Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Romano338

Did FM became too elitist tactic-wise?

Recommended Posts

I like the fact the game is getting harder. AI is much more reactive with each fm. plug and play tactics will prove uneffective very soon. yes it's harder but only because you actually need to watch the games a bit more than before. also I think people are getting plenty of wrong information about how this game should be played. and that's the biggest problem, especially for people struggling with tactics (and not paying attention to what AI does). on the other hand if you watch your games it's really hard not to spot that you need to change your midfield roles after you score and AI kicks a gear up with it's setup. matches need more reactive aproach than what's it's believed here. but like you mentioned, role adjustments during the game are very important for example. AI does it all the time (after scoring, after conceeding).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think you have it a bit backwards.

IMO since the introduction of the TC rather than sliders tactics have got easier from a setup POV.  You can quickly & easily setup a workable tactic that is capable of achieving reasonable results for the level of team.

What has been made harder is the AI of the opposing teams, its not there yet and will get harder over time but it is heading in the right direction.  At the same time exploits are being closed but this is sometimes two steps forward, one step backwards as new exploits appear.

 

Overall tactics should be and are important but a basic tactic should gain you reasonable results if your man management and player quality are also fairly standard.  From there its a question of marginal gains, better players get you better results on average, better tactics can turn defeats into draws & draws into wins as vital goals are scored while good man management can keep your squad happy, confident & motivated.

 

The main issue IMO we see on the forums falls into a couple of categories:

A) Unrealistic expectations.  Either as a result of overachieving on previous versions or seeing other users overachieve.  If you finish mid table with a team thats expected to fight relegation thats a good season but many still see it as a failure.

B) Tactical ability - Here I'm not talking about basic tactics but the really terrible tactics we see from time to time that logically don't make any sense and I wonder if the person creating them has ever played football at any level.  Even if you can't build a basic tactic you can use one of the default setups and get reasonable results.

C) Poor man management - Much like the tactical side there are users who seem to have no idea how to treat their players.  They talk to them & expect them to behave like slaves or even worse robots.  I've always treated players the same way I treat/manage people IRL and end up with few issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cougar2010 said:

Personally I think you have it a bit backwards.

IMO since the introduction of the TC rather than sliders tactics have got easier from a setup POV.  You can quickly & easily setup a workable tactic that is capable of achieving reasonable results for the level of team.

What has been made harder is the AI of the opposing teams, its not there yet and will get harder over time but it is heading in the right direction.  At the same time exploits are being closed but this is sometimes two steps forward, one step backwards as new exploits appear.



Pretty much this. Aside of remaining documentation/UI isssues (things indeed are more straight forward than ten years ago), almost any such viable opinion can be traced straight back to weak AI and exploits. Both guarantee/guaranteed absolutely miracle results by basically pressing continue. Now that this is harder to come by (or at least a download away), players think they must spend hours on tactics when it's simply that the game has shifted away from that type of game (only ever possible because of defects/flaws). Ironically, such tactics still turn the game into one wholly of tactics 100%, even drawing squad development mostly moot, as tactics in real football only can do this much. Tactics help you to put a playing style into place, and they also help some to get out the best of the players. Additionally, sensible match management and decisions (even the simple ones) may turn a few draws into wins and losses into draws.

What tactics won't do is making squads consistently outperform all abilty and superior opposition getting peppered time and time again... this is where the game's always "officially" headed though, as is apparent from official documentation as old as 25 years, no less as it is the only way that can support viable competitive multiplayer too (FMOnline Korea/China using the same core engines afaik). Don't see a massively change in direction personally as such. But then I've never played that way (I even deliberately shy away of the OP stuff, which is preference. Whether the AI ever will be that decent, time will tell -- at the moment, what an AI manager is doing with a squad you take over is your "difficulty gauge" more or less.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XaW said:

I get where you are coming from, but for me, the biggest fault players commit regarding tactics is over complicating it.

This, a hundred times this.

I'll give you an example from my current save. I took over at Jerv with five league games left and a safe mid-table position. Thus, I knew I could use the remaining games for experiments. Then I did what I usually do - picked a formation based on the players I had and my ideas about how I want them to play. Then I picked the roles, bearing in mind that I will first have to create space and then use it as effectively as possible; I also generally avoid the so-called specialist roles, but that's just my choice, others may prefer to use them to achieve specific aims. Then I picked the mentality, shape and just a few team instructions - not too many. Just try to imagine it from a pragmatic perspective; if you try to explain fifteen different instructions to your team while presenting the tactic, they will get confused and switch off very quickly. And finally, I sat back and watched. In one game I discovered my forward players weren't pressing the opponents the way I wanted despite being given this specific instruction, so I changed the mentality to a more attacking one. In another game I noticed my midfielders were leaving way too much space in front of them, so I changed their roles to push them higher up. Out of these five games, I lost three, but ended up with a tactic that satisfied my needs. The season after I lost three league games all season and ended up winning the title.

To sum this up, my advice would be to do things gradually, try out different ideas and decide whether they work as intended or not. Keep it simple and accessible for your players, but at the same time don't be afraid to tweak a thing or two if you feel like doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a network game I do download the strongest looking tactic I can understand (for some customisation if it's not going right) and go to town but you really don't have to be much good at tactics. 

It depends what you look for a lot. I'm pretty terrible at tactics, I know what I want to achieve a 4-1-4-1 that is a 3-4-3 in attack and becomes a 5-4-1 in defence essentially. I work, I tweak, I ask for advice from time to time on the forums but I'm never particularly good at it. My squad building, being able to identify a player for the role in the team and actual squad management is the biggest driving force behind what I get done in a game. A lot of the time though I admit to feeling like the first season of a save is me learning just quite what the option means in a match engine context. I've always wanted to provide feedback on this, but I can't think of a better way. FM has to convey in words its labels, but by their very nature it becomes a kind of technical jargon. The same happens all the time with attributes, its so easy to put your own meaning or the more general meaning of a word in your mind, and that's not quite how it translates in FM. 

I suppose really I'd consider being great at tactics as having a car over having a horse. It'll get you there faster, but it doesn't prevent you getting there. 

Bear in mind though, that the people who are actually very, very good at tactics tend not to share their tactics (I presume mostly out of the fact that the best tactics are bespoke to a team, rather than build-to). What you see most of on these forums, is the tactics which are very potent goalscorers. Which rely on stretching the capabilities of the game, and playing a numbers game in assuming you'll get more than you'll concede. They are actually quite easy to counter if you come up against someone playing one (which obviously the AI doesn't, but it does happen in network games)

Very few people create tactics that takes a side with 120CA defenders and keeps the most clean sheets in the premier league, or least goals conceded etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

IIRC, instructing the team to play Rigid or Flexible sort of clashes with individual instructions and duties, which in turns can negate other team instructions, basically creating a disjointed set of contradicting instructions.

It does as thats the point.

Its perhaps not the clearest area but the way I think about it is:

The more rigid you play the more players will stick to their individual roles/duties/instructions.

The more flexible you play the more the players will stick to the overall team instructions.

 

So a winger on attack duty will attack a lot with a rigid/defensive team mentality but he will be much more defensive with a flexible/defensive team mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything I feel like FM18 is the easiest FM yet. (probably because every year I learn more about the game)

Mentality and team shape can be confusing as they are the opposite of what some people might expect them to be. The counter mentality will result in less hectic balls forward than playing an attacking mentality for example. But all of the basic systems the game lets you set up will work for almost every team with very few changes.

Don't overcomplicate things, use no or only very few team instructions and listen to your assistant manager to go from there if you really don't know anything about tactics. Don't care about role familiarity too much. Look at your player's attributes and preferred moves instead, don't hesitate playing them out of their comfort zone. Changing a system or setting one up to fit in players based on their role familiarity is something I'd never do.

 

Oh and I think focussing on managing the dressing room, talking to your players and going to press conferences to keep morale high instead of doing tactics is what really makes the game harder for people. I personally don't take care of any of that. My assistant will always do team talks, press conferences, interviews and when players come to me and complain I'll ask the captain to talk to them. If that doesn't work I tell them to shut up. Still works and has worked for years.

Edited by 247Raumdeuter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

It does as thats the point.

Its perhaps not the clearest area but the way I think about it is:

The more rigid you play the more players will stick to their individual roles/duties/instructions.

The more flexible you play the more the players will stick to the overall team instructions.

 

So a winger on attack duty will attack a lot with a rigid/defensive team mentality but he will be much more defensive with a flexible/defensive team mentality.

It's interesting, I think a lot of knowledgeable fm tacticians don't really know they are and that creates a misunderstanding as to the ease of the game. For instance, reading the in game description this info isn't really clear, but since you know the game so well it is a basic for you. Another example in this thread would be the reply by @Rikulec which seems basic but may actually be tricky for the non hardcore portion of fm'ers. 

Edited by Cap'nRad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Cap'nRad said:

It's interesting, I think a lot of knowledgeable fm tacticians don't really know they are and that creates a misunderstanding as to the ease of the game. For instance, reading the in game description this info isn't really clear, but since you know the game so well it is a basic for you. Another example in this thread would be the reply by @Rikulec which seems basic but may actually be tricky for the non hardcore portion of fm'ers. 

I think its fair to say that a lot of knowledge is built up over time.

I was saying 10 years ago that I wouldn't like to be a newbie then given the knowledge I had built up and now I have another 10 years on top of that.  With that in mind I would agree that there is a lot which becomes almost natural to an experienced user which makes FM a little easier, particularly in areas where the descriptions/user information isn't clear.

To some extent thats where the tactics forum comes in and where those users that use social media I feel have a responsibility to show people how to play properly and pass on that knowledge. 

Personally I've lost count over the years of the number of times I really want to drive to someones house and sit next to them, showing them what I do when they have an issue or pointing out things I look for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are some ways in which FM is "elitist". 

They've picked funny and sometimes not-actually-that meaningful foreign names for positions which they could have called "free role", "wide poacher", "deep lying player (attack)" "box to box midfielder (DM)". Some things aren't very well explained out of the box "is a WB(S) or a FB(A) more attacking, and why is my natural wing back not natural in a role called "wing back?". Having vertical compactness and freedom of attacking movement both set by the same function is unintuitive.

But the current version has far more sensible defaults and fewer confusing permutations than the WIBL/WOBL or slider eras, and it's not nearly as inflexible as CM1, 2 or 4. And the new roles in FM18 go some way to overcoming the big limitation of not being able to tell your central midfield to cover/exploit the wider areas, even if it's not the way I'd have done it.

I think where a lot of people fall down is less to do with "wrong" settings of roles with funny names or playing around with mentality, and more to do with fairly basic stuff like not playing a high line when their striker is a lot faster than your central defenders, turning off attacking fullbacks when protecting a lead against an aggressive opponent with good wingers, and not automatically switching to a more aggressive formation if you're already creating plenty of chances you haven't managed to put away. As far as roles go, 80% of it is having more than one player running into the penalty area, and enough players staying back to cope with the opponents

There's pages worth of theory on the tactics forum, but most of that can be safely ignored unless reading that sort of thing interests you

And the "plug and play" tactics that exploit weaknesses in the match engine to (nearly always) overperform without thinking too hard about players or tactical changes still exist too. Sure, match engine weaknesses can produce "Eureka moments" where clicking one box gives an unexpected massive boosts to an already decent tactical setup, but that's more dumb luck than elite knowledge (unless you're knap and run hundreds of seasons to see which variant of your tactics works best :D)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not as expert as many in this thread, but you want a simple, easy tip that made a world of difference for me? Go to "Comparison" under "Squad Report" and build your tactics based on that.

Are you one of the strongest and fittest squads with the most stamina? Use high pressing.

Are you one of the fastest teams in the league? Use a counter-attacking method and/or instruct your lads to pass into space.

Are you one of the worst at heading? Instruct your team to use low crosses.

Is your defense slow? Don't use a high line.

And so on and so forth. I found the best way for me to learn how to build tactics around my squad, beyond my own personal preference for 4-4-2 diamond narrow or a christmas tree depending on my options, was to learn how I compared to my competition. It's all relative!

One area where I am weakest is perhaps adjusting to the opposition mid-match, because it is sometimes hard for me to tell what they're doing or how to stop it, and I'm also stubborn enough to prefer focusing on my own game than constantly reacting. But there are simple ways, such as dropping a defensive-minded role midfielder if the opposition brings on a central attacking midfielder, or using reactive substitutions, like bringing on a new fullback if the opposition has introduced a new pacey winger.

The other big thing I've learned is sometimes the smartest moves are counterintuitive. I like playing narrow formations, so I used to always tell my teams to play narrowly, which seemed like the logical thing to do. The opposite, however, is true. If your players are already positioned narrowly, telling them to play even more so is detrimental, and you should actually tell them to play more wide, so they stretch that narrow formation out a bit. They're still not wingers, but the CMs will now not be so stacked on top of each other, and it will be easier for them to press wider players on the other team.

Hope some of this helps!

Edited by Weston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 247Raumdeuter said:

Don't care about role familiarity too much. Look at your player's attributes and preferred moves instead, don't hesitate playing them out of their comfort zone. Changing a system or setting one up to fit in players based on their role familiarity is something I'd never do.

This was (or maybe still is) one of the hardest things for me to learn, as I have an inclination to follow the rules, if you will. I want my tactics screen to be all glowing green, and it bothers me to see a red familiarity circle. That being said, moving a player from a deep-lying playmaker in the DM position to mezzala in the CM position was one of the best moves I made because of his attributes. I have a fantastic defensive-minded midfielder who is, for some reason, super familiar with being a ball-winning midfielder at CM but not at CDM, but I play him there anyway because his attributes are still perfect and sometimes I want him right on top of an opposition CAM.

The one thing that confuses me about this is I can train AND play that young DLP as a MEZ for TWO YEARS and that red circle is still red. I hate how FM never adjusts - I've pretty much never, ever seen a player actually learn a position no matter what I do, yet FM will change player's position familiarity from edition to edition based on one season in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cap'nRad said:

It's interesting, I think a lot of knowledgeable fm tacticians don't really know they are and that creates a misunderstanding as to the ease of the game. For instance, reading the in game description this info isn't really clear, but since you know the game so well it is a basic for you. Another example in this thread would be the reply by @Rikulec which seems basic but may actually be tricky for the non hardcore portion of fm'ers. 

If you want to create your own tactic and be satisfied with the results, you need some real football knowledge first of all. That's what lets you spot your problems during the actual match. Personally I don't even think about my tactics in FM terms, and these can be quite misleading, true. To expand on my previous example, initially I went with an Anchor Man (D) + Segundo Volante (A) combination for my DM duo. It is stated explicitly in the Segundo Volante role description that it should work best with this exact role in the other slot. However, it turned out that it created a massive gap in the middle when we were defending; a problem I solved by changing the Anchor Man into a simple DM on a support duty. Watching the game and applying real life knowledge is crucial there. The game will always have its limitations and in some cases it will be blatantly misleading, so you always need to apply a common sense filter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, santy001 said:

Very few people create tactics that takes a side with 120CA defenders and keeps the most clean sheets in the premier league, or least goals conceded etc. 

Simple reason for this: The attacking phase isn't without flaws, the biggest ones are traditionally to be found in the defensive phase. This goes back straight to the first Diablo game breaker: Draw an arrow off an AMC in between two Forwards and due to a marking defect his always repeat-run wasn't picked up properly by any defender no matter the attributes. It's the mother of downloads as it wasthis efficient even if your side was tired, **** poor and completely outplayed, the one or two times your side managed to go forward may still have won you the match. This still continues to persist: Currently it's the narrow overloading of areas, on FM 17 it was exploiting of the half spaces opening up plus the cans of space opening by how wide midfielders positioned on defending (fixed).  In other words: It's been possible and perfectly viable if you like to turn Emile Heskey into Thomas Müller, always popping up in spaces that aren't covered proper no matter his attributes. Turning Titus Bramble into Jerome Boateng not so much, as he will be exposed for his attributes / ability a few added times no matter what. His lack of concentration will make him crack added times under pressure. His inferior tackling will make him miss the added tackle that may coast a goal. Etc.

The day AI managers would ever be coded to be  able to "ape" such tactics would be the day when everybody would quit the game in disgust, guaranteed. Unlikely to happen, mind. :D Though in the long-run proper defending as "units" plus actual collision models in the ME may make things a tad different here. Rumour has it another few ME rewrites (or an altogether new ME) are in the making. I think fixing those thus may be worthwile all itself, as that's a frustration future generatioins may avoid: Chasing miracle results typically only possible due to major engine and/or AI management flaws, being under the impression that if you wouldn't be able to do such your tactics were "poor". Others may naturally disagree, but that's a portion of the player base that  has never "seen the game for what it really is trying to be" to a point, which may be a far simpler/less trial&error and time consuming affair than what they think. Plus any major upgrade may rub them, as flaws are never intentional.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Romano338 said:

Disclaimer: I understand that this will be a controversial thread. But it's not how I want it. I neither have an extreme opinion on the subject nor do I intend to say the game is bad or anything. I want that to be clear before getting angry people telling to just get good and stop complaining, because this is not as much a complaint thread as it is a discussion thread.

Hi.

I've played CM/FM for years. Never been great at it, I just always enjoyed playing it, although I haven't played it much in the past 5-6 years. So I came back to FM16 and found a very complex, in-depth tactic system, which allows you to really decide what you want and get more realism. I think it's great, the game it moving forward, which each of the managing aspects getting improved and more realistic.

But on the other side, I kind of feel like tactic became also a bit elitist. I feel like the biggest aspect of the game is the tactic, and there is no going around the complexity of it.
Why do I play FM? Well, it's always the management of the roster that I love. Thinking of who I should get who to sell, how to manage the youngsters to develop them,... Tactics, I'm not too good at. I follow football (less now, but still), I don't shy from post-game analysis on tactical aspects and stuff, but I'm no tactical genius nor tactical afficionado who will spend 2-3 hours a day reading about tactics. Also, I decided to play FM Touch because I don't want to spend as much time as I used to in the game.

Right now, I feel like even if you manage your roster very well, it's very hard to achieve anything (as small as being close to the objectives) without being extremely good in tactics. You can't be good at other things, and set-up a decently working tactic without knowing every single option very well and spending 2-3 hours tweaking it.
I realize that as I'm currently trying to make a good tactic. I spent quite some time reading stuff about how it works, what to do/not do, then I spent time doing it, and the first results aren't exactly encouraging. Sure, the CM series wasn't one bit realistic, and this is not how I want FM to be either, but you could do decent with a tactic that you would do in 5-10 minutes.
There is always the option of downloading tactics, but I feel like tactics are so much based on the players you have and their profile and their likes/dislikes, and so many stuff that you don't download an "offensive 4-3-3 based on pace" but you download "the offensive 4-3-3 based on pace I could do because I had that very specific player who can be a segundo volante and my full backs are quite tall yet fast and great at crossing and my striker happens to be great at tackling". That's a bit how I felt on that FM18. And if you tweak a single roles or position because your squad has it's own specificity, I feel like everything crumbles.

So once again, it's a discussion opening. I think the tactical aspect is great, and I'm sure people who are deeply into football tactics must love it so much! And when I say stuff like "you can't" it's meant as in "I feel like you can't". I really hope this message will go through, otherwise I'm good to get hanged on town square :lol:

What is your opinion on the overall importance of being extremely good at tactics in FM? (not the importance of tactics, but the importance of being elit at it). Is it the part you prefer? Are you good at it?
And after all, maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe you can do decent with a defaut tactic where you adjust a couple of roles and go.

This is good feedback.

I'm not sure exactly what "elitist" means in this context, however I certainly believe and agree there can be an issue with accessibility for the new or inexperienced manager.  Some poor in game descriptions (eg., "Control" mentality); lack of context (Team Instructions screen); confusing tactical settings (Team Shape); poor feedback (the new player partnership lines); awareness that the formation is your defensive formation; better representation of how player roles/duties help shape the attacking phase; a disconnect between tactical descriptions and your actual players* are a few examples of where people can struggle to grasp what is happening without resorting to a fair amount of reading outside of the game or asking for help over in the Tactics forum / on other fansites.

That's not to say there isn't anything good to be found - far from it and what we currently have is leaps and bounds ahead of where things used to be.  But personally I'd like to have seen improvements to problem areas made for FM18, rather than giving us an unneeded(?) new skin with some (questionable?) new functionality and leaves us with the same old problems.

Can a new user simply pick up the game and create a winning formula?  Yes, but it'd arguably be more luck than judgement.  I didn't start playing the game until FM13 and I vividly remember the pain of trying to understand what the hell was going on so can absolutely empathise with this kind of post.

 

* By this I mean different players will play the same role in different ways and not necessarily in line with the in game role descriptions.  eg., put a player with high work rate/determination/stamina into the Trequartista role and you have a very different animal to what the in game description would have you believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, herne79 said:

This is good feedback.

Can a new user simply pick up the game and create a winning formula?  Yes, but it'd arguably be more luck than judgement.  I didn't start playing the game until FM13 and I vividly remember the pain of trying to understand what the hell was going on so can absolutely empathise with this kind of post.

 

Yes, it's not the argument, however. The core argument wasn't one from a newcomer's perspective. It was that it was "less elitist" 5, 6 years ago to make a "decent" tactic in minutes, when in fact, the core is exactly the same here, never much changed.  Still possible in minutes too, as it's exactly the same. The only things that slightly changed were a few engine and AI overhauls, and, depending on the iteration, UI. The UI is at its worst where it's still fairly detached from football or lacks the cues what at all happens on the pitch if put in action. Plus there's too much stuff interlinking (also for the AI managers). I'd welcome it if there would be a more straight forward route of targeting playing styles as outlined by RBKalle too, no less as the AI obviously struggles here massively imo. However, if you were around ten years ago, it was all further detached from football, as you needed your PhD in slider speech first, and even then could put up absolutely horrible football easily, with players acting totally detached from one another (even former mods argued there were at best a handful of people on these boards who had a near complete grasp of them, and those who were the most vigurous arguing them to stay in didn't belong to them, unsurprisingly). Tactical "discussions" from that era make for fascinating reads, as 90% of their content is basically translating "sliders into football". As far as they existed, mind.

The entire point of the UI overhauls was it to make this less "elitist". It's ambigious though, as "6, 7 years" could mean anything. It doesn't mean that 6 years back he was playing the then current releases, after all, but rather sticked with say, CM 2 on Amiga 500 for rather long. I'd argue that the current UI and feedback may pose (simple) questions though that have always been part of the game in one way or another, and that older iterations made players oblivious to them. That's a perception thing rather than anything, at least in parts. After all, the concepts introduced (bonafide roles), AI is able to access and use them naturally too, making it slightly more robust. With that said, I hope it all will look as different in ten years time as with the "recent" upgrades, which haven't been actually that recent, but at the core are in the game ever since about FM 2010 in almost exactly the same way. The fundamentals are exactly the same since. If you had played the game a certain kind of way 5 years ago, so far you would adopt to every release like a duck to the water (though each release has its issues, mind).

The question to me either way isn't whether FM has become too elitist here. It's exactly the opposite and the aforementioned link proves it with a vengeance. The question is a) where it can improve and b) whether it's becoming too inbred, with various FM "speech" naturally the most to blame (mentality, shape, etc.).

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 ore fa, Svenc ha scritto:

The question is a) where it can improve and b) whether it's becoming too inbred, with various FM "speech" naturally the most to blame (mentality, shape, etc.).

Excellent post, with several quotable bits, but I'll stick with the conclusion.

a) It can improve massively with further simplification. SI still struggle to accept that LESS IS MORE in terms of intertwining features.

See, sliders are luckly a distant memory, but when you strip all its lingo and its apparent user-friendly looks off the TC, we STILL need that awful Ph.D. in sliders like in the old days... It's just that instead of "3 clicks on the right with the Creativity slider" and "5 from the left in Defensive Line", we now have to sit through hours worth of highlights to see how "Control + Fluid" works compared to "Counter + Rigid".
Not to mention the added burden of finding out if and why our CM works better as Carrillero instead of as B2B, despite his circle being full green with the latter and his attributes making him a perfect for for a DLP.

All with the same limited, infuriatingly generic and often nonsensical, feedback from the backroom staff. The data analysis is great and whatnot, but it doesn't tell me WHY my CM keeps on shooting from 40 yards out or why my AMC isn't creating a single chance for the strikers.
The least said about crossing and wide play, the better, as that'll easily derail this post...

My idea is so easy I'm surprised it hasn't been implemented, at least on FMT:

Basic TC, with fewer, simplified options. Not barebone like the CM days (where you had Long, Short and Mixed as the main tactical options), but some Presets like "Possession game", "Tiki-taka", "Counterattack", "Catenaccio", "Direct attack" etc, with built-in instructions under the hood, and possibly pre-assigned roles and duties, to give a decent approximation of that tactical setup.
THEN, there'd be the Advanced TC, which is basically what we have now.

The current Wizard is only a fake "plug and play" tool, because it doesn't really go beyond the few lines of (vague) explaination. And the rendition on the pitch is often miles away from what you'd expect.

 

b) like @MBarbaric said, FM lingo has taken the game over, making no favour to the players or to the game itself.

In addition to being "forced" to learn how to play the ME (and the whole game, with all its quirks), as opposed to, you know, trying to be the best "football managers" we can, we also have to retrain ourselves to recognize what FM means with Raumdeuter (FFS!!!), Counter, Narrow formation etc.

It'll be hard, it'll probably take longer than normal to do so, but the current baseline for the game reminds me of Marge Simpson's Chanel pink outfit. No matter how many times they modify, trim and remodel it, the fabric is now too worn out and it'll only take a slip-up to destroy it.

Edited by RBKalle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm more than entitled to offer my view here, according to my recent past and my relationship with Fm...

I don't think the game is too elitist and I'm going to explain why.

There are many ways to play FM and all of them are right if that's what the user wants. I've been through a) and b), still trying to enter c).

a) Play the game like I used to play CM 01-02 (the first I played).
Pay no special attention to tactics, just a simple formation, no clue about roles duties and instructions. Just sign players and press continue. If you do this nowadays, it's a bit like gambling. You can win or lose who knows why and how. If you don't touch anything (default tactic) you can still win, to some extent, particularly if your players are better.
Problems will come if you think you know better. Then you will choose stupid tactical instructions and you'll struggle for sure.
If you want to have the same results most of us had with CM, win almost everything and Aghahowa scoring 50 goals, without paying attention to tactics there is no other option but to download a tactic, if that still Works which I suspect it does but I haven't tried.You'll probably unrealistically overachieve like in the good old times. If that's what you want, go for it.
I suspect this is where most of Fm players are. Gambling/struggling/downloading. In the long term, signing superb players ensures results and squad building is still too easy.

 

b) Play the game following FM standards
You don't need a Deep understanding about football, actually no knowledge is needed and it can be even better if you have no tactical understanding. You just have to follow some basic principles, which you don't even need to understand, just use them.
You'll find these principles in this fórums, particularly stickies in the tactical subforum.
You won't implement a tactical style or anything similar. You will only use some standards (which may experience changes through  FM versions) that will provide you good results. I'm not talking about exploits, I'm talking about principles (movement between the lines, Deep runners...) which can be achieved only with this:

4: Focus on roles and duties and their combinations. Make sure you have one Attack duty in defence, generally but not absolutely necessarily combined with one Support Duty (note, this includes the deepest wide players in your formation if you are not using the Full Back positions), one Attack Duty and one Defend Duty in midfield, and one Support Duty (or TQ or F9) in attack. This type of structure encourages movement between the lines, which is absolutely vital for a dynamic tactic that creates multiple chance types. It also ensures a tight defensive system in which the team defends en bloc, rather than in disconnected lines. Note that, perhaps counter-intuitively, this type of structure is less necessary in attacking strategies, as players will look to move high up in the pitch naturally and won't need to be told to make forward runs to do so.

If you play a lone FC formation, ensure he drops deep by giving him a support duty, a TQ or F9 role, as other roles run the risk of isolating him, resulting in his failure to contribute to play and relying on scraps and half chances. The exception is when playing an AMC directly behind him. In such formations, you might want your forward to stay high and range across the line to create space for the AMC to move into, so an AF/A or CF/A role/duty might be a better option. Make sure you have at least one no-nonsense midfielder role to break up play and provide a solid base for possession. If you want to use a playmaker, think about whether he'll be in the best position to hurt players, or will your approach see him isolated or marked out of the game. If you want to use a target man, consider whether his flick ons and knock downs will be easily picked up by a teammate

You won't unrealistically overachieve, results will come and go, you will experience bad runs but finally your team will behave according to the quality of your players. You won't struggle, if you don't have unrealistic expectations (for that purpose, download a tactic)
This brings us to point a) again: just sign better players and your results will improve, particularly against an AI which totaly sucks in squad building (don't know in fm18 yet).
In terms of results, this is the closest to real life.

 

c) Play with your own tactics
This is a different kettle of fish. This involves implementing a tactical style and not everybody can do it.
However, you can get into this group of players 2 ways:
First, start from point b) and try to understand what's going on. Fortunately, with a bit of time and patience, you'll be able to refine your tactic, watch matches properly, spot what's wrong and even fix it. It's easier if you start from point b) because you are following fm principles.
There is, though, another way. Use your football knowledge and apply it to fm. That's certainly difficult because sometimes you can go against fm standards. For instance, last year there was an obvious problem

On ‎03‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 08:21, Svenc said:

Could you créate a tactic against this? Yes, but it was significantly more difficult.
Anyway, to be in c) group you need to have a Deep understanding on the game, know what every role and instruction does and finally have some talent. Otherwise, it's simply imposible and you'd better go back to b), but if you can get to point c), you can unrealistically overachieve, the same we did on CM.
This is where the game becomes elitist, but you don't need to get to that point to play it.

 

 

 

Edited by looping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Basic TC, with fewer, simplified options. Not barebone like the CM days (where you had Long, Short and Mixed as the main tactical options), but some Presets like "Possession game", "Tiki-taka", "Counterattack", "Catenaccio", "Direct attack" etc, with built-in instructions under the hood, and possibly pre-assigned roles and duties, to give a decent approximation of that tactical setup.
THEN, there'd be the Advanced TC, which is basically what we have now.

The current Wizard is only a fake "plug and play" tool, because it doesn't really go beyond the few lines of (vague) explaination. And the rendition on the pitch is often miles away from what you'd expect.

but wouldn't such tacical system be too close to hitting the win button? it's the same reason behind SI's thinking of not giving us the complete guide to fm. there would be no exitment of creating your tacics, at least for me. no trial and error thing, which is happening constantly irl too. not to mention the above presets you mentioned are tactical basics you setup in a minute. and it's not an  area where people struggle really.  direct or short passing or fluid style won't get you wins. active game management and making correct and on time decisions might. 

also your second paragraph is not really true.  and another reason why games should be watched in full mode more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, looping said:

4: Focus on roles and duties and their combinations. Make sure you have one Attack duty in defence, generally but not absolutely necessarily combined with one Support Duty (note, this includes the deepest wide players in your formation if you are not using the Full Back positions),

Excuse my ignorance, but I'm intrigued (and you clearly know more than I) - Can you explain the attack duty in defense? How does that work, and does it only work at a higher level? I typically play a back four consisting of two Central Defenders set to defend and two Fullbacks with Wingback roles set to automatic. I'm afraid to commit either to full out attack because they, naturally, also need to defend. Does this count by those standards? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who knew nothing about football when I first picked up the game in FM2016, but who has played hundreds of hours of FM since:

Tactics Creator: I think this needs an overhaul. I first had to learn how to play the Tactics Creator mini-game  before I could even get started on learning how to coach my football side. I am supposed to be a football manager with some level of expertise - I should be able to tell my players what I want them to do, and they go out and do the best job they can according to their abilities and personalities.  I guess it boils down to the fact that I feel that the Tactics Creator is often making the job of coaching my team harder, not easier.

Ideally, I think you should need to be good at coaching football to win matches, not be good at figuring out the Tactics Creator.  (I think I'm neither!)

For example: if I create a tactic, I shouldn't have to play a match to see if the players are behaving how I want them to behave, I should be able to do that on the practice field, and tinker with the tactic until everybody is doing what I want them to do as best they can. That doesn't mean that the tactic will work in a real match against opponents, but at least I could go into the match knowing that the players will actually be trying to do what I want.

Unless of course, SI intend to make figuring out the Tactics Creator part of the fun of the game!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda love the fact I have to upskill my tactical knowledge every fm version. I've been playing since the CM days and usually took charge of a top team and used exploits to win. With each version that gets more and more difficult as these are slowly getting ironed out to the point that I was forced to start understanding how tactics work if I wanted to enjoy the game. First time I really paid attention to tactics was with FM14, but it was really FM16 that made me analyse games both IRL and in the game. I even started reading a book about the history of tactics. All just so I could understand and enjoy the game. 

Now playing FM17, I've got 2 tactics more or less worked out and use them depending on the opposition. I'm not a tactical genius, but I mostly look at the opposition line up and detourermine which of the 2 is more suitable. Eg. I usually play possession based and flood the midfield with physical creative players. If I notice the opposition mainly stays in their own half, I pick the tactic where my creative players are positioned so they have some space and try to look for openings: either MC or DMC. I don't want my creative players to be surrounded by the opposition. If the opposition plays more forward, I'll add a BWM in DMC and get my creative players to more forward. 

I also buy players that suit both tactics and barely change outside those 2 standard tactics.

It did take some time set both tactics up and to get them to work, and I did have to learn about tactics in general, but it is worth it! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RBKalle said:

 

In addition to being "forced" to learn how to play the ME (and the whole game, with all its quirks), as opposed to, you know, trying to be the best "football managers" we can, we also have to retrain ourselves to recognize what FM means with Raumdeuter (FFS!!!), Counter, Narrow formation etc.

 

The only time you ever need to play the ME though is if you want to exploit it. It's why the tactics in the download sections tend to look differently ever year. My stuff has looked the same since I don't know how long. There was nothing added, so it couldn't possible look any big time different, no less as FM arguably doesn't even go that deep (pressing zones are non-existent, etc.) AI managers aren't coded to adjust to any ME either. They are coded "basic" sports logics into their decisions, visibly, which imo ever since are pretty easy to implement into the UI anyhow (what's missing is a few visual cues though, in particular as to forward runs/roams, etc). We're talking stuff like keeping the pitch compact when playing with cautious, plus keeping a few added players behind the ball. Deepening and widening the pitch when doing vice versa. Throwing cautious to the wind when trying to get a late equalizer / stage a comeback. I think nobody should struggle with that here at least in a basic sense, at least if the UI would be able to roughly show the attacking shape. It's a piece of cakemeal judgement and click of the mouse (in particular if paired with the 3 tactical slots actually utilized). If you would, it remains debatable if any overhaul would solve things completely. F'r instance, the tactics in that crossing thread, if you would put that tactic compressing the centre areas in action and wouldn't see why the ball regularly goes out wide to the backs (who would then cross), any overhaul may keep you just as frustrated, perhaps moreso.

I'm too all for dialing it a few steps back tho, so that the AI too was actually able to get a specific style of play going. Atm, sides managed by Guardiola in-game can have regularly worse possession figures than Jose Mou's. It starts right with how AI operates arguably, which is prefered formations given by the research. In football, formations are a means to an end, whereas by AI they are approached as that end. It speaks to reason that a formation stacking the deeper areas of the pitch some makes it easier to retain the ball, as that's where the area of lesser pressure is in real football also, and vice versa, for instance. Sometimes they still do cringe, imo, which wasn't actually in FM 2013-2015ish from my experience, and which may also heavily relate to inconsistency (in particular the top sides). I personally hope that's monitored, as despite the "elitist" tag on this thread -- stuff like that makes the notion of there being joyful tactical debates about the game a farce. If you would semi-regularly face opponents making decisions like that, any basic sports knowledge and translating it into the game would be like trying to play Chess against a Chimp. And indeed, one of the reasons why I haven't much personally engaged in tactical forums is because it would make you steamroll AI in no time here. And indeed, absolutely basic stuff would let you still perform decently anyway, and this may remain. After all, tactics in football are tertiary to player development. It's only if you try to decisively beat the game that you would ever feel the need to spend hours on "random tweaking" in a search of some universal "press continue" winning formula a la CM01/02, Diablo et all. Absolutely not needed to perform, even overperform, as no AI ever is ever going to be coded like that.

 

@Rashidi nailed a few stuff here, as he probably also knows from experience (playing the same game a hundred times to backwards translate the previous sliders into something "useful", same as wwfan et all). I'll add another thing: Despite all, there's so much spoon-feeding in the game know, you almost can't do anything fundamentally "iffy" anymore by now. This creates the perception however that things would have become more "elitist", simply as it makes you think a few about the stuff.

- Just because important attributes for roles and ideal roles for players are highlighted, doesn't mean on any iteration ever it was of any huge benefit just fielding a couple players and let them run with it
- Just because the current iteration has made it pretty clear where the weak areas of each formation may be, doesn't mean that's never been a thing before. Even on iterations from years back, your 4-4-2 allowed spaces between its flat lines for attacking central midfielders and dropping opposition forwards to flourish in, as it's a traditional, common sense weakness of such formations in football for decades

etc.

 

 

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Weston said:

Excuse my ignorance, but I'm intrigued (and you clearly know more than I) - Can you explain the attack duty in defense? How does that work, and does it only work at a higher level? I typically play a back four consisting of two Central Defenders set to defend and two Fullbacks with Wingback roles set to automatic. I'm afraid to commit either to full out attack because they, naturally, also need to defend. Does this count by those standards? 

There is no need to have one attack duty in defence.  Can you?  Yes.  Should you?  No.

As ever, just balance things according to your style of play and available players.

Tactical advice that says "this is what you should or need to do" is usually extremely subjective, generalised and frequently poor.  The result of which causes this sort of concern as demonstrated by your questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Weston said:

Excuse my ignorance, but I'm intrigued (and you clearly know more than I) - Can you explain the attack duty in defense? How does that work, and does it only work at a higher level? I typically play a back four consisting of two Central Defenders set to defend and two Fullbacks with Wingback roles set to automatic. I'm afraid to commit either to full out attack because they, naturally, also need to defend. Does this count by those standards? 

Everything is relative to their position.

Putting a defender on attack still means they are a defender.  On attack they will close down more, push higher up, get forward more etc etc.

You can see the difference by looking at the PIs and changing the duties.

If you are using automatic their duty will default to the team mentality anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, herne79 said:

There is no need to have one attack duty in defence.  Can you?  Yes.  Should you?  No.

As ever, just balance things according to your style of play and available players.

Tactical advice that says "this is what you should or need to do" is usually extremely subjective, generalised and frequently poor.  The result of which causes this sort of concern as demonstrated by your questions.

 

This one isn't though, for a change.  :D Arguably simply sticking to it makes you outperform many an AI manager taking that same club/players already to this day ... The reason of which should be obvious enough, no less as a full back surging forward regularly opens wide passing angles high up the pitch. It depends on the opposition, and it's a risk, but traditionally the rewards have naturally been far higher than that risk (in particular if you don't want to engage too much tactically anyway, for whicht his was written -- it speaks to reason that on occasion even having both backs on defend staying back may be of benefit, all depending on context, which this guide was never written for). I'd still almost class that single paragraph as a spoiler as to perform in FM despite its age. It won't make you decisively beat the game. or cause you to win the EPL first season with WHU (which if the game were realistic should require quite a few of luck plus a few top sides underperforming either way). As argued, nothing has fundamentally changed much since, the core logics have been the same and follow football/team sports. If you don't have movement between the lines, you are easier to defend. Lone Target Men may be easily crowded out when they get the ball and drop it. And so on.

This guide was first written in the context with people struggling when FM 2013 was released, btw. And this place was filled with anger about a "broken game". Because many did all of that prior, and by FM 2013, suddenly found it hard to cope due to a much needed overhaul in defending (that made it somewhat more "realistic"). It's lacking context itself for its advice. But it would get everybody really struggling back on track quickly, which is what it was meant for. In a second step, it may have get them thinking about why that advice is given, ideally... Speaking about duties and feedback, I have never used the "automatic" duty, but it's apparent (and not at all communicated in-game all to clearly) what that actually means, another thourough area of concern in the current UI... After all, auto duties can turn a side upside down simply by what "mentality" you pick [and indeed, a common misconception of picking a defensive mentality would make players stay put behind the ball all itself]. Then again, it's that one duty where the in-game text descritions then make sense, as contrary to the in-game text of a defensive mentality for instance (keeping players behind the ball), you can throw every single player eventually forward even on contain. Is that still actually "containing" a game?

The duties on "automatic" would put them to "defend" ("hold position") duty on such and encourage them to stay behind, and then the in-game description making sense. It is clear though that SI are too close to their code on a mechanical level to see the issues in how to translate things to the player imo though. Has always been the case. They know the nuts and bolts and know how everything clicks on a coding level. However in it all they may not see the wood for the trees, similar to that Maths professor back at college who assumed the "easy" stuff to be hard and vice versa, as he was so entangled in his numbers he couldn't take a step back and view things from an outside angle anymore. The UI as it is now despite its legacy drawbacks is in big parts still the result of a few FM players getting their act together and presenting to SI an alternative solution to their traditional modus operandi. Which perhaps is no coincidence, after all. For them to seriously reconsider and take notice of the limitations, it may need another precise and thoroughly presented effort like that.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2017 at 08:21, Svenc said:

The day AI managers would ever be coded to be  able to "ape" such tactics would be the day when everybody would quit the game in disgust, guaranteed. 

Whether this comment was made in a humorous manner or not, the fact is it's the truth. Obviously, not literally everybody would leave the game, but a large, large portion of the player base would. People who only frequent this FM forum may not realize it because it's a microcosm consisted both of people interested in nuanced tactics and those raging against the need for them. When you take a look at other FM forums, including in non-English speaking areas, and add to that casual talk about FM with colleagues and acquaintances, you realize how many people actually gradually lose interest in the vain of what OP said or they completely started relying on tactics downloads.

The usual argument here is "not to worry, plenty of kids are just discovering FM and they like it as it is, who cares if older fans leave". Actually, no. I'm a teacher so I get to talk to a lot of teenagers about video games. When they try to play it, they're so confused with clunky UI and terrible in-game documentation and the lack of quality feedback they just leave and play something simpler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, shirajzl said:

Whether this comment was made in a humorous manner or not, the fact is it's the truth. Obviously, not literally everybody would leave the game, but a large, large portion of the player base would.


I know I would! It would defeat the entire purpose of the game. Game code has flaws, which is why it may be "beatable". Coding AI to do such, basically abuse flaws, would defeat the entire "simulation". It would be like an AI on Civ or HOI coded to exploit loopholes in the code, rather than them presenting "believable" opposition that is also beatable by "just" means, rather than exploits that are at best awkward and at worst impossible to defend even with poor opposition players. It would also be a terrible representation of football, as in football there is no tactic that guarantees consistently miracle overachievements. Tactics are a part of football management, but not like that in any way, basically drawing even squad development mostly moot and bust, a big part of any management game ever since.

My experience is different, but I'm from Germany, where people tended to (if at all) shift over to FM because it engaged a few into a somewhat believable match sim and tactical options. It's the reasons I recommended it to guys likewise, there's at least a modicum of football put into it compared to the arcade options that have been available on German shelves (ironically, the bigger ones, like Fifa Man never had any "super tactics" of the FM kind ever in its popular text sim -- build a squad or be beaten). The game hasn't been officially sold here in over a decade though. Will be curious though what happens this time next year as SI have the licenses for the Bundesliga again and as such may attract a wider German player base. :D

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might have got more complicated but that is because there is more there, but if you read  the descriptions of what stuff does (and that is an area where I feel people often let themselves down, they just click buttons, without really reading what it does and whether that matches with what they want) everything then generally it makes logical sense and you can build a tactic by thinking it through logically. 

I think the red/green squares on the pitch are a big addition this year, gets people to visualise their shape and see the gaps forming. 

I'd reckon the main issue most people have confusion with is team mentality + player mentalities, so you see people stacking loads of attacks on top of an attacking mentality. Not to mention people seem to create massively front heavy tactics and then wonder why they struggle to break teams down. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they have fixed something in the match engine on this 2018 version. Look at the top tactics right now in FMSCOUT, they are 4-2-3-1. It is no longer strikerless 3AMC tactic like FM 2016/17. FM14-15 was also quiet similar. It was mostly exploiting the ME instead of creating a 'real' strategy. 

Like someone mentioned above, plug n play tactic will soon be less effective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, aditya said:


Like someone mentioned above, plug n play tactic will soon be less effective

They already are less effective, compared to "golden" times of FM12 and prior releases. They still work to a decent extent, but you have to couple them with good squad management, which wasn't the case in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, shirajzl said:

They already are less effective, compared to "golden" times of FM12 and prior releases. They still work to a decent extent, but you have to couple them with good squad management, which wasn't the case in the past.

The last time I tried some both FM 2017 and 2018 I never subbed players, had matches on text commentary maximum speed, holidayed between matches, clicked continue and got the likes of Freiburg, Darmstadt et all immediately competing for Europe. That's not plug&play, that's plug&win. If that was even more "serious" in older releases it must be very unfortunate, as it is obvious all of this hugely relies on some bad defending / AI . As argued above, it is also no wonder that players having grown up with this kind of playing struggle when they try to do manage some of their own, having a completely wrong expecation as to what SI are aiming for, and also being under the impression that if they can't approach anything like that on their own, they must be doing something fundamentally "wrong". No matter what the UI looks like or anything, that's frustration guaranteed! 

As coding deliberatly bad defending in the game can't be an option as it affects your own team as well and makes the multiplayer a farce, the best route to go about this is fixing it to the degree that future generation of players would never ever develop such "expectations/misconceptions" to begin with. I wouldn't mind if the game offered "easy win" modes at all (they couldn't hinge on universally flawed game code though, but must be intentional!). However, SI have always stated that they wouldn't ever offer levels of difficulty as such, which by now affects everyone in some way or other (with the more "casually commited playerbase" still better catered for arguably. After all, the last ten years in particular tactically wasn't about offering more options / depth and detail, but rather improving the feedback (or trying to) as to what's in there. Optionally you could oft let the assistant taking over entirelly. He doesn't usually engage in game breaking tactics or anything (some AI may do by accident, or rather research), but ensures you could overachieve by different means, e.g. squad development. I'd love to see proper tactical assistant managers in the game long-term anyhow, they aren't even unrealistic.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Weston said:

Excuse my ignorance, but I'm intrigued (and you clearly know more than I) - Can you explain the attack duty in defense? How does that work, and does it only work at a higher level? I typically play a back four consisting of two Central Defenders set to defend and two Fullbacks with Wingback roles set to automatic. I'm afraid to commit either to full out attack because they, naturally, also need to defend. Does this count by those standards? 

First off, I'm not offering tactical advice. If anyone read my post would immediately understand what I'm saying is the opposite of tactical advice. This is not about creating a certain style or thinking how you want your team to play. It's about setting something decent, following some standards that will allow you to get results without putting much effort from the tactical side.

If you want to implement a certain tactical style you should immediately ignore what I said about standards. And if you need tactical advice sure other people who know better tan me can help you.

Therefore, your question is completely missing the point. If you want to think about tactics, ignore those standards. If you want to play without thinking about tactics (and still have good results) you don't need to know anything about auto duties. What I posted doesn't talk about auto duties. Just stick to that standards and play.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Svenc said:

The last time I tried some both FM 2017 and 2018 I never even subbed players, had matches on text commentary maximum speed, clicked continue and got the likes of Freiburg, Darmstadt et all immediately competing for Europe. That's not plug&play, that's plug&win. If that was even more "serious" in older releases it must be very unfortunate, as it is obvious all of this hugely relies on some bad defending / AI . As argued above, it is also no wonder that players having grown up with this kind of playing struggle when they try to do manage some of their own, having a completely wrong expecation as to what SI are aiming for, and also being under the impression that if they can't approach anything like that on their own, they must be doing something fundamentally "wrong". No matter what the UI looks like or anything, that's frustration guaranteed! 

As coding deliberatly bad defending in the game can't be an option as it affects your own team as well and makes the multiplayer a farce, the best route to go about this is fixing it to the degree that future generation of players would never ever develop such "expectations" to begin with. I wouldn't mind if the game offered "easy win" modes however at all, mind (they couldn't hinge on universally flawed game code though, but must be intentional!).

You'd have Freiburg challenging for the title in the past using such tactics.

I agree that expectations are definitely the problem. However, even plug and play tactics aside, when people follow resident experts who really know what they're doing like Cleon or Rashidi, they feel inadequate and frustrated because they want that. Nothing wrong with that attitude, it's human nature. "Why would I struggle and slowly build up my success when what those guys are doing is possible immediately?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Go look the "boring crossing simulator" topic and see how the OP thought his narrow, through-the-middle 4-3-1-2 formation was supposed to work and how it ended up being... Now, if that is NOT counterintuitive, I don't know what it.

Sure, the "it's your tactic" is still a valid counter, but imagine if in, say, a RTS game you suddenly found out that defensive troops don't work well in a specific setup, or that flanking isn't really flanking because... well because the programmers have a different idea of what constitutes flanking.

You can't use that as an example as its purely down to the user.

Pretty much anyone assessing his original tactic from a neutral perspective could easily see it didn't play like he wanted it to.

You could make a point that what the game was telling him could have been clearer but lets be honest there was plenty of information already there, he just didn't see it or had convinced himself the tactic was something else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, shirajzl said:

I agree that expectations are definitely the problem. However, even plug and play tactics aside, when people follow resident experts who really know what they're doing like Cleon or Rashidi, they feel inadequate and frustrated because they want that. Nothing wrong with that attitude, it's human nature. "Why would I struggle and slowly build up my success when what those guys are doing is possible immediately?"

It's not immediate though. It's having actually "played" the game for like two decades, rather than "downloading winning tactics", possibly not even understanding why they brought results (in some cases, like the mighty Diabloe, even if they may have played some terrible football). Arguably, what some of the tactical mods are able to do could be naturally classed as an exploit of a different kind. Namely that of AI (or its lack of decision making). In real football, tactics alone only do this much. They're a part of the puzzle, and they can help to stage upsets. But they're nothing that gifts consistently huge overachievement over superior opponents. That's from my experience, where the game's headed either way, and that one day may go both ways. Outside of terrible tactics, after all, tactics alone are never the root cause of consistently underachievement, too (which may go for your side too). 

If you could turn Freiburg into BL champs first season on "goold old CM" by hitting continue, where's the game in that, by the way? :D You never experience half the stuff the game has on offer that way... right in the first documentation of the first CM, the Collyer's described the fantastic adrenaline rush involved in keeping a long-shot up in the league on final match day. That it was/is possible to skip out on that entirelly, consistently, guaranteed -- even without doing anything of your own -- should be classed a weakness (and likely was by them), but that's me. "Fun" is entirelly subjective, after all, but this I find intriguing. :)

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Svenc said:

It's not immediate though. It's having actually "played" the game for like two decades

Exactly, so people resort to downloads in order to avoid hours of trial and error.

3 minutes ago, Svenc said:

If you could turn Freiburg into BL champs first season on "goold old CM" by hitting continue, where's the game in that, by the way? "Fun" is entirelly subjective, after all, but this I find intriguing. :)

"The fun" and "the game" is in fulfilling football fantasies, even if that means winning Copa Libertadores with Hull City. The means are irrelevant. Some people like a slow, methodical progress for which you work for, some like an easy, carefree ride.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minuti fa, Cougar2010 ha scritto:

Pretty much anyone assessing his original tactic from a neutral perspective could easily see it didn't play like he wanted it to.

You could make a point that what the game was telling him could have been clearer but lets be honest there was plenty of information already there, he just didn't see it or had convinced himself the tactic was something else.

 

4-3-1-2 wingless, with TI "play narrower", "Lower Tempo" and "Shorter passing" shouldn't end up giving as many crosses as a plain 4-4-2 anyway.

Sure, the OP added a couple of contradicting instructions (whip crosses, look for overlaps) and the scarcity of reddish areas on both flanks was an indicator of how the formation would have operated. STILL, crossing should have been a last resort and not a common occurrence.

I mean, plenty of possession-based sides do play in wide areas, and their fullbacks do attack, but, as I've already pointed out in another reply, wide play is a mean to open space in the middle. Nothing more.

I'd not say there was "plenty of information" there... It's just that many FM'ers apply common sense (their common sense) to a game which has established its own set of rules and conventions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

It's just that many FM'ers apply common sense (their common sense) to a game which has established its own set of rules and conventions.

The core of the issue right there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, shirajzl said:

Exactly, so people resort to downloads in order to avoid hours of trial and error.

Do you see the contradiction in those "people" oft claiming though that the "game was too much about tactics", that they couldn't just "focus on squad development" -- and then downloading tactics that turn the game into one of tactics almost entirelly; to the point that player quality is almost irrelevant?

@RBKalle Never disagreed with any UI issues, though history suggests it would need some convincing, and a viable alternative represented to SI for them to consider some. As argued, the current UI is the result of some community members having stepped up, writing thesis/theorems about the previous sliders, translating them into football theory and then presentint that to SI (to the point that some of that was officially adopted). I have never said though that the added feedback (green circles, etc.) wouldn't make a difference. It -- in parts -- is a difference of perception, which is different. I wouldn't field Giovinco on a Target Man on previous even with lesser feedback highlight he may not be the best for that role, as it's obvious he loses most header attempts -- and, this is UI issue too, there is nothing highlighting that fielding a Target Man will see added balls lumped to his, making him the focal point of attacks that way, that may force him to win a few of those, for instance. And if he may still perform, you are more likely to luck out rather than anything.

It's like the green/red reaction to team talks. As soon as they were added they were perceived as the "new, important thing", so everybody tended to attribute all things bad in a specific match to a bad reaction to a team talk. If SI would add clearly, precise feedback to hidden consistency attributes that every player has, say a green, red or yellow dot indicating players would only show up with (70%/80% 100% of their ability on the day), then that would be also be perceived differently. It may make players also take note of such a thing even existing that previously may not have even be aware of it. Indeed, there could be a case to be made at which point there is too many green circles feedback introduced, at which point it comes counterproductive, and is perceived as "complicating" the game rather. As you said, it also doesn't help that some of the feedback is traditionally rubbish (a lot of the assistant advice, post match reports, etc.)

 

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

4-3-1-2 wingless, with TI "play narrower", "Lower Tempo" and "Shorter passing" shouldn't end up giving as many crosses as a plain 4-4-2 anyway.

Sure, the OP added a couple of contradicting instructions (whip crosses, look for overlaps) and the scarcity of reddish areas on both flanks was an indicator of how the formation would have operated. STILL, crossing should have been a last resort and not a common occurrence.

I mean, plenty of possession-based sides do play in wide areas, and their fullbacks do attack, but, as I've already pointed out in another reply, wide play is a mean to open space in the middle. Nothing more.

I'd not say there was "plenty of information" there... It's just that many FM'ers apply common sense (their common sense) to a game which has established its own set of rules and conventions.

Its not rocket science to understand that your players aren't going to ignore large empty areas of space on the field.  You simply can't tell players to not run into the 10 yeards inside the sidelines.

Compacting the central zone is clearly going to leave more space out wide because 2+2=4, the pitch itself doesn't narrow.  He is then looking for overlap into that space and lowering the tempo to give the fullbacks time to get forward.

Basically from a vertical perspective there are three areas on the field - left, middle & right.  All will get used whatever your instructions, all you are doing is trying to direct more traffic through a particular area.

As I also posted in that thread there is also an opposition team on the field as well who is trying to stop you.  There has been a trend the last couple of versions for AI teams to defend the central area more which is realistic as defensive teams IRL are more compact and give up space out wide.  This automatically pushes more of your play out wide as the attacking team.

You are right that wide play can be designed to stretch the defence and open gaps between defenders but his tactic clearly didn't do that.

 

EDIT

Just for completeness I also want to add that the user had wingbacks as his role for the DL/DR (One support & one attack) + "pass into space", "dribble less" & "be more expressive" which would all add to the wide play.

 

Edited by Cougar2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Svenc said:

Do you see the contradiction in those "people" oft claiming though that the "game was too much about tactics", that they couldn't just "focus on squad development" -- and then downloading tactics that turn the game into one of tactics almost entirelly; to the point that player quality is almost irrelevant?

 

Sure, but there's no other way around it if you don't want to bother with tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shirajzl said:

Sure, but there's no other way around it if you don't want to bother with tactics.

If you don't want to bother with tactics why would you choose a football manager game???

If you are choosing a game where you are managing a football team you would expect tactics to be a main part of that game.

Aside from that though within FM you could easily choose one of the default preset tactics and achieve reasonable success, see dafuge for example as someone who more or less just does that concentrating more on player quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...