Is SI getting too technical with tactics?

[themadsheep2001]

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

Oh absolutely. The usage of the tendencies is affected by their attributes (including hidden ones) etc. For example, as a Man United fan, I usually will play as United at some point, and I find to Nani to be incredibly annoying. Why? His tendency to constantly dribble and shoot from range (PPMs) mixed in with his selfish nature (team work) flamboyancy (flair) , consistency and poor decision making. Because of his poor decision making I cannot rely on him doing his own thing at the right time. I can either accept that a lot of the time he will do his own thing, and adapt around it. Or sell him. I universally choose the latter.

[BiggusD]

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.

There should be a couple of hundreds more of them, for one

And they should be assigned to regens.

[wwfan]

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

All you've really said is "I think PPMs should have greater weight. wwfan is wrong when he argues against this because it's not my opinion". Your initial post launched a long debate about whether tactical instructions were relevant at all in the real world or whether players tendencies overrode what a manager was trying to do. I was attempting to clarify that both forms of thought were already in FM, although perhaps not to the extent you'd like. As BiggusD points out, the rigid-fluidity system is an attempt to mimic this type of difference in opinion at a managerial level and the PPMs at player level. Both would like tendencies to have greater weight, which is an interesting discussion. You've asked for a system in which tendencies are dominant. Let's have a look at your ideas:

- 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

- With tens of thousands of players in the database, how can this be viable.

- They already do the "best position". I've never heard of a player having a favoured formation or team mate type. How could they do the research?

- How could they do the research? If managerial tactics had no relevance, then it would be viable. If it has any at all, then impossible (and your argument falls flat)

- It already has a balance between the two, as discussed ad infinitum in the tactics forum.

It looks to me as if you are arguing that player tendencies should be the be all and end all, and all the manager need do is find the right players to go in a pre-determined jigsaw puzzle. FM would become a game of scouting and training, with the tactical approach becoming almost an irrelevance. I think the balance is about right where it is, which is why I brought attention back to the role of PPMs. Happy to launch into an argument about why your ideas are unworkable if its more than a strawman discussion you want.

BiggusD's example of Pirlo is interesting. I agree that he is a highly special player with unusual attributes and tendencies for a player who plays so deep. However, we need to remember that Pirlo was originally persuaded to switch to a deep position by his manager and requires two mobile screeners sitting ahead of him, so tactical planning has obviously played a part in his success. Again, balance seems the key and shows how FM is already supposed to work.

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.

I don't mind if people disagree with me. I do mind if they feel I've come in with a political agenda when the stuff I'm responding to is in the thread. You always need to be careful if you criticise people for introducing stuff into a thread, because if they haven't, you'll get their backs up and get a blunter answer than you perhaps deserve.

[YKW]

All you've really said is "I think PPMs should have greater weight. wwfan is wrong when he argues against this because it's not my opinion".

:eek:

You know, I feel you could be winding me up, because surely nobody is really as as this? I mean, I must have written over 1,000 words in this thread! Are you serious? Not really doing yourself any favours when it comes to my strawman accusations, are you?

Assuming the staff will allow me a right to respond and not unjustly and selectively censor me again, would you:

1. Please quote when I have said you are wrong. I don't see this.

2. Please quote your "arguments" against my posts. I see none, only unsupported and inaccurate dismissals.

3. Please quote any post I made that dismissed your arguments simply because my opinion is different. I don't see this.

If you can do even one of these things I will apologise and permanently humble myself to you.

As for the rest I appreciate the effort, however belated it was (and always is.) Although I do think you have mostly reiterated points which have already been made to me and conceded by me in the earlier discussion. You know, the one which you incorrectly and boorishly said should not continue, which for some reason you think is your place to say.

Personally I blame myself for being interested enough in your informed opinion to try getting more out of you than just a cut-and-paste response to anybody who mentions sliders. I fail every time.

-

Anyway, here are a couple of questions I was preparing to ask before being instructed to stop the discussion for no good reason.

1. What happened to the PPM relating to which side a CB prefers playing on? Is this still in the game but hidden? Or am I imagining its existence?

2. 'It looks like player x is used to closing down more often/playing a more direct game.' What is this about? What is it being gauged against? Do players already have hidden preferences for these things?

3. What does versatility relate to? Do versatile players learn new positions faster? Or play better in positions they don't know? Would this need to be nerfed if roles are getting hard coded behaviours?

(and, just in order that wwfan may continue to ignore anything that may lead to an interesting discussion) 4. Sliders. Were they good or good?

[Shakes]

Doesn't it say something about Pirlo though that although he's staying in the MC position in FM terms if you flip the DM to be an AMC he can play a different game? We have positional familiarity but that doesn't really capture the concept there ... I think along with attributes telling you how they can do a certain job there needs to be personality that dictates whether they're willing to do a job. Not every creative playmaker should be willing to sacrifice for the team and double as a holding player.

I think Ronaldo's effect on Portugal is an interesting example - I don't think Portugal set out to leave a gaping hole down the left, rather Ronaldo has the "Defense is for mortals, I am a GOD" PPM which means you wont get anything out of him when the other side have the ball. I think FM needs more PPMs of that sort that force the manager to play with less than perfect tactics that make do with the tendencies of their players.

As far as roles go - they're too static to have a place in this sort of game. FM is a game that lets you sim 100s of years into the future but the roles will always be the roles coded in at the start of the game and nothing else. That's the biggest flaw with FM in my opinion, although you can play for years to the game it's always just 2014 with a new date on the calendar. The game never evolves.

[Cheshire Gaz]

YKW can I just add to this point. "2. 'It looks like player x is used to closing down more often/playing a more direct game.' What is this about? What is it being gauged against? Do players already have hidden preferences for these things?" I remember seeing player x is used to playing a higher/lower tempo. Would be good to get some clarification on this as it would be interesting to know if players have hidden preferences for this sort of thing.

Gaz

[wwfan]

:eek:

You know, I feel you could be winding me up, because surely nobody is really as as this? I mean, I must have written over 1,000 words in this thread! Are you serious? Not really doing yourself any favours when it comes to my strawman accusations, are you?

Assuming the staff will allow me a right to respond and not unjustly and selectively censor me again, would you:

1. Please quote when I have said you are wrong. I don't see this.

2. Please quote your "arguments" against my posts. I see none, only unsupported and inaccurate dismissals.

3. Please quote any post I made that dismissed your arguments simply because my opinion is different. I don't see this.

If you can do even one of these things I will apologise and permanently humble myself to you.

As for the rest I appreciate the effort, however belated it was (and always is.) Although I do think you have mostly reiterated points which have already been made to me and conceded by me in the earlier discussion. You know, the one which you incorrectly and boorishly said should not continue, which for some reason you think is your place to say.

Personally I blame myself for being interested enough in your informed opinion to try getting more out of you than just a cut-and-paste response to anybody who mentions sliders. I fail every time.

-

Anyway, here are a couple of questions I was preparing to ask before being instructed to stop the discussion for no good reason.

1. What happened to the PPM relating to which side a CB prefers playing on? Is this still in the game but hidden? Or am I imagining its existence?

2. 'It looks like player x is used to closing down more often/playing a more direct game.' What is this about? What is it being gauged against? Do players already have hidden preferences for these things?

3. What does versatility relate to? Do versatile players learn new positions faster? Or play better in positions they don't know? Would this need to be nerfed if roles are getting hard coded behaviours?

(and, just in order that wwfan may continue to ignore anything that may lead to an interesting discussion) 4. Sliders. Were they good or good?

I'll take this in steps as you requested.

1: You have clearly stated that you think PPMs or player tendencies should be given more weight, so they are the most important element of tactics building in the game. I have stated that PPMs do the job of player customisation as well as can be practically possible and illustrated why. We could also go into the realms of mental attributes to discuss, for example, how a low workrate player won't track back or a low teamwork player will have a tendency to shoot when a better pass is on. The things you are requesting are already in the game, which I have now pointed out numerous times. As you haven't taken this on board and/or don't agree with me, I've interpreted it as you saying I'm wrong. The amount of effort you've put into your ideas (which should be applauded by the way) in no way counteracts the main thrust of your argument, which I have opposed based on the above.

2: If you can't see how your notion of player tendency driven tactics is unworkable given the points I made in post #53, I have to conclude you are being deliberately obtuse (because you obviously aren't stupid). If you think they are inaccurate and unsupported, then you've either completely misunderstood the mechanics of FM (again, unlikely, given your obvious intelligence) or are arguing for the sake of arguing.

3: Mods can read deleted posts! You said:

wwfan's posts are hugely selective and have virtually no relevance to what has been said. I'm worried that the bold words under his username lends his opinion more credibility that it deserves (in this instance) and so it is important to the discussion that this is clarified, so that newcomers to the thread can see that his posts are largely irrelevant and so should be ignored.

Given the only argument I've made is that player tendencies are already in the game and it would be unworkable to make them more central in the manner you suggest, I took this as dismissing my arguments because my opinion is different (i.e. I think PPMs and mental attributes already do exactly what you are asking for without all the unfeasible research). I'm completely willing to discuss how the tactics module could be made a richer and more rewarding experience, but I don't think your ideas are viable or realistic.

I'll now address your questions:

1: You are imaging its existence.

2: It relates to a cultural playing style. If a player has played most of his football in Spain and South America and moves to a team playing British style football, you'll get the message about direct passing until he has adapted to the new culture.

3: The player can learn new positions with reasonable ease.

4: Sliders were good because they provide the mechanics allowing the accurate modelling of multiple football styles. They were bad because they provided the user with a ridiculous amount of micro-control, meaning player quality was almost completely irrelevant once the user had worked out a magic spot (e.g. Diablo, kimz). They actually made the very thing you are arguing for (more focus on the individuality of players) a total and utter irrelevance, because the user could make each team he had play exactly the same way no matter which players he had. They also meant the user and AI were never on the same playing field, being the equivalent of the user playing Unreal Tournament armed with a bazooka and body armour against an AI team of soldiers wearing grass skirts and firing blow pipes.

[YKW]

I'll take this in steps as you requested.

I don’t really remember requesting steps as much as I explicitly requested quotes. No matter, I’ll respond to what you have done. I see you have managed to provide one quote, which mysteriously happens to also be the only quote that you are able to misrepresent the context of, seeing as us mere demigods are unable to see it. The hypocrisy in now selectively censoring the post speaks for itself, but more importantly I think it would be polite (not that I think you owe me this courtesy) to provide the whole quote, which I feel changes it’s context somewhat (or totally). But I’ll get to that at 3.

This is what I was responding to which led me to request quotes from you to justify:

Post #53 (remember that number.)

All you've really said is "I think PPMs should have greater weight. wwfan is wrong when he argues against this because it's not my opinion".

And so request 1:

1. Please quote when I have said you are wrong. I don't see this.

The meat of your response:

You have clearly stated that you think PPMs or player tendencies should be given more weight, so they are the most important element of tactics building in the game. I have stated that PPMs do the job of player customisation as well as can be practically possible and illustrated why..... The things you are requesting are already in the game, which I have now pointed out numerous times. As you haven't taken this on board and/or don't agree with me, I've interpreted it as you saying I'm wrong.

To be accurate, the opening sentence needs to be prefaced with “Amongst other things,” as I have clearly stated quite a lot in this thread so far. This essentially makes the rest of your post redundant on its own.

The bolded speaks for itself in terms of your attitude. Did you ever pose me a single question about my perspective? No, you just told me to stop. You never even addressed me directly even though I spoke at length specifically to you. You just made vague comments alluding to my opinion while also dismissing a brief and corrupted version of it (the same post in which you told us to stop, post #32.)

The underlined: Don’t forget that the statement you are defending is the opening sentence of post #53, quoted above. So for the italic statement to be true in the context of your defence it can only reference things that happened BEFORE post #53. Otherwise you are implying I have reacted to something that has not yet happened. (I’ll call this ”Clause 53.”) The first post in this thread by you that comes anywhere near “as well as can be practically be possible and illustrated why” is, surprise, surprise, later on in post #53, thereby irrelevant to your defence due to Clause 53.You state your opinion (but only vaguely support it) in post #32 and #38 saying (combined post alert:)

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...... 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.

This is the entirety of what you say about your perspective prior to post #53. Firstly, all I see there is fact. It reads like pages from the manual that should exist. So I am at a loss to understand what you think I disagreed with, up to the point that you make your claim about my attitude toward your opinion. Secondly, there is the fact that before you say any of this you tell us (the people that are bothering to engage in the discussion) that the conversation should stop for a reason which I showed was imagined by you in my post #41.

Oh yes, the other bit of the quote above:

We could also go into the realms of mental attributes to discuss, for example, how a low workrate player won't track back or a low teamwork player will have a tendency to shoot when a better pass is on.

Yes we could, I would enjoy that discussion. We could have been having it if you had come in with that little gem, say 30 posts earlier, while the discussion was going to-and-fro.

Is my point clear yet? I hope not, because there’s more.

Request 2:

2. Please quote your "arguments" against my posts. I see none, only unsupported and inaccurate dismissals.

2: If you can't see how your notion of player tendency driven tactics is unworkable given the points I made in post #53, I have to conclude you are being deliberately obtuse (because you obviously aren't stupid). If you think they are inaccurate and unsupported, then you've either completely misunderstood the mechanics of FM (again, unlikely, given your obvious intelligence) or are arguing for the sake of arguing.

I’ve got Clause 53 all up on you here. I love how you go so far as to actually directly use in your defence something which you posted after making the accusation! You will probably be confused to know that I accept that the notion is largely unworkable, mainly due to the points you made in post #53, specifically the research element, and I do not think they are inaccurate (although they are pretty weakly supported.) But presumably you knew the reasons why it would be largely unworkable when I suggested it to you directly in post #25, a post which you have only just now acknowledged, 24 posts later, and only when having been forced to because of an argument.

If you had read the thread you might also see that I have conceded ground on every criticism made of my ideas, because (and it increasingly seems this is news to you) that’s a discussion! Here are some examples of phrases that I have used in this thread to criticisms of my idea which you probably should make note of. I haven’t linked to the posts in order that it is like a treasure hunt for you, through this thread, where every piece of treasure you find means you are little bit more wrong. Also its a sly ploy to trick you into reading the thread in detail.

Yeah I agree to an extent. ..

I'm with you, it would be difficult to implement. Especially in terms of the AI.

I think you've almost got me there.

You might notice that you can accept and work with elements of people’s ideas without compromising your overall standpoint. Anyway, that’s just a little extra evidence to demonstrate why I’m so annoyed with your opening statement in post #53 suggesting that I’m opposed to ANYONE’S opinions just because they don’t align with mine.

Request 3:

3. Please quote any post I made that dismissed your arguments simply because my opinion is different. I don't see this.

3: Mods can read deleted posts! You said:

wwfan's posts are hugely selective and have virtually no relevance to what has been said. I'm worried that the bold words under his username lends his opinion more credibility that it deserves (in this instance) and so it is important to the discussion that this is clarified, so that newcomers to the thread can see that his posts are largely irrelevant and so should be ignored.

Given the only argument I've made is that player tendencies are already in the game and it would be unworkable to make them more central in the manner you suggest, I took this as dismissing my arguments because my opinion is different (i.e. I think PPMs and mental attributes already do exactly what you are asking for without all the unfeasible research). I'm completely willing to discuss how the tactics module could be made a richer and more rewarding experience, but I don't think your ideas are viable or realistic.

Your opening paragraph under the quote is redundant because of Clause 53. Obviously there is also again the issue of you taking things in ways instead of simply asking questions.

Most importantly, and as I pointed out at the start, the only quote you have been able to provide is one which nobody else can see and which you haven’t even posted all of or mentioned who the post was to or what it was in response to. See post #41 for the context behind my comments there, including the specific posts that I’m referring to. None of them relate to your opinions on PPMs so I don’t know how you have reached this conclusion.

I’m not even sure now that you aren’t trying to look silly with that quote, especially including that opening bolded line, which poetically sums up your very use of the quote.

And now! For my last trick, I will quickly win the argument on your side as well, so we can leave all square.

wwfan's posts are hugely selective and have virtually no relevance to what has been said. I'm worried that the bold words under his username lends his opinion more credibility that it deserves (in this instance) and so it is important to the discussion that this is clarified, so that newcomers to the thread can see that his posts are largely irrelevant and so should be ignored.

The twist is that this is actually the first time I have posted the above. This is proof that wwfan can perceive, as past events, things that haven’t happened yet. Therefore he transcends Clause 53. Therefore I lose. Good game.

-------------

2: It relates to a cultural playing style. If a player has played most of his football in Spain and South America and moves to a team playing British style football, you'll get the message about direct passing until he has adapted to the new culture.

This is a gem.

[wwfan]

This is ridiculous. I don't have time to post out everything in the minutest of detail so my words aren't completely misconstrued.

Way to end a potentially interesting thread. If anyone wants to open up a thread asking about how things work without the baiting, please go ahead.