way you choose. Others have lots, and will express that behaviour despite tactical instruction.

I don't think it's wholly right to keep bringing this back to sliders- I for one never used them previously, and it's not only those who did who are struggling to adapt. Previously, I make no bones about the fact that my Duties and Roles were automatically assigned and then not thought about again. And, in previous versions, that was fine enough to be able to get on, be it due to ME weaknesses or what have you. Now, with more of an emphasis on tactics, it's not- now you have to make a fist of understanding what's going on with the minutae of that screen when again, you haven't needed to previously.

And I appreciate that there are a lot of tools there to be able to create the tactics you want- I think a lot of people underestimate what is possible. I do think one of the big issues is that it's not at all clear anywhere the order of priority, if you will, of the various tools available. Which, out of Instructions / Tendencies / Shouts / Roles / Duties trump the others at any given time? And PPMs also fall into this group.

For example, I can simultaneously have a Fluidity of Very Fluid as well as attacking duties all round, whilst giving players relatively static roles such as "Enganche", which by its own description is a "more stationary role" and a "pivot". Furthermore, I could then use Team Instructions to tell the team to Be More Disciplined and Stick To Positions. What, in that circumstance, trumps what? Is the player moving around due to the Fluidity and Attacking Duty, or is he not, due to the Shouts and Role? And if he has a PPM saying "Runs With Ball Through Centre", is he still going to do that as a static Enganche?

It is, for the most part, documentation and in-game feedback- or it may even already exist and just not be anywhere obvious, which puts it as a UI issue- I dunno. But I do know the reaction hasn't just been from people who are pining for the sliders.

[Overmars]

I like the technical depth of tactics in the game. My reservation with regards to the tactics is how they play out and produce outcomes. I don't always believe what I'm seeing has any correlation to what I directed, and that leaves me feeling a bit hopeless.

[Cheshire Gaz]

Before this conversation continues, it is perhaps useful to remember that players have their own tendencies that override tactical instructions, their Player Preferred Moves. Some players have none, so can be melded tactically in any which way you choose. Others have lots, and will express that behaviour despite tactical instruction. These can be trained into or out of the player.

If you think that player tendencies completely override tactical planning, then you've obviously not been watching the World Cup. Greece are a great example. For two matches, dour, defensive and dull. Basically, playing like Greece. Then one match of direct, exciting football.

Likewise, I can understand that it can be a difficult learning curve to get used to the new tactical system and that the documentation and in game descriptions are lacking. However, to call it broken and half-hearted is harsh and misguided. It's been in FM since FM10, but suffered under the misapprehension it was a newbies tool. Now the sliders have gone, those that haven't learned to embrace it have been forced to adapt without all the previous help and visual clues of the previous versions. You can blame SI for producing inadequate documentation, but not for giving you no time to get used to the system before the removed sliders.

Contradict yourself much? This is the exact thing that confuses the hell out of people. Also nobody has mentioned sliders in this thread or suggested that the current interface is half hearted or broken so didn't really see the necessity of those comments. I would actually like to see the tactical system simplified further as I briefly mentioned in an earlier post in this thread.

Gaz

[themadsheep2001]

Contradict yourself much? This is the exact thing that confuses the hell out of people. Also nobody has mentioned sliders in this thread or suggested that the current interface is half hearted or broken so didn't really see the necessity of those comments. I would actually like to see the tactical system simplified further as I briefly mentioned in an earlier post in this thread.

Gaz

No contradiction at all. Having a tendency to override instructions is not the same thing as completely overriding instructions. There is a wide scope on how much a player might do so based on their PPMs, attributes and tactical setup/freedom. So it's actually quite varied.

And sliders were mentioned in post 9 by looknohands.

[wwfan]

No contradiction at all. Having a tendency to override instructions is not the same thing as completely overriding instructions. There is a wide scope on how much a player might do so based on their PPMs, attributes and tactical setup/freedom. So it's actually quite varied.

And sliders were mentioned in post 9 by looknohands.

And post 15 says it's broken and half-hearted.

I've no issue with people wanting the system improved, but having a go after a complete failure to read the thread or try to understand my comments is hardly fair. There's far too much "if it's not black it must be white" thinking going on in this thread. As themadsheep says, a tendency to override and completely overriding are different things. A player's PPM will stop him 100% adhering to your tactics (which is what some users in this thread want) but won't 100% override your tactical plan. If you have a player whose PPMs upset your tactical shape more than you'd like you have three options; sell him, train it out of him, or adapt your game plan to fit in with his tendencies.

Pretty much exactly the same options a real life manager would have.

[BiggusD]

I am in the "Pirlo is Pirlo because he is Pirlo and not because his manager has told him to be a deep-lying playmaker" camp. I am also aware that some managers like to instruct quite specific patterns and duties to their team, and there is a dynamic relationship here. In FM this is reflected in the Rigid-Fluid scale and the Specialist-generalist scale.

Right now, Creative Freedom only boosts Flair a little. I don't think that is enough of an effect. I think that when you choose Very Fluid, the players should fall back to their natural game to a much higher degree. A DMC-MC should naturally be more defensive-minded and safety-oriented than a MC-AMC even though both are MC-S. A quick, technical MR/AMR should try more dribbles down the flank than a WBR/MR even though both are MR-S.

This way, if you want to keep things simple for yourself and not rely on your own tactical genious to make all the difference, you'll choose the more fluid styles. If you want your team to perform very specific tasks, you choose the more rigid styles. I know that to a degree we do this already, but I want there to be a bigger difference. The best example I can think of right now is when the pitch is wet or in poor condition; the players should adapt to that themselves when you go with Very Fluid - it should not be necessary to manually change to a more direct style. Another example is my MC-D holding up the ball - if he is caught out holding up the ball all the time I should not have to manually change his role to deal with this; he should speed up his passing by himself.

[themadsheep2001]

It is, for the most part, documentation and in-game feedback- or it may even already exist and just not be anywhere obvious, which puts it as a UI issue- I dunno. But I do know the reaction hasn't just been from people who are pining for the sliders.

This is largely where I stand it, fully agree with that sentence from Lawlore.

[YKW]

I've no issue with people wanting the system improved, but having a go after a complete failure to read the thread or try to understand my comments is hardly fair. There's far too much "if it's not black it must be white" thinking going on in this thread. As themadsheep says, a tendency to override and completely overriding are different things. A player's PPM will stop him 100% adhering to your tactics (which is what some users in this thread want) but won't 100% override your tactical plan.

Again I feel that you are complaining about things you are guilty of.

1. "Failure to read the thread or try to understand my comments." 2. Too much black or white thinking.

If you think that player tendencies completely override tactical planning, then....

You have invented this position just to seem correct when arguing against it. I was very clear in saying that I believe player behaviour is affected by Tendencies, Ability and Instructions IN THAT ORDER. If I thought anything completely overrides anything else then I wouldn't have included it in the list, obviously. So I feel here that you are "failing to read the thread or understand my comments." Additionally you demonstrate too much black or white thinking - "if he doesn't believe that instructions are more important than tendencies, then therefore he believes that tendencies completely override instructions."

Before this conversation continues, it is perhaps useful to remember that players have their own tendencies that override tactical instructions, their Player Preferred Moves.

Again you are failing to read the thread or understand my comments. In my post, directed SPECIFICALLY in reply to you, and in the first paragraph I said: "...as an extension of PPMs." I'm not sure how you've missed this, if you are, as you claim, so dedicated to reading threads and understanding comments.

Personally I feel you are a main culprit when it comes to ignoring discussions that you don't like, instead choosing to focus on largely irrelevant throwaway comments, or even just arguing against strawmen that you have imagined. Then you dismiss other people's opinion as though your knowing better than others extends beyond simply giving people tactical advice. There have been a lot of interesting points made in this thread and you have managed to ignore them all. I just do not get it.

You can blame SI for producing inadequate documentation, but not for giving you no time to get used to the system before the removed sliders.

I must be blind because I can't see anything even remotely like this claim in this thread. I think it's quite cheeky to go around criticizing how people talk about things and yet be so guilty of the same. Not the first time either.

EDIT: Reading that back it sounds a bit rude, which isn't my intention, but I do feel my points are valid ones.

The Hand of God - great post, I think you've almost got me there. I'll have a better response for you soon, but I think you are pretty close with your fluidity theory.

[themadsheep2001]

Again I feel that you are complaining about things you are guilty of.

1. "Failure to read the thread or try to understand my comments." 2. Too much black or white thinking.

You have invented this position just to seem correct when arguing against it. I was very clear in saying that I believe player behaviour is affected by Tendencies, Ability and Instructions IN THAT ORDER. If I thought anything completely overrides anything else then I wouldn't have included it in the list, obviously. So I feel here that you are "failing to read the thread or understand my comments." Additionally you demonstrate too much black or white thinking - "if he doesn't believe that instructions are more important than tendencies, then therefore he believes that tendencies completely override instructions."

Again you are failing to read the thread or understand my comments. In my post, directed SPECIFICALLY in reply to you, and in the first paragraph I said: "...as an extension of PPMs." I'm not sure how you've missed this, if you are, as you claim, so dedicated to reading threads and understanding comments.

Personally I feel you are a main culprit when it comes to ignoring discussions that you don't like, instead choosing to focus on largely irrelevant throwaway comments, or even just arguing against strawmen that you have imagined. Then you dismiss other people's opinion as though your knowing better than others extends beyond simply giving people tactical advice. There have been a lot of interesting points made in this thread and you have managed to ignore them all. I just do not get it.

I must be blind because I can't see anything even remotely like this claim in this thread. I think it's quite cheeky to go around criticizing how people talk about things and yet be so guilty of the same. Not the first time either.

EDIT: Reading that back it sounds a bit rude, which isn't my intention, but I do feel my points are valid ones.

The Hand of God - great post, I think you've almost got me there. I'll have a better response for you soon, but I think you are pretty close with your fluidity theory.

Except that's exactly what Cheshire Gaz did.

Anyway enough playing the man. debate the topic and not the person.

[THOG]

I am in the "Pirlo is Pirlo because he is Pirlo and not because his manager has told him to be a deep-lying playmaker" camp. I am also aware that some managers like to instruct quite specific patterns and duties to their team, and there is a dynamic relationship here. In FM this is reflected in the Rigid-Fluid scale and the Specialist-generalist scale.

I think you are going too far in conflating tactical instructions (which are very general) with player style. As I said above, I agree there should be more differentiation when it comes to individual player style, but even the most libertarian professional managers don't just throw players into a formation and let them do whatever they feel. Pirlo absolutely plays different roles. During the World Cup, he's played different roles in the same match, starting as a free-roaming playmaker in a 4-5-1 system before being withdrawn into a more stationary, holding role in a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 system. The proposals being made here seem to be suggesting you shouldn't be able to do this. You wouldn't be able to tell Pirlo to play a holding role, you would only stick him at MC and just hope he doesn't go roaming high up the pitch as he did earlier in the match. Again, that's just taking things to the opposite extreme.

Guardiola sides provide even better examples. Think of how Lahm has recently played, where he defends at fullback before tucking in like a holding midfielder in the attacking phase. Is this just a natural development of Lahm's game? Did Guardiola not tell him to do this? Will Lahm always do this now if he's played at fullback?

You can certainly make the case that players should put a more pronounced spin on the role they're assigned, but it's far too simplistic to say Pirlo is just Pirlo.

I think roles are also being viewed too much in isolation here. Roles are less about telling a player what he is and more about defining the tactical system as a whole. In that sense, it's less about shaping a player's individual style and more about instructing a player on how to interact with his teammates. Can Pirlo not to be told to play more balls over the top for a pacy striker or to try to focus on playing it to the feet of a slower, more technical one? Can Defoe not be told to drop into a more central position to receive the ball or to drift wider to link up with the wingers?

And once more, this is getting back to the whole conceptual basis of philosophy/fluidity altogether. You can play the game with a Galacticos-like "great players make a great team" managerial style or you can play the game as a Sacchi or Lobanovskyi-like system-first manager. There is room for both, and just as tactics shouldn't wholly override a player's individuality, a player's individuality doesn't mean tactics should be reduced to setting formation and that's it.

EDIT: I'll note here that I actually don't like how a lot of PPMs directly conflict with tactical instructions but only because I think PPMs should be more specific. You should be able to tell any player to do anything in general terms, but the PPMs should be used to refine how those instructions are expressed, not to contradict them. Beyond that, I also 100% support the idea of something like player preferred roles or familiarity where a player will underperform or become unhappy if he's asked to play a role outside his comfort zone.

[themadsheep2001]

I think you are going too far in conflating tactical instructions (which are very general) with player style. As I said above, I agree there should be more differentiation when it comes to individual player style, but even the most libertarian professional managers don't just throw players into a formation and let them do whatever they feel. Pirlo absolutely plays different roles. During the World Cup, he's played different roles in the same match, starting as a free-roaming playmaker in a 4-5-1 system before being withdrawn into a more stationary, holding role in a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1 system. The proposals being made here would suggest you shouldn't be able to do this. You wouldn't be able to tell Pirlo to play a holding role, you would only stick him at MC and just hope he doesn't go roaming high up the pitch as he did earlier in the match. Again, that's just taking things to the opposite extreme.

Guardiola sides provide even better examples. Think of how Lahm has recently played, where he defends at fullback before tucking in as a defensive midfielder in the attacking phase. Is this just a natural development of Lahm's game? Did Guardiola not tell him to do this? Will Lahm always do this now if he's played at fullback?

You can certainly make the case that players should put a more pronounced spin on the role they're assigned, but it's far too simplistic to say Pirlo is just Pirlo.

I think roles are also being viewed too much in isolation here. Roles are less about telling a player what he is and more about defining the tactical system as a whole. In that sense, it's less about shaping a player's individual style and more about instructing a player on how to interact with his teammates. Can Pirlo not to be told to play more balls over the top for a pacy striker or to try to focus on playing it to the feet of a slower, more technical one?

And once more, this is getting back to the whole conceptual basis of philosophy/fluidity altogether. You can play the game with a Galacticos-like managerial style or you can play the game as a Sacchi or Lobanovskyi. There is room for both, and just as tactics shouldn't wholly override a player's individuality, a player's individuality doesn't mean tactics should be reduced to setting formation and that's it.

Totally agreed. Football has a tremendous scope and variation, and we should allow that as a result. On the other hand, it will fall flat on its face if we don't document it properly.

[YKW]

Hmm, not sure I agree with deleting my post there. Goodbye.

[themadsheep2001]

EDIT: I'll not here that I actually don't like how a lot of PPMs directly conflict with tactical instructions but only because I think PPMs should be more specific. You should be able to tell any player to do anything in general terms, but the PPMs should be used to refine how those instructions are expressed, not to contradict them. Beyond that, I also 100% support the idea of something like player preferred roles or familiarity where a player will underperform or become happy if he's asked to play a role outside his comfort zone.

Which ones would you disagree with? I cant remember the last time PPPs got a real looking over, considering they are just as important in any technical discussions about tactics.

[THOG]

Totally agreed. Football has a tremendous scope and variation, and we should allow that as a result. On the other hand, it will fall flat on its face if we don't document it properly.

Part of the problem is that there isn't a consistent way of defining tactics that applies from club to club, country to country, continent to continent. For example, a term like "wide midfielder" will generally mean something totally different to an English coach trained in 4-4-2 than it does to a Spanish coach trained in 4-3-3 (in fact, in the Spanish-language version of FM, the wide midfielder role is actually mistranslated to "interior"). For this reason, SI has to take the initiative in establishing strict definitions where none actually exist in football, though their design MO has always been to follow the community's lead in shaping how tactics are understood and approached.

[themadsheep2001]

Part of the problem is that there isn't a consistent way of defining tactics that applies from club to club, country to country, continent to continent. For example, a term like "wide midfielder" will generally mean something totally different to an English coach trained in 4-4-2 than it does to a Spanish coach trained in 4-3-3 (in fact, in the Spanish-language version of FM, the wide midfielder role is actually mistranslated to "interior"). For this reason, SI has to take the initiative in establishing strict definitions where none actually exist in football, though their design MO has always been to follow the community's lead in shaping how tactics are understood and approached.

Indeed, there will almost always be some nature of disconnect. There has to be, in order to create a usable interface. But I think SI can get around this, by making sure the generic roles are more flexible, so they can fit the varying definitions. In the Interior case, we need a different translation, and actually a true interior role anyway.

[THOG]

Which ones would you disagree with? I cant remember the last time PPPs got a real looking over, considering they are just as important in any technical discussions about tactics.

Anything that directly contradicts a tactical instruction in broad terms and could be interpreted as a reflection of that player's tactical role IRL, but then, I think individual tactical instructions should be very general and, via style-shaping PPMs, more open to individual interpretation in how they're expressed. On the other hand, I think players should have tactical preferences where they'll take a mental attributes hit if they're played against their preferences and potentially become unhappy if they're consistently played against their preferences. Teamwork already reflects how much players follow instructions in general.

Keep in mind, PPMs predate roles and the implementation of TT&F, and I think there's a bit of a design conflict there.

EDIT: A good example would be how Steven Gerrard used to have "Gets Forward Whenever Possible." In FM13, there's no way to convince him to drop this PPM. In real life, he simply stopped getting forward when he started being played in a holding role. On the other hand, I'd have no problem with PPMs refining the specifics of how a player makes forward runs (slightly greater sensitivity to certain contextual triggers, showing a great preference for certain movement patterns, etc.)

[Cheshire Gaz]

No contradiction at all. Having a tendency to override instructions is not the same thing as completely overriding instructions. There is a wide scope on how much a player might do so based on their PPMs, attributes and tactical setup/freedom. So it's actually quite varied.

And sliders were mentioned in post 9 by looknohands.

I agree with the bolded part. wwfan actually said "players have their own tendencies that override tactical instructions", where he could have said "players have their own tendencies that may override tactical instructions. There is a world of difference. Also I'm not asking for black and white answers, or something 100% being one thing or another because that's not how football works. Hands up on posts 9 and 15, I did miss them so prepare the gallows. If missing 2 posts is a complete failure to read the thread then I'll be more careful in future.

It would be interesting to know if some players are more/less likely than others to use their ppms when a situation arises where they could. The knock on would be that they would be more/less likely to follow instruction. An example would be the story Mourinho told when he was managing Balotelli. Can't remember the details but Balotelli got booked in the first half of a match and Mourinho spent the best part of his 15 minute team talk telling Balotelli not to get booked again. 1 minute into the 2nd half Balotelli got his 2nd yellow and got sent off.

Gaz