Anyone else think the introduction of player roles simplified the game too much?

[AledD]

I'm sure this will be polarizing on here and it's not my intention to rile anybody up. I know lots of people are very happy with the direction the game has taken tactic creation but personally I feel like each iteration is intent on simplifying the tactics creation. However, this has been paralleled with the heightened complexity of the match engine and nowadays I find it nigh on impossible to get my team getting playing the way I really want.

I guess the crux of my argument is that I don't see player roles as being anywhere close to realistic. I highly doubt any coach at any level of football the world over is informing his striker to play as a Advanced Forward and his attacking midfielder as an Enganche. Or his centre back to play as a limited defender and ball playing defender on cover. It just doesn't feel realistic, it feels simple and that makes it harder to get the tactics you want played out on screen. It gets worse when you look into the player instructions. I'm playing in the lower leagues right now and my AM isn't blessed with great positioning, which shouldn't be a problem because I as a coach should be able to tell him to drift right into the space created by my CM and LM. But no such option exists which means I'm left hoping he notices, which is unlikely given his low positioning.

I just feel like they were closer a few years ago than they are today. Today's game feels like mostly guess work (even after hours and hours of reading up on tactic creation on here and other sites) as I try and work out how to strike a balance between the vague player roles the game gives to you.

Anyone else feel this way?

[HUNT3R]

I highly doubt any coach at any level of football the world over is informing his striker to play as a Advanced Forward and his attacking midfielder as an Enganche. Or his centre back to play as a limited defender and ball playing defender on cover.

They don't. There are more to the roles than just a name and just a name is all it is. There are still Key Attributes, the description of the role (the part the manager will tell a player) and Player Instructions for each role.

It was far more 'guesswork' to fiddle with a million sliders, each with 20 notches. The idea was to move to football terms, which is easier to understand.

[Lucas]

Think its a lot easier now than it ever has been to set up a tactic, but its not about simplifying at all really, just making it easier to understand.

Games will always involve an element of working things out, that's how it should be.

There's always things feedback we'd like to take on board for improving things even more, but the fact is role speak and instructions is used in real life where as mathematical notches of "mentality 9, defensive line 6" are not used when managers are talking to their players when setting up tactics.

[AledD]

They don't. There are more to the roles than just a name and just a name is all it is. There are still Key Attributes, the description of the role (the part the manager will tell a player) and Player Instructions for each role.

It was far more 'guesswork' to fiddle with a million sliders, each with 20 notches. The idea was to move to football terms, which is easier to understand.

Then why is there not a totally blank role for each position? Why can't I create player roles myself? I understand wanting to move to more football terms but moving to player roles has restricted the tactical freedom of the game greatly, in my opinion.

Miles has said in the past that player roles are the key to the game. I personally felt the sliders to be more intuitive as it allowed me greater control of the severity of the change I wanted my players to make. The adjustments I made in game were far more closely replicated, which was far more satisfying than the current system. I'd also argue that the description of the in-game roles are really badly done and don't accurately reflect the type of play to be expected. Don't get me wrong I love the Pairs and Combinations guide, but a 41 page fan made handbook is required to get across what player roles really mean and how they affect each other. Surely this is something SI should have a greater role in doing in-game?

[HUNT3R]

Then why is there not a totally blank role for each position? Why can't I create player roles myself? I understand wanting to move to more football terms but moving to player roles has restricted the tactical freedom of the game greatly, in my opinion.

Miles has said in the past that player roles are the key to the game. I personally felt the sliders to be more intuitive as it allowed me greater control of the severity of the change I wanted my players to make. The adjustments I made in game were far more closely replicated, which was far more satisfying than the current system. I'd also argue that the description of the in-game roles are really badly done and don't accurately reflect the type of play to be expected. Don't get me wrong I love the Pairs and Combinations guide, but a 41 page fan made handbook is required to get across what player roles really mean and how they affect each other. Surely this is something SI should have a greater role in doing in-game?

A blank role? What would be the point of any other role then?

A "41-page" guide isn't required. It's a good guide though. You must not know of or remember wwfans guides of old. They were more complex IIRC.

More can be done to help people set up tactically, but going back to sliders isn't a solution.

[AledD]

Think its a lot easier now than it ever has been to set up a tactic, but its not about simplifying at all really, just making it easier to understand.

Games will always involve an element of working things out, that's how it should be.

There's always things feedback we'd like to take on board for improving things even more, but the fact is role speak and instructions is used in real life where as mathematical notches of "mentality 9, defensive line 6" are not used when managers are talking to their players when setting up tactics.

I understand this and it's a fair direction to take. I just feel like I lost that ability to transfer my thoughts into the game when the player roles were introduced. Although I totally agree that "defensive line 6" is unrealistic I did feel more comfortable knowing where on the pitch my defensive line would be. I felt that smaller tweaks could be more confidently taken. If I wanted them just a smidge higher up I could do that. Now I have just 5 options for a defensive line. I get that the newer way is closer to reality but it's also harder, again in my opinion, to get my tactic into the match engine.

And I would also agree that it is easier to set up a tactic. I imagine newcomers feel more comfortable with the terms of the tactic screen, and it certainly is more user friendly. But I would then also argue that that breaks down as soon as the match starts up. Like I said I feel like the match engine and tactic creation have gone in two different directions and that's causing some disconnect. The AI is more efficient and more accurate, but the means to get my thoughts into the ME to counter that have broken down.

I guess deep down the TL;DR version of this would be that language can be a pretty inefficient means of communicating at the best of times, and a game like this that requires a lot of communicating with the game can be encumbered when the language is not perfect (which I would argue it isn't). The numbers/sliders system, while unrealistic, did allow for greater clarity and understanding of the affects I had on my tactic in the ME.

[AledD]

A blank role? What would be the point of any other role then?

A "41-page" guide isn't required. It's a good guide though. You must not know of or remember wwfans guides of old. They were more complex IIRC.

More can be done to help people set up tactically, but going back to sliders isn't a solution.

A blank role would allow for player instructions to dictate the role. You could still use other roles obviously but it would mean that you could give instructions that might not perfectly line up with the other roles in the game which would help players gain a bit more creative freedom.

Of course the guide isn't required but it's undeniable that the guides on this site are insanely popular for a reason. Players are confused and need extra guidance. I just wish more was done in-game to bridge the gap in knowledge.

Personally I'd be happy if they allowed the choice between the two. At least then I'd know if it was me or the sliders that was to blame. My number wish for the game however is an overhaul of the tactical system. Would love just to see fluid positional placement, rather than fitting everybody into an already pre-determined position and trying to work instruction from there.

[Cougar2010]

A blank role would allow for player instructions to dictate the role. You could still use other roles obviously but it would mean that you could give instructions that might not perfectly line up with the other roles in the game which would help players gain a bit more creative freedom.

A blank role leaves the AI managers at a disadvantage and opens up many more possible exploits.

At the moment its a level playing field with both human & AI managers having access to the same options, its like you are wanting to play chess then saying that a piece doesn't move the way you want it to.

Would love just to see fluid positional placement, rather than fitting everybody into an already pre-determined position and trying to work instruction from there.

Positions aren't fixed & pre determined as you put it. What you see as a position is more an area of the field to work in.

[noikeee]

I'd like a little bit more flexibility with some roles, I've suggested recently that in some cases you should be able to take off the default instruction, for example, advanced playmakers are hard-coded to shoot less often and you can't ramp it up to mixed, complete forwards are hard-coded to play more risky passes and dribble more and you can't tone that down a little neither; then there's other things like the target man who are a common complain that once you activate that role, they condition the rest of the team's play too much, etc etc. There are a lot of things that can and should be done to improve the current tactical creator.

But going back to sliders? Eh, no. Roles is a much better, more intuitive system. Hell, it's already complicated as it is. As you hint at, a lot of people have absolutely no idea what's the difference between an Attacking Midfielder and an Enganche. Going back to a system where you give a number of 1 to 20 to mentality, another number of 1 to 20 to creative freedom, and another to closing down, doesn't simplify it, it makes it a lot more confusing and mathematical, further away from the language of football.

[AledD]

A blank role leaves the AI managers at a disadvantage and opens up many more possible exploits.

At the moment its a level playing field with both human & AI managers having access to the same options, its like you are wanting to play chess then saying that a piece doesn't move the way you want it to.

It's absolutely nothing like trying to change the rules of chess. I'm not saying I should be allowed a 12th man, or two goalkeepers. I'm asking for greater tactical influence over my team. I honestly don't see your point about exploits either. There's already an immense amount of tactical combinations available to the player.

Positions aren't fixed & pre determined as you put it. What you see as a position is more an area of the field to work in.

But they are very poorly conveyed on the tactic screen. In the tactics screen I can tell a wide player to sit narrower. That's great. But I have no idea until I start the game how narrow that is, and if it's too much or not enough there are no ways to change that unless I want him back wide again. This is what I mean by the simplification of the tactics screen. There's just not enough information on your tactic until the game begins and even then the options aren't there if you need them.

[Cougar2010]

It's absolutely nothing like trying to change the rules of chess. I'm not saying I should be allowed a 12th man, or two goalkeepers. I'm asking for greater tactical influence over my team. I honestly don't see your point about exploits either. There's already an immense amount of tactical combinations available to the player.

If you don't understand the point I'm stuck as to how to explain it.

You are wanting options that the AI managers won't be able to use therefore it increases the chance of exploits and takes away the level playing field.

Chess is equal because both competitors play by the same rules, you are wanting different options to the AI and therefore the match wouldn't be equal.

[AledD]

If you don't understand the point I'm stuck as to how to explain it.

You are wanting options that the AI managers won't be able to use therefore it increases the chance of exploits and takes away the level playing field.

Chess is equal because both competitors play by the same rules, you are wanting different options to the AI and therefore the match wouldn't be equal.

I got your point I just disagree that it's as big a deal as you make it out to be. I don't think the precedent has been that user controls should equal what the AI is capable of and I don't think every single AI manager has the opportunity to go as in depth as I can. I have 33 leagues in my game right now, is every AI manager making as many decisions and doing it as in depth as I am?

[Carles Alena]

I'm sure this will be polarizing on here and it's not my intention to rile anybody up. I know lots of people are very happy with the direction the game has taken tactic creation but personally I feel like each iteration is intent on simplifying the tactics creation. However, this has been paralleled with the heightened complexity of the match engine and nowadays I find it nigh on impossible to get my team getting playing the way I really want.

I guess the crux of my argument is that I don't see player roles as being anywhere close to realistic. I highly doubt any coach at any level of football the world over is informing his striker to play as a Advanced Forward and his attacking midfielder as an Enganche. Or his centre back to play as a limited defender and ball playing defender on cover. It just doesn't feel realistic, it feels simple and that makes it harder to get the tactics you want played out on screen. It gets worse when you look into the player instructions. I'm playing in the lower leagues right now and my AM isn't blessed with great positioning, which shouldn't be a problem because I as a coach should be able to tell him to drift right into the space created by my CM and LM. But no such option exists which means I'm left hoping he notices, which is unlikely given his low positioning.

I just feel like they were closer a few years ago than they are today. Today's game feels like mostly guess work (even after hours and hours of reading up on tactic creation on here and other sites) as I try and work out how to strike a balance between the vague player roles the game gives to you.

Anyone else feel this way?

What ur left wanting to be implemented is simply a matter of perspective. In the end its a simulation game that is fairly limited. Every simulation is limited because factorial boundaries are set. I dont believe this particular game will ever be how you and i envision it. And yes i feel this way obviously ; D

[noikeee]

I got your point I just disagree that it's as big a deal as you make it out to be. I don't think the precedent has been that user controls should equal what the AI is capable of and I don't think every single AI manager has the opportunity to go as in depth as I can. I have 33 leagues in my game right now, is every AI manager making as many decisions and doing it as in depth as I am?

In your league they do. I'm pretty sure at the moment AI managers even use player instructions in-depth. But in your other 32 leagues, by default everything is simulated in less detail unless you manually set them up to be processed in full detail (which would make your game much slower).

[Rashidi]

I reckon people tend to overcomplicate things to the point where they create their own mess. You don't need to use all the team instructions and player instructions in the game to play the game. Let's face it, these player roles were placed into the game to simplify the tactical process. Its a lot easier to tell someone that he has to increase his side's mentality and push up and go wide to look for goals.

It's easier now looking at people's tactics and to see that they don't have enough players in support to score goals, or that they are way too disciplined to break down another side creatively.

Is there enough via tactical options for the game..hell yes. Do we need more player roles? No. Please stop. There are way too many player roles as it is. Lets look at the midfield strata and the defensive strata's, we currently have the option with some generic roles, and we can get so much done via player instructions.

Yes, no real world manager is going to tell someone to play as an engache, but they will tell them to hug the line and move through the channels, and stay tight on the defensive playmaker or close down the defenders in their third, or look to go to the flanks and pull the defenders wide.

The purpose of roles is to allow the "desktop manager" a chance to use different kinds of roles without going through a massive list of checkboxes and sliders. And this is meant to make the game quick and intuitive. While I agree more could be done to explain how roles inter-relate to the broader sets of mentality and shape, I don't think this is entirely impossible for someone to pick up. I took a break of almost 3 years from the game, came back and was aghast at how easy FM 15 was. It was shockingly easy. Thank god FM16 is forcing me to think.

[kevin3]

Yes player roles have oversimplified tactic-creating to a certain extent. I'm glad we don't have direct control over the 1-20 sliders anymore, but there are a lot of roles that have too many unavailable/hard-coded options for dribbling, passing, shooting, movement etc where I'm forced into accepting SI's interpretation. I think it's too restrictive, and that there should be a role for every position that allows for completely neutral on-ball instructions.

[gunnerfan]

For me, the roles are just a simplified vocabulary to allow touchline decisions to be translated into FM instructions. They are a proxy. And they work. Could they stand some tweaking? Sure. And I hope that is the direction FM will follow for the next editions.

[Jean0987654321]

Nope. It's all about maintaining realism and players roles exists IRL as well...

[davidnio_422]

I agree about having a blank player role for each position, but for the most part this does exist, in the form of the 'base' roles. By this I mean Full Back, Central Defender/Midfielder, Wide Midfielder etc. I do think that it would be good to have a similar role for the Winger positions as all the roles there seem very specialised, perhaps Wide Attacking Midfielder.

Ultimately it's about your players knowing what's expected of them. I think what miles means when he says the roles are the key is that player instructions are the key, because generally all player roles are is a set of presets for PIs. There are exceptions to this eg playmaker roles and target man which affect other players decisions, but mostly when I set a role im not doing anything that couldn't be done through pis.

In real life obviously a manager wouldn't say 'ok today you're an enganche' but he might say 'OK today I want you to sit in the hole and be the fulcrum, don't run around after the ball'. If I wanted to replicate this RL interaction in game I could by setting the player to AMa and tweaking him to hold position and play risky passes, but from a gaming viewpoint it is easier and quicker to have the Enganche role.

I do think that player roles do mask the importance of PIs a bit because there might be a disconnect between my interpretation of an attacking winger and the games but ultimately if you want to play this game properly you need to be attentive to your PIs, even the ones preset within the players role.

[johnnyyakuza78]

I really liked the introduction of roles, it allows a shorthand for basically what people were doing with sliders anyway. Most people have a basic concept of how they want their sides to play and also a vague idea of the roles in that tactic.

I think the main problem is that people get too hung up on the Role Name, and not what it actually does. Go look at the Target Man thread below. You have a few interpretations of a target man, and the assumption of how that role would play is different to different people. But in the game all the Target man role is, is a collection of settings. Nothing more. If you don't like those settings, pick another role that suits how you'd like your player to perform. For instance I've used a False 9 a lot of times in my games to get my striker to come deeper, but I would never actually assume I'd want an F9 in the tactic I was playing. A means to an end.

[Siven]

Think its a lot easier now than it ever has been to set up a tactic, but its not about simplifying at all really, just making it easier to understand.

Games will always involve an element of working things out, that's how it should be.

There's always things feedback we'd like to take on board for improving things even more, but the fact is role speak and instructions is used in real life where as mathematical notches of "mentality 9, defensive line 6" are not used when managers are talking to their players when setting up tactics.

Gotta admit i prefer the sliders still.

Why? because it felt like they gave me more control on how my players played.

Currently a lot of the available instructions are very vague and need improving.

What does work the ball into the box do for example? Does it lower long shots? crossing? anything else? In previous versions i could SEE the sliders change so i knew what that option affected, though tbh it wasnt an elegant solution.......but it at least wasnt as vague as the instructions are now.

[swansongs]

Defined player roles have an essential place in the game, providing players with user-friendly, recognisable archetypes from which to construct tactics.

But allowing players the freedom to express themselves in their tactics is also important. A lot of the player instruction restrictions are arbitrary and based on real life roles only as a matter of opinion. Do we need more preset roles? I don't think so. Some existing ones could even be culled with nothing of value lost. But greater ability to fine tune those roles would be very welcome.

[swansongs]

I really liked the introduction of roles, it allows a shorthand for basically what people were doing with sliders anyway. Most people have a basic concept of how they want their sides to play and also a vague idea of the roles in that tactic.

I think the main problem is that people get too hung up on the Role Name, and not what it actually does. Go look at the Target Man thread below. You have a few interpretations of a target man, and the assumption of how that role would play is different to different people. But in the game all the Target man role is, is a collection of settings. Nothing more. If you don't like those settings, pick another role that suits how you'd like your player to perform. For instance I've used a False 9 a lot of times in my games to get my striker to come deeper, but I would never actually assume I'd want an F9 in the tactic I was playing. A means to an end.

Target man has hidden, hardcoded features that other roles don't have, so it's an odd choice as an example here.

[THOG]

I think each position should have a generic, neutral role that can be customised as the player sees fit, but the main benefit of roles in the game is actually to create a platform that allows the AI to make more sensible tactical and squad-building decisions. The AI is gradually becoming more competitive with each iteration, and the TC has been crucial to that.

Also, the idea of roles isn't just an FM-ism. You don't hear a coach saying "Play as a poacher, Johnny," but coaches are supposed to have structured ideas for what they want players in particular positions to do ("Don't overthink it, Johnny, just get in the box and look for the final ball"), FM just put a firm label on some of the more common ones.

[RocheBag]

Then why is there not a totally blank role for each position? Why can't I create player roles myself? I understand wanting to move to more football terms but moving to player roles has restricted the tactical freedom of the game greatly, in my opinion.

There pretty much is. Central Defender, Full Back, Defensive Midfielder, Central Midfielder, Wide Midfielder, Deep-Lying Forward, and Advanced Forward. Thees are the "generic roles" that can be greatly edited.

[kandaurov]

Having played FM (and CM) since the beginning, I have to say that this new tactical approach of FM16 (player roles), it *does* limit what we expect for a player to do. Of course, we can instruct them with PI's, etc., but I agree, it feels like we are not "fully" controlling the player. A "blank role" for each position would be GREAT...As in RL.

[swansongs]

There pretty much is. Central Defender, Full Back, Defensive Midfielder, Central Midfielder, Wide Midfielder, Deep-Lying Forward, and Advanced Forward. Thees are the "generic roles" that can be greatly edited.

You can't give any of them playmaker or target man qualities, and all have the odd restriction to tackling or dribbling or something. You can't use them as a base to create anything interesting (though they are generally good roles as is).