Did FM became too elitist tactic-wise?

[Svenc]

3 hours ago, shirajzl said:

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

What if that stopped being possible -- even by the likes of Rashidi? Which, as you may well know, represent a select dozen of FM's player base at best SI don't specifically cater to, which is no surprise. Rashidi and Cleon not merely have gone through that "painful" process the entire tactical/module/UI tries to avoid, spending hours on trying to understand the fundamentals. They historically at first used to be "engine exploiters" too (which is a viable preference). So they know their stuff technically from the ground-up, have done so for 20 years, plus are given insights via testing, as Rashidi oft slips a few details of that proccess. Point being, do you realize that all of this is and has only been possible not by design, but by game flaws typically? By cheating/exploiting? That you may be chasing something you may never achieve otherwise with that consistency, no matter how hard you tried? And no further tactical refinement may change this? This is important. No matter how more "straight forward" and more clear the UI would be: Outside of serious AI / engine flaws, opposition may beat you some by having better players.

From my experience, it's not a deliberate measure to "mode anybody out of the game" as such, as argued prior. It's perceived that way, in particular depening on how you "grew up playing this" which is different. It's simply what was always going to happen when the most obvious flaws were fixed. Some of those relate to Ai management; some of them to engine flaws (defending needs a few work in general); and some of them probably in how the game models the balance between player quality and tactics (tactics are never the sole root cause of colossaly consistant overchievement in football anywhere).Your core argument/anecdote was your experience with kids (newcomers) deeming the UI being too complicated, and the feedback lacking (which I wholly agree with, I'd argue some of it is even damaging/misleading or at least at the standard of bad/cliché football punditry). That's different, no less as those kids likely have no prior experience/history with the game. In particular not the ones with the most obvious loopholes and exploits.

I haven't looked at previous achievements. But Cleon more recently already had to defuse the myth that he took his Championship Side to CL glory third season or thereabouts, when players questioned the integrity/point of the game if such were possible (this is impossible even in completely arcade DOS games). Which means that whilst they are naturally damn good at the game they spend so much time on --  there is also some fairy tales going around.

3 hours ago, RBKalle said:

The OP expected his setup to be like most possession-oriented sides: wide players DO get the ball, but a wide pass is more or less a mean to stretch the defensive line to create space IN THE MIDDLE, where the main attack will happen.

So FBs or wider CMs/AMc won't whip in crosses as soon as they get the ball because "well, the middle of the pitch is crowded, let's not get back there".

And the same goes for the opposite scenario... I'm looking for a direct style, and instead my midfielders keep on tiki-takaing the effing ball around. So much for "pump ball into box", "don't retain possession" and "direct passing".

 

Compressing the area of play is an issue in real football, so can/should be in-game, which is what happened. There were mostly "football reasons" for that. All the space in that setup, though not visibly in the UI, is eventually out wide. Additionally, which is a limitation as of FM, all advancing wing backs are encouraged to cross without manual adjusting, which at least is visible in the instructions/the role descriptions. They would have crossed likely either way, and there may also be an issue with wide guys getting to easily isolated, which may force them into additionally crossing attempts as I had also recorded in that thread. But this tactic was never going to exploit the central space as much as he thought he would. He killed it. You can argue that players in a match of football would position accordingly, that real managers had the equivalent of "play through the middle areas" button which would players adapt automatically. But you could also make the argument that it's not as simple as that. That it's possible in real football for a manager to encourage very few guys into the box and then rarely seeing successfully crosses he encourages. That players may have their own PPMs traits influencing, which may make the above average managers either adapt or change systems to accompany that trait. It can be made more simple for sure though, which may be also a good idea when thinking about AI. I agree with most of your general points, I don't think that thread is a good example of this. No less as he was also overthinking it. Plus it basedon flawed stats collected which, depending on where you look, predictably differ a few.

Going direct is fairly straight forward on this though. Chose a reasonably attacking setup, a top heavy formation, encourage them to go more direct, pretty simple, imo. Not seeing any tiki-taka much there, admittedly. The more common complaint was that players would play constant hoof ball, which is weird too, as I'm not seeing that either when encouraging the opposite. Even lower league, which if anything is a flaw... Up To FM17 at the very least, the most efficient strategy anywhere of seeing out leads was keeping the ball deep and making players sitting on it. I had one match with 4 shots total on FM 16/17 or so, the second of which was the 1-0 in the 2nd minute, and then just retaining it. This never took rocket science, but player positioning and common sense. Where is it easier to retain the ball? Where is the pitch controlled, centrally or out wide? What's the point of going direct, getting players upfront quickly to players or vice versa? If such were to be displayed in the UI, and then somebody would struggle, they would istruggle for all "right" reasons. Still for the AI too, this has to be made fairly straight forward anyway, so streamlining is a good idea also for AI's sake (improved AI also means improved assistants, imagine a bonafide tactical assistant guiding you through the basic steps of a possession system ). Short-term, a good next step was displaying the actually attacking shape encouraged. (not to be confused with the fairly ambiguous team shape )

[Weston]

4 hours ago, looping said:

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.

 

 

 

Never said I was going to do it I was just curious about the logic behind it so I could better understand the game in general. I was/am genuinely curious if my setup recreates what you explained without me even realizing it.

[Mitja]

4 hours ago, RBKalle said:

That FM labels and lingo are vague and/or specific to FM's world?

BTW, if I have to sit through a whole game to "understand" how tactics work, FM is beyond elitist. It's insane. (And no, don't say "play FMT then", becuase that's not the same thing, not even remotely.

The point, as I said above, isn't "I want to win 10-0 every match". The point is "I want to implement a basic playing style without needing a Ph.D. in FM tactics and semantics". Then if my playing style is ill-suited for my players or is downright suicidal (for RL reference see: Zeman, Zdenek) it's my problem.

95% of the instructions do exactly what they are supposed to. the other 5% are simply not there yet, ME wise. but usually it's the interference between various instructions that confuse. and the crossing thread is a very good example.  impementing a basic tactical style takes a couple of minutes, if you want to go a little more into detail there's plenty of info around, like tactics forum, guidetofootballmanager.com (very good imo), youtube channels etc.. 

and of course you don't have to watch whole games, but watching the first 10 or 15 minutes, after somebody scores a goal or the last 10 minutes is allways smart thing to do. also you don't have to understand how tactics works, you just have to adapt, when opposition changes it's aproach during the game or when you are facing different opposition, different formation and styles. real life teams do that too, constantly. personally I really like the fact you can't play with your usual WB Attack against Hazards or Messis anymore.  

[wilkiburger14]

All I can say on this is that I too have played it since its conception, but I don't care what tactics you play, there should not be 30 chances in a game for Palace with 10 men v Everton as I just had!!!, 

Man City could create chances playing with any tactic as they have the players, Im finding it too mathmatical, so much that I might drop down to 17, something which Ive never done before. It shouldn't be that one sided all the time no matter what tactic you play. People should play hard despite what frame of mind they are in (Di Canio) Its getting more like the Sims. Let me just employ one preson to do all that for me, heaven forbid, you have someone to do all the training, something Ive never done, so happy about that.

 

I just don't understand how so many chances are created, so that if you average them, theres a chance every 2 minutes every game, it seems that the players dont have a mind for themselves. Any one that has played football knows that you have to try and do what the manager says or you don't play, but when you out there you can find yourself doing something else if the manager is making you look like a twit by being inept! There is room for tactics, but my have you got it so if you wrong everyone winges and you get sacked. If im honest, I always preferred the grid option, can't remember what game it was. When we have the ball in this segment, I want him to be there , him there and him there, if that means Ive screwed up and for my players to be knackered at half time, that would be realistic and correct!, or that they failed to get there as out of puff. This is something that the game has never mastered, fresh legs coming on, sprint levels.

 

The sad thing is, people will just say play Touch, is the watered down version, well its too watered down and you cant even get the real kits into the 3D engine. So Im praying for a patch that rectifies this all in the main game.

[RBKalle]

4 ore fa, Mitja ha scritto:

95% of the instructions do exactly what they are supposed to. the other 5% are simply not there yet, ME wise. but usually it's the interference between various instructions that confuse. and the crossing thread is a very good example.  impementing a basic tactical style takes a couple of minutes, if you want to go a little more into detail there's plenty of info around, like tactics forum, guidetofootballmanager.com (very good imo), youtube channels etc.. 

Implementing a basic tactic takes 2 minutes, but whether this tactics provides the kind of football you had in mind when setting it up, that's a whole different story...

Two of the key tactical instructions (team shape and mentality) are worded in such a weird and inconvenient way you NEED to read a guide to see if you've guessed them right. And it all goes downhill from there.
You get the idea that a certain formation works like in real life, but in the ME it's something else, and then you screw up with Shape and Mentality, plus half of the roles you pick aren't ideal for said formations. By the time you pick Team Instructions, you're so far removed from your original idea that you'll be second-guessing your football knowledge at halftime of your first friendly game in charge.

Interference between instructions is a thing, but it all stems from the fact "my" DLP, "my" Counter and "my" Retain Possession don't really exist in Football Manager, and the other way around.

 

 

Quote

also you don't have to understand how tactics works, you just have to adapt, when opposition changes it's aproach during the game or when you are facing different opposition, different formation and styles. real life teams do that too, constantly. personally I really like the fact you can't play with your usual WB Attack against Hazards or Messis anymore.  

How can I adapt if I don't understand:

a) why my setup isn't giving me the playing style I wanted (or a decent approximation, depending on how well I created it)

b) what is wrong with my setup

c) what I can do to improve both the quality of our football AND its effectiveness

???

That's like saying "you don't need to learn Spanish verbs, just listen to what other people say and try to replicate it"

 

[Mitja]

I can understand you frustration to a degree but on the other hand when I setup my control/fluid I understand it as fm definition and modifier of riskiness, compactness, creative freedom and other instructions. it's hard sometimes to compare it to reality because of our different perceptions of various instructions and styles, but that's what the game uses and it's our comunication tool with players. so if something doesn't work like intended, change it.  you don't have to stick with winger if you don't like it, put the player on IF with stay wider instruction for example. or slightly better example, it's not possible anymore not to change your MCs-MCs-AMa setup into something less agressive when AI changes it too (if you are not Barca or something similar).

I would struggle to believe you don't see the difference between same tactic played on different mentalities and shapes.  maybe it would be better to just stick to what's available to you without having anything setup in your mind before. some stuff is maybe outdated not only in it's description (mentality), but basic football principles are quite well represented in the game if you ask me.  if anything was improved in last couple of years, it's that. football match looks more realistic or at least some parts, it's far from perfect of course but it's getting better. and more chalenging.

[tacticsdude]

I feel that the tactical system gets worse with every iteration. I liked the 2008 version and it was hard to move to the 2011 version. I feel that the 2017 version I’m on now is a marked step back from both older versions.

I personally find FM’s tactical engine weird and limited. For instance, something as simple as playing one formation for attack (say 433) and another formation to defend (say 451). This is something incredibly simple that a lot of managers IRL do to great effect and shouldn’t require fancy instructions, yet it is hard to do in FM and can only be somewhat accomplished with a lot of trouble fiddling with the boxes.

 

So IMO it is less “elitist” and more of a particular style of tactics that seems unnecessarily complicated and you have to learn and adopt or you’ll be spinning your wheels with poor results.

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

I can’t totally relate to your point about the tactical system being hard to use, and there’s just no need to be that complicated. If you are not a tactician, you should be able to simply say:
For attack:
play 433, fluid, possessive and slow build, and get creative in the final third
try to cross more and cross long, but don’t overlap fullbacks too much because the opposition has fast wingers

For defense:
play 451, sit back a bit but close the ball down, tackle aggressively, and clear the ball to the wings to give our attackers a chance at counter

That’s all you need to say to ManchesterCity to get a world class performance IRL. The players are smart and they will read the game and fill in the blanks.

 

What’s most important is that you get used to and fully understand the tactical system, because if you are not comfortable with all the aspects of it you’ll get pummeled in FM simply because the tactics are quite responsive and whatever you don’t set “right” will be a gaping hole in your team’s play.

 

BTW, for me the FM17 tactical system was very hard to learn. The “named” roles were a punch in the gut because the names do not correspond to what I think those things mean. So I would tell my players to go “inside forward” and then watch them play like morons in nonsensical ways.

It took me a while to get control and now I feel I can almost get them to play the way I want but it is still pulling teeth sometimes. Like if I have an AML that I want to play as an inside winger split halfway between going wide for crossing or coming in for 1-2s to help with possession (David Silva, Pedro, Neymar, etc). That instruction seems impossible in FM.

If you tell him to play winger he’ll hug the line and never come in for 1-2s even if the team is spread too thin and sorely needs the support. If you tell him to play inside forward he’ll hide behind the fullback like a moron and position himself entirely out of the game. If you tell him to play advanced playmaker he’ll sit in the middle of the park like you told him to play AMC. If you tell him to play Raumdeuter (WTF is that?) he’ll stop defending.

[tacticsdude]

I think there should be an option for "automatic" for every position. It would simply mean to let that player play to his own style while trying to stay true to the team's overall tactics.

Think about it: If you brought in a winger that has high speed, crossing and dribbling, low finishing, defensive stats and workrate, then you should assume he likes to play wide, dribble and cross. No need to set a role, he'll just play that way by default. Then if you tell your team tactics to play narrow, pass short and keep possession, then the winger will naturally drift in a bit but look to break through the wing any chance he gets.

I have my central midfielders set to automatic and it works fine. Why couldn't you use that for other positions? For strikers the same seems to be "complete forward", but there's nothing automatic for wingers.

[MBarbaric]

Tactic creator should be a tool that lets the human player express himself in football terms. It should be clear and straight forward.

A set of questions should be posed to a manager.

DEFENSIVE PHASE:

What defensive shape do you want to use?
4-4-2, 4-1-4-1, 4-5-1, 5-3-2, 5-4-1, 6-3-1,---?

Do you want to set pressing traps?
If yes, where? 
Center? 
Flanks?

What will be the pressing triggers?
a back pass?
poor control?
opposition entering specific zone?

Where do you want to engage the opposition?

Attacking third (high press)?
Half way line? 
Middle third? 
Defensive third?

Do you want to use man oriented or space oriented marking?

How do you want to defend the flanks?
Bring men behind and force the play back?
Close down aggressively?

How do you want to defend the center of the pitch?
Cover the passing lanes?
Close down aggressively?

How do you want to defend the weak flank?
Leave the wide man to cover?
Let the wide man cover the center?

OFFENSIVE PHASE

Do you want to play from the back?
If yes, who should support the transition into the middle third?
A central midfielder dropping deep?
Two central midfielders dropping deep?
Wingers coming into halfspaces?

Do you want your full backs to support the attack?
If yes, cutting inside, overlapping or both?

Who should cover them?
One central midfielder, two?

How do you plan to penetrate the attacking third?
Overloads, Direct passes, crosses...?

If overloads:
Where? left, right, center?
Who? striker dropping deep, winger from weak flank coming towards the center of play? full back moves inside?...

If Direct passes:
From where? Deep, middle third?
From who?
To whome? to winger towards flank, to winger towards the channel, for winger on the weak side to wards the channel, wide... To striker, wide, channel, behind the back line...

This is just an example and what came off the top of my head. There might be various things that can't be done in the ME but it is just an example. These questions are the questions that every decent manager asks himself once he knows what kind of squad he has. plus a ton more. However, the point is, it should be clear and answer direct questions regarding how a player wants to see his team play. Then, the TC should move all the sliders, tick all the boxes and come up with a system that will or won't be good for the team.

I understand it might be completely off the mark regarding what actually could be done. However, in broad sense, it is how the game philosophy of a team is created. With tons of other factors missing, but it should be an aim ideally, i think.

[Svenc]

3 hours ago, RBKalle said:

Implementing a basic tactic takes 2 minutes, but whether this tactics provides the kind of football you had in mind when setting it up, that's a whole different story...

Two of the key tactical instructions (team shape and mentality) are worded in such a weird and inconvenient way you NEED to read a guide to see if you've guessed them right. And it all goes downhill from there.
You get the idea that a certain formation works like in real life, but in the ME it's something else, and then you screw up with Shape and Mentality, plus half of the roles you pick aren't ideal for said formations. By the time you pick Team Instructions, you're so far removed from your original idea that you'll be second-guessing your football knowledge at halftime of your first friendly game in charge.

 

 

To be honest though, if you see tiki-taka when you want to see a direct style of play, you seem to be struggling with more than just mentality and shape (which I have beefs with myself, as naturally, they're the most detached from football "speech"). The question then is, whether that is down to how things are communicated in-game, or whether it's a miconception with how football works (or at the very least, modeled into the game). Or whether that is an exaggeration full-stop.   In my opinion the instructions you need to tick are this straight forward to at least approach anything like that, anybody but casually following football shouldn't have much of a problem as it is now... Screw team shape etc., this will have jack all to do with it.

Some decent points made. The problem is that this now approaches rants or simply venting frustration, which won't fix stuff either way. If things are so far detached, you may raise it in the wish forum how it could be made easier. My biggest beefs are with the shape and stuff, same as there naturally being limiations as to how FM models certain formations. Same as there is loads of stuff you can't even replicate. That's never stopped approaching some basic playing styles being fairly straight forward affairs though despite it all. To a degree, that's oft 90% of all I ever do tactically...

 

 @MBarbaric

Soom good stuff, in particular insofar as detailing some of the thoughts that managers may actually go through (some of which isn't much in the game, may be interesting when it would be... as that would naturally also allow for some glaring mistakes, whilst currently, even mightily exposing a defense going forward imo isn't overly punished much -- however some of it may also require the game to ship with a coaching manual or else... )  Certainly the closer the actually "process" and thinking gets to be where it would be from an actual manager's perspective (for the simple Harry's and more detailed ones alike), the better. Step by step. Basically, translating the remaining "FM speech" into "Football speech". The good thing is that they should have enough football contacts to enquire on various levels, and some staff are some involved with coaching themselves. However, I doubt such enquiring would result into the UI being the totally most straight forward affair. E.g. there doubtlessly are no "I want to have efficient direct football" single button solutions in actual management. A manager may shout to players all he wants to hit it, if there isn't options, there isn't options, etc.

With much of football being contextual naturally full-stop. Which is also where the pit-fall of a game UI is/can be. This being a video game and it possibly suggesting very precise minute to minute control of every second move, the expectation is that instructions would be carried out to the letter. Outside of actually bugs you see this player frustration also frequently voiced to the simple stuff, for instance keeper distribution. Those have always visibly been modeled as "encouragements". That is, the keeper won't 100% stick to them at virtually evey kick, also depending on his traits. But the expectations, in particular in a "game" environment, is different... the same goes for many closing down decisions, which will always be contextual (the famous case of centre backs stepping out of their line in particular if there's nobody covering in front of them a few added times -- if they wouldn't, oppositions would simply pick the d-line apart, outside of actually bugs coded common sense, basically). Think that's something to consider too.

[tacticsdude]

3 hours ago, Svenc said:

Some decent points made. The problem is that this now approaches rants or simply venting frustration, which won't fix stuff either way. If things are so far detached, you may raise it in the wish forum how it could be made easier.

I know you are saying this in general and I agree, but I feel that my opinion would never count. I don't think the developers are listening as part of their planning phase, and I also form an understanding of what's wrong after playing the tactics engine for about a year (as I assume we all do by playing the game), so by the time I'm ready to give seasoned feedback the game development has moved on years ago. If I thought the developers were listening and I could help build a better tactics engine, I would gladly spend all the time in the world to detail my findings in a constructive way. I have experience with the tactical engines going back to 2008 and at the bare minimum we could start with the things that were good back then that didn't need to go away, and the things that are a mess now that need to be reworked.

[Svenc]

5 hours ago, tacticsdude said:

 I have experience with the tactical engines going back to 2008 and at the bare minimum we could start with the things that were good back then that didn't need to go away, and the things that are a mess now that need to be reworked.

The current options that are in are the direct result of players giving feedback. It wasn't merely "feedback". It was showing and presenting to SI how their then UI could be molded into something a bit more football-like. Some of them were directly involved in co-authoring the entire concepts that are in (which at the core have only slightly changed since, much of it is still all in). Their feedback was likely taken serious as it was deemed some quality -- and from my end, some of their bug reports appearing in public were/are also on a level of feedback you wouldn't find here in GD these days or anywhere, no offense.  I don't think there will be any major overhauls in until the next "major" stage in ME development is due. May give AI managers a bit time of playing catch-up to players at least.

[tacticsdude]

Svenc, how would you recommend providing feedback on the tactics engine for someone like me? Should I write a short dissertation and put it in the feature request forum hoping one day a developer might bother reading it?

[Saint_Lane]

Good discussion. I too got bogged down with the recent editions of FM - Trying to over analyse every tactic, PI, TI, mentality, attitude to risk etc. etc. What helped for me, and what may help others is:

Stop trying to play Football Manager - Instead just play football.

By that i mean stop thinking "Will this tactic work in FM?" Or "How will the Match Engine handle this PI?". Most of you will know football, you will watch a game at the weekend and see quite clearly tactical trends and approaches. Think in real terms. In my FM save as Southampton, playing away against Leicester. I don't even need to look at their players, agonise over their technical proficiency vs mine, or debate whether i need to play fluid or structured. I know Leicester, i know they will defend deep, play with pace up front and be direct to the front men on the counter. I know their creativity comes from the flanks and they like to drive crosses into the box. Without ANY knowledge of FM or the ME i know i want to drop my back line a little deeper to give my slow CBs a chance against the pace upfront of Gray & Vardy. I know i will need to be more patient in attack and not commit too many players forward to risk being countered. I know i want to smash Mahrez and show him onto his right foot so he doesn't cut inside onto his favoured left foot. I see him do it every week on MoTD. I know their CBs will win every aerial duel against my smaller strikers so my fullbacks are going to cross less and when they do i will instruct them to play low drilled crosses. 

Think in real terms. How would you as a REAL manager approach this game. Dont try and play the engine, just play football.

[tacticsdude]

27 minutes ago, Saint_Lane said:

How would you as a REAL manager approach this game. Dont try and play the engine, just play football.

That's good advice, and that's how I come at games, but my problem with the tactical engine used to be (and still is to some extent) that I couldn't get the players to do what I want them to do. So I know how I want to play, and I'm fiddling with the boxes and buttons to try to tell the players, and when I'm watching the game my team's behavior on the pitch is a clown fest. Usually the main culprit (for me) are the named roles not matching what I think they mean, and clashing with team instructions.

I would update your recommendation to:
1. Master the game's tactical system so you can tell the players how to play.
2. Play football when it comes to the tactical instructions, don't try to over do it or beat the engine.

[Svenc]

2 hours ago, tacticsdude said:

Svenc, how would you recommend providing feedback on the tactics engine for someone like me? Should I write a short dissertation and put it in the feature request forum hoping one day a developer might bother reading it?

You could cut out the hyperbole (and the oversimplification) for a start. Some of it may you actually get listened to, who knows. That ship may have well sailed, as it's "that kind of feedback" that had driven the devs away from here anyhow in big parts (also oft from the same players you wouldn't find anywhere all year but then to consistently reapppear each year to provide their bickerings). I'm going to be blunt: There's been traditionally three ways in which you can massively struggle with the game currently as it is. And that's not to say it's all roses  (the documentation and feedback and some UI have been some of FM's traditional biggest weakness.. and that's not merely the tactical UI, some of the feedback still doesn't make sense, I continue to rise some consistently too).

- You either don't understand sports
- You either don't understand the game
- You don't understand both of them

A game UI will likely always have limitations by definition, as it is a means of feeding information into a game engine / AI for it to be interpreted. It should be obvious that picking "defined" roles is a compromise here. First, it provides "ready to go" tools -- if you think some of it makes players behave like "morons" (duh), it may be worthwile reporting that with a match pkm in the bugs sections if true, because it isn't intentional surely? In providing such it may also prevent players from micro-fiddling themselves into nonsensical cul-de-sacs and incoherent play (each role has instructions already visibly, when prior the pitfall was simply fiddling each setting to suit a players attribute -- hello wide player who's discouraged from dribbling, shooting, because he has "low attributes" displayed, same for any other position on the pitch etc). Secondly, by going with more or less popular monikers it was aimed to add a few accessibility.  The "Raumdeuter" for instance has been all over the media for a couple years, and I don't even follow any tactical wizardry blogs or anything much. But then the game has always been aimed at "generally football fans".

None of anything will matter arguably if you are convinced of your Man City example though. Last time I checked they're not merely run by a manager who is the opposite to that simple kind. They've also assembled some of the better squads in Europe for a decade now, with pitifully few return, in particular in Europe, where class players are typically also combined with class managers. It's hard to get teams consistently underachieving in FM anyhow. However the argument that Harry could just turn up and field the guys with some simple plans to eek out world class performance out of them falls flat on its face right there. Over the short-term span of but a season, stranger things have happened, like Leicester winning it all. Long-term tells another story. With such a position I'm not sure what your suggestions would be like. The suggestion of "dedicated" controls over attacking and defending shapes is a valid one, however it may also relate to current engine limitations, as it's looked like this since forever. Wich suits the premise of the opening post just fine -- it's such a misinterpretation. There's nothing fundamentally added since forever (which can be a criticism, but not one for this thread). The last  years tactically can be summed up as an attempt in trying to make it more accessible, rather than adding "depth" on top.

[tacticsdude]

You certainly have lots of assumptions. I start with plenty myself, but I do want to point out a few things, mainly that I think this is a venting thread more than a feature request thread, so it’s probably not fair to judge the ‘quality’ of the feedback while we are venting and supporting each other as players.

Understanding the sport
The part in which you assume people don’t understand the sport and/or game, I think that’s a strong assumption. I personally understand both in rich detail, but even if not, the tactical system is complicated enough that a full understanding of the sport itself would not directly translate to being able to set tactics in FM.

You are also assuming that an understanding of the sport means I’m reading the same articles/content you are. I may be following other leagues and reading news in a different language. For instance, I’m in the US were we don’t call it football and the media doesn’t dwell in tactics. So your assumption that any expression like Raumdeuter must be known to all serious aficionados is too strong an assumption.

 

Simple Tactics
Just to illustrate the difference of opinion, I do think that you could deploy ManCity with simply those tactics, and having removed Balotelli from the team would have had better performance across the league campaign than Mancini did.

You may disagree and that’s fine, part of the problem in coming up with tactical systems is that we can come at the sport from many different angles and end up with good or bad results, like the argument of track vs suit managers. I’m more on the side of Guardiola in the sense that I personally enjoy complex tactics, but I also firmly believe that you don’t need too much complexity to succeed tactically; and further, simplicity can be at the core of success in situations when you simply don’t have the time/training/personalities to gel the tactics (see Van Gaal trying to implement a 3-back system at ManU too early in the season). Many times the best performance comes from keeping it simple so that players can understand and deploy the tactics to the best of their ability.

As much as I enjoy micromanaging my players on the pitch, I honestly believe that if you assemble a top tier group of players and deploy them with simple “automatic” tactics, you’ll get a top tier performance that will dominate most other teams simply on the value of the individual skills (even on a bad day Aguero is still a world class striker and if he even gets a whiff of the ball he’s putting it on target regardless of whatever instructions you may or not give him). You probably won’t win the Champions League that way, but you are likely to retain a Champions League spot.

Should be easier to get started
The reason for saying all of that is that I think FM tactics should be easier for those just getting started. There should be a way to set a default system like 442 with default “auto” player deployments that simply works and can adapt a bit to the flow of the game. From there users could start adjusting to experiment and suit their needs, but it should never happen that you start with a basic set of instructions and end up playing a horrendous game because the players on the pitch are doing weird stuff and you don’t know how to stop them -which is what I meant when I said they were acting like ‘morons’, that from lack of understanding of the tactical engine my tactics are failing miserably and everybody just keeps playing at them like robots incapable of reasoning and adapting through the match.

That’s probably the main difference with FM11. Back then if I had a good team set to fluid, they would move around and fill in the gaps, so the tactics felt secondary to playing a decent game. They looked good on the pitch, supported each other and moved well. On FM17 if you send them out with the wrong tactics they’ll happily sit out the entire game hiding behind a defender or refusing to support teammates.

[Cougar2010]

22 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

That’s probably the main difference with FM11.

The main difference is that in FM11 you had no collision detection and were able to easily exploit that.

Its basically the basis of your claim to be a "top player" by quickly taking a team up several divisions.

[forameuss]

28 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

That’s probably the main difference with FM11. Back then if I had a good team set to fluid, they would move around and fill in the gaps, so the tactics felt secondary to playing a decent game. They looked good on the pitch, supported each other and moved well. On FM17 if you send them out with the wrong tactics they’ll happily sit out the entire game hiding behind a defender or refusing to support teammates.

 

2 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

The main difference is that in FM11 you had no collision detection and were able to easily exploit that.

Its basically the basis of your claim to be a "top player" by quickly taking a team up several divisions.

Yeah...this.  You just can't compare any ME from FM12 or before to anything that came after it.  On that game, anyone could do well because buying quick players was essentially a win button.  People probably talk about how it played so well because they struggle to take off the rose-tinted spectacles.  And that's absolutely fair enough to enjoy it more.  It's just not really going to work if you're using it to compare the quality of the match engines.  On the basis of how "realistic" the football on display was, neither scores super highly, but one scores way, waaaaay higher than the other, purely down to the collision detection.

The last sentence is actually quite curious too, about sending the players out with the wrong tactic.  Isn't this exactly how the game should play?  You sound like you think you shouldn't be penalised for doing things "wrong".  What would be the point of that?  I definitely agree the game punishes far more than it used to, but that's exactly what it should be doing surely.

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, tacticsdude said:

You certainly have lots of assumptions.

It's not assumptions. It's experience. Everybody who struggles for performance/results in generally has misconceptions. This doesn't merely relate to tactics, it does to everything. A lot of it is subjective, however, some isn't. So the difficulty is in determining what is what (is it the game or is it something else? And then what may be actually missing. Surely you understand that hyperbole such as "all I see is either hoofball when I don't want or tiki-tika when I don't want either can only be hyperbole, same as rubbishing over fairly mainstream terminilogy may spring a reaction). Good post by the way. I strongly argree with the last point in particular, which I've been advocating there to be a "tactical assistant" in that could show you a few basics. Assistants taking over matches are a thing since forever anyway. However that would need to be tied to better AI, imo. The only counter point to that was, how far does this go? I wouldn't mind if optionally all the way. The thing is how SI see things, as traditionally they were rather "low-key" in their feedback on purpose, treating the game as a "learning sim" where you gradually uncover stuff, rather than being spoon-fed as soon as you sign up.

There isn't much headroom left for bad mistakes imo. Indeed, as was pointed out by a few, players seem oft relatively fine when doing stuff you never see on a football pitch (pushing every single player in front of the opponent box 90 minutes, etc). Some of the stuff suggested by MBarbaric may be interesting. Whilst there isn't really much unified pressing as of FM, back in the tweaking slider years you had players venting when they encouraged their side to drop deep, and then at the same time to close down all over the pitch.... However, I don't see how this all relates to the opening question, whether the game has become more elitist tactically. It's mostly the same options, so it can't be much. Any development also affects opponents, so is relative (it was also easy on FM11/12 to go seasons with conceding no more than  0.4  goals per match with a top side, both for AI as well as players, but if that's different it's different for all inherently). There's lots of added "spoon feeding" since, FM18 added another few, perhaps in some areas too much (which may make players overcomplicating). Whether it has all ever has been as accessible as it was intended to be from day one, that is another debate... If you ask me, the roles itself, as the arguably needed compromise between accessibilty and complexity, are as straight-forward  as the game can currently get, also how the engine and AI is technically set up. It's still missing positioning cues in the UI however...

As a closing comment from my side, the game becoming more tactically elitist? No, never. The current releases are the least tactically elitist releases ever since perhaps the first FM. Added, perhaps overwhelming feedback connected to tactics create the perception of added complexity, when it's just "spoon-feeding" what was largely always there. Likewise, "game breaking" tactics, poor AI or engine flaws cheesed by accident are an illusion of releases being less "elitist", when it is something else altogether. Indeed, often times not even the players understood why their stuff worked, and rather lucked out by trial&error, which is the opposite of "accessibility". "Less elitist" is all relative, of course, depending on where you stand.

[tacticsdude]

1 hour ago, Cougar2010 said:

The main difference is that in FM11 you had no collision detection and were able to easily exploit that.

Its basically the basis of your claim to be a "top player" by quickly taking a team up several divisions.

I'm on my first game of FM17 but even as I'm still stuck on some things I'm finding the same success as years prior. I started with Ascoli, a small team set for a relegation battle in the Serie B. On my 3rd season I just finished 9th in the Serie A (on the first year since promotion), while still paying my players an average of $250k per year.

You are looking for ways to dismiss my opinion. Fine, but that's not one of them. Even on FM17 that I just started playing, I'm controlling possession and growing my team meteorically while working with players that shouldn't perform at this level. And I'm still feeling behind schedule because I haven't fully gotten the hang of the tactical system, training and scouting, so I can't quite set my team right or rise to the top with good signings like I did in the past.

If anything, in all honesty, I'm finding FM17 way easier than FM11 from a tactics perspective. It took me a season but once I started getting the hang of the tactics engine it feels the games are too easy to dominate (even with a tiny team, even for a new guy like me). For instance, Argentina just called on me to manage them. My first 2 games were both against Brazil (one of them for a minor cup final). On my first competitive game with the team, still with the tactics understanding at less than 20% and Messi coming out of an injury I was able to dominate Brazil and take them to penalties which we won. The second game was a repeat of the first, beat them 1-0 with 63% possession and 17 shots, while Brazil didn't get a single shot on target (and yes, Neymar was on the pitch and completely nullified by my tactics, his ratings were 6.0 and 6.5 respectively).

Not messing with you, I only have 3 seasons of experience with FM17 but it already feels way too easy tactically, probably because the opposition managers don't adapt well enough. Not that the tactics engine was easy to learn. Big difference.

I do want to hear more about the collision detection thing, I don't notice the difference. I never meant to exploit any known issues with the engine (like first post corners) because I want to win fair and square or what's the point. I may have over time figured out some tactics that exploited the engine but would have done so inadvertently. If so, seems I've done it again since on FM17 I can play tiki-taka as good as Barza using a team rated 16th in the league for passing (at an average of 10.7 passing) and about 115-120 CA overall.

 

 

[Svenc]

15 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

I do want to hear more about the collision detection thing, I don't notice the difference. I never meant to exploit any known issues with the engine (like first post corners) because I want to win fair and square or what's the point. I may have over time figured out some tactics that exploited the engine but would have done so inadvertently. If so, seems I've done it again since on FM17 I can play tiki-taka as good as Barza using a team rated 16th in the league for passing (at an average of 10.7 passing) and about 115-120 CA overall.

Welcome to City FM17 -- where flooding the middle of the pitch means the side that has the edge there is easily able to control the flow of the game. One of the biggest temporary ME flaws in recent editions, imo. Stuff that's worth fixing all itself , as if you don't aim to "exploit" it but simply stumble upon something that does by "accident", the thing can quickly become a fairly routine, joyless experience. Let alone matches in between AI sides tiers apart, with the lower tiered team pulling all the strings because in the middle of the pitch it's a 3 vs 2 advantage.... Also a good example for constructive criticism, some that seems to have been watched. Because on FM 18 this is no more.

[tacticsdude]

2 hours ago, forameuss said:

The last sentence is actually quite curious too, about sending the players out with the wrong tactic.  Isn't this exactly how the game should play?  You sound like you think you shouldn't be penalised for doing things "wrong".  What would be the point of that?

That's true, I misspoke. What I meant is that I go out with tactics that don't portray what I meant to say to the players. I think I'm telling them to do something, and I watch them do something else and fiddle as I might can't seem to tell them something that feels very simple.

For instance, I'm playing a tough game against much better opposition and I told my players to pass simple and short and to dribble less. I'm watching Namli as CAMR attempt silly dribbles and get pummeled every time. If I was standing on the side of the pitch, I would simply say: 'Hey, Namli, don't dribble. Look for the pass and keep them short.'

I change my tactics and make my midfielders support him even closer, and set my fullback winger to attack so he comes up around Namli sooner, so now Namli has tons of support from each side, clear line of sight for simple passes. Then he does it again, gets the ball and without looking for supports starts dribbling at the defender, knowing full well that the defender is twice as skilled as he is. So he ends up eating grass again. I would say: Namli, that's what I'm talking about, don't dribble, you have the support. Pass first and play short.'

Yet he dribbles at the defender and once again he is left eating grass. I look at this role and it has "dribble more" locked in, even though I've told the team to dribble less and be less creative. But if I want to give Namli a role that puts him in the position where I want him, the same role also forces him to dribble. I'm left having to choose to assign him a role that puts him in the wrong place, or a role that makes him do stupid things.

Sorry if it sounds like hyperbole, I don't meant to be disparaging to the people here or the game. I'm expressing how I feel when I can't get the tactical engine to convey my instructions, it feels difficult and rigid, and I feel my players could be doing more to not play like clowns (thus I call their style of adherence to the tactics moronic.)

[tacticsdude]

2 hours ago, Svenc said:

A lot of it is subjective, however, some isn't. So the difficulty is in determining what is what

That's very true. One of the reason I love FM is because there are tons of variables doing their thing in the background trying to represent everything from the weather to how the player feels about me when I give him instructions. I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what's going wrong, is it the tactics or the player's attitude or what, and to be fair I seldom think there's something wrong with the game itself and instead look at what I can do to learn something and get better.

And I also understand your point about hyperbole not being helpful to further understanding. I've been playing FIFA 17 earlier this year and that game is SO poorly implemented that mental sanity often depends on coming to forums and venting with abandon. I like to support other players and don't mind venting a bit myself. But I do want to say that FM is my favorite game by far, and if any developer is reading I'm a fan and any venting I do is with appreciation

 

[aditya]

On 12/5/2017 at 18:46, Cougar2010 said:

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

True. But I think there are a lot of positives from the community who actually uses 'downloaded tactics'. 
 

1. Find ME errors: by testing 1 tactic on 1000+ users, you start to get feedback what tactic is most effective, how the ME are flawed and exploited. I think developers have paid close attention on this issue, especially last season, many users opted a strikerless tactic with 3 AMC. 

2. Develop the best tactic: downloaded tactics are continously tweaked from users feedback. This would not be possible if it were tested under 1 player in such little time. Tactics starts to grow and improve over time, the more feedback it gets. Interestingly enough, I think alot of noob FMers will learn a lot from using these tactics, a shorter learning curve. 

3. Share knowledge on tactic: By figuring point 1 and 2, i've seen two 'downloaded tactics' merged into one which created even better strategy. While other tactician will emulate certain settings for their own. Ive seen corner tactics being so popular it became the 'mainstream way' to set up your corner.

I think majority of the users who download contribute a whole lot to development of the game, mainly its tactic. However, I do understand why would you take the 'easy route'? truth is, some people just want a fun game. Just my own POV.

[Guest El Payaso]

On 5.12.2017 at 07:46, Cougar2010 said:

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.

This is true but also I wonder why SI are never forcing people to learn how to play the game. Look at YouTube for example and you notice that these players who have been playing the game for many years and still don't have a clue what they are doing. But because of the lack of difficulty in the game they keep being successful no matter how many mistakes they make. By this the game can never really jump into a next level and actually probably never offer anything to players like me who are looking for realistic simulation and challenge no matter what team we pick. FM is mainly designed for grown ups who should be able to take some difficulty and should be mature enough to even research some stuff to be able to be decent in the game. People can always improve in gaming while currently you need to basically sabotage your own playing in a save game if you want to perform somewhat realistic way. 

In terms of tactics I find it funny when people claim that you have to spend hours reading guides to make a team play in a certain way. This most definitely isn't true and I doubt that the ME is too good at creating certain style of plays as for example pressing is badly lacking in the ME and also in creating tactics. So currently it is highly recommended that you will just go with some generic style of play that will basically be a plug and play and does decently well for any team. I can give you a two minute guide for a successful tactic for any team:

Team shape: balanced/fluid

Mentality: standard

Formation: 4-1-4-1 or 4-5-1

Basic goalkeeper without instructions

In defense one attack duty behind a support duty wide player. Centre backs on defend and other full back on support.

In midfield a triangle with D, S, A duty, for example: DM(D), BBM(S) and CM(A), one wide player on support to allow the full back to overlap and create width (optional) and other one on attack.

Striker on support duty which allows him to both link up well with the midfield and also to be there finishing attacking move.

Not too difficult stuff in my opinion and that should comfortably make you successful in the the game. That's all you need. Of course you can demand something more specific but I'm highly doubtful that this is something that you can achieve in terms of the limitations of the ME. It's funny that the YouTubers cannot even produce something this simple but they mainly go with some exploits or top heavy formations with every possible team instructions available.

 

[Svenc]

5 hours ago, El Payaso said:

In terms of tactics I find it funny when people claim that you have to spend hours reading guides to make a team play in a certain way.

Tbf, the current UI in parts actually stopped absolutely terrible stuff from being possible to an extent. The most obviously terrible would be putting all defenders on defend, all midfielders on support and all attackers on attack. You'll probably still find a Youtuber who does okayish with similar though (perhaps lucking out a few also due to player quality/positioning traits that would level it out a bit). Just reading through the text description of each should show anybody watching football why that may be a bit iffy... Outside of that it's either all nuances of "meh" (which the AI engages in also, sadly from my end) or some Rube Goldberg Monster Conundrum of incoherence by players who think they must link a thousand team instructions to a thousand player instructions and either luck out or not. So in that sense, it was much easier to create some Frankenstein monster 10 years ago. All you needed was wild mentality splits accross the team, the closing down instructions were also much more open, and more.

The current UI does 75% of the stuff  and locks "illogically" stuff some out itself. That said, it wasn't even clear then back then arguably what you were encouraging though, as the "lingo" was too technical and the settings linked in not very obvious ways. Plus, it's debatable if the horrible stuff you could do back then was to be classed "management" -- or any kind of football! I remember when first experimenting, I created a monster where my two intendended "defensive midfielders" would never really move the ball forward, and had like 50%+ of the team's passes at the end of the match played in between them, shifting the ball left and right to each other (Early FM lingo: Both on ultra-defensive mentality, passing to 1, creative freedom to 0, everybody in front of them pushed up to the hilt so that every time one of them go the ball, he would play the ball to his colleague, who was encouraged to give that favor back, repeat, repeat). I even opened a thread back then wondering whether the tactical instructions may either be no use or cosmetical (anything but, or else that wouldn't have happened).   In the end, every game on the planet has some learning curve. If you're bad at CoD, you'll be roasted by kids. There's no workaround, and you also can't "cheat", or you may be PunkBusted from the servers. FM's difficulty is different though, no least as management in-game too has ambiguity, and managers are dialing a few probabilites at best.

Realistically, SI providing somewhat "professional" analysis tools etc in-game isn't enough, showing people how to "read"/interpret shot maps can be imo already plenty. Or what tactics do (not breaking the game to hit continue and win, usually, which is a viable style of playing any game mind. But it's no learning experience, and with that I disagree with aditya above -- any game breaker is typically temporary, nothing gained in the long run, no less because half the game is drawn "moot" by doing so. If you're always doing that, you've never "played" FM as all the opposition has no hope from day 1, whether your players are meh, tired, not very motivated, nothing SI must spend like 90% of their time on matters much. The evidence of the pudding is in players who pop up every year how a patch would have destroyed their world conquering tactic, plus several download gurus spreading wild theories how the game worked -- sites such as FMBase heavily dominated by such by the end of each release are FM Myth Central not because anybody was stupid, those guys are smart and nice. But by the inherent ways of what such tactics do to the game experience. I'm kind of glad that I didn't land there in retrospect, well at first I was the stubborn kind who did all myself the painful ways anyways, see above (still was reasonably successful... which probably says a lot). The Asia MMO FM's must be terrible as it is no rocket science either to anticipate what dominates there (which is in parts the game's fault, in parts as in competitive multiplayer... you would have no chance). Offline all is cool! Bringing up that learning curve is a great point.

[RBKalle]

21 ore fa, El Payaso ha scritto:

In terms of tactics I find it funny when people claim that you have to spend hours reading guides to make a team play in a certain way. This most definitely isn't true and I doubt that the ME is too good at creating certain style of plays as for example pressing is badly lacking in the ME and also in creating tactics. So currently it is highly recommended that you will just go with some generic style of play that will basically be a plug and play and does decently well for any team.

 

Then reading all those essays is pointless because the ME simply CAN'T replicate this or that playing style, so it's all about finding a tactical setup that works without huge problems and stick with it?

That's what I meant when I wrote "we are playing the ME"

Anyway, if those long guides aren't useful, are all the players instructions little more than cosmetic filler? And if that's not the case, then you can't deny some of those don't really work like the average football fan would expect.

Again, if Counter doesn't really Counter, if the Defend/Support/Attack duties need a different setup to work, as opposed to real life logic, and there are many more "inconsistencies", is it the users' fault?

[Svenc]

37 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Then reading all those essays is pointless because the ME simply CAN'T replicate this or that playing style, so it's all about finding a tactical setup that works without huge problems and stick with it?port/Attack duties need a different setup to work, as opposed to real life logic, and there are many more "inconsisten

His point was that players struggling for results typically massively overcomplicate/overthink things. That you never needed to read some guide to get to this point, which is totally myth. That he's puzzled how anybody would consistently struggle for such, when simple stuff does plenty. ANd that there's limitations. If you have a struggle of putting a bog-standard simple direct tactic into play, your issue isn't the ME. It also shouldn't be any of the tactical options, they are straight forward in that case (not all of them are). On a micro level, the ME may not replicate everything to the T. But getting the ball forward quickly is as simple as it may ever get, outside of "playing style" presets that you'd need to click and adjust everything accordingly.

Do you understand why the above set-up may oft generally produce some consistency / not make a side terribly underperform its ability? It's worthwile to highlight also that he started with the roles and duties here and stopped right there with them. No further fiddling with mentality, team shape, anything. Spoiler: There's actual football reasons behind that, nothing to do with "playing the ME". "Duties" are FM speech. Their ingame description should give away what they do though, even though the UI should roughly estimate the attacking shape encouraged by such.

[Guest El Payaso]

Also I would note that the "ME is not able to produce" part is only my opinion and based on my experiences and not necessarily a fact. Something like possession % plays against me here for example as with different kind of style of plays you can achieve 30% possession while other one gives you 60%. Then on the other hand even with this difference (and others) the same positions' players are scoring the goals and assisting, goal scoring chances are built in same ways and also players' ratings (that are based on stats) look quite a bit the same. 

But even if you want to be romanticize with the game and tactics, imitating let's say for example Barcelona I would claim it wrong that you have to study for hours to do that. Something like 10-15 minutes is closer to the truth as the tactical guides for certain styles of play are pretty much straight forward and usually even "plug and play" style of tactics. Also during those 10 minutes that you read the team shapes and mentalities are explained in quite simple way. 

FM would step up in a level of simulation a lot if the game makers would demand more from us users. I don't think that something like "create a sensible style of play if you want to be successful" is too much to ask from adults but sadly this is not the case and just by watching YouTube you can notice that after all those years many players don't have any idea of tactics and they don't have to as the human user basically always overachieves no matter what he does. 

Also something like "you cannot always sign this player because the AI works well on the transfer market too" would be a real step forward instead of letting human players always without competition pick every player that they want. This kind of stuff really doesn't force players to improve themselves and that jams the difficulty level of FM to arcade levels.

[Svenc]

22 minutes ago, El Payaso said:

FM would step up in a level of simulation a lot if the game makers would demand more from us users. I don't think that something like "create a sensible style of play if you want to be successful" is too much to ask from adults but sadly this is not the case and just by watching YouTube you can notice that after all those years many players don't have any idea of tactics and they don't have to as the human user basically always overachieves no matter what he does. 

This is also lot about the competition. To be blunt, a few of tactical AI manager decision making is neither realistic management (even in basic terms) nor would it warrant any significant time spend on quality discussions, unless you are a complete perfectionist, which always takes time on any game. There's still decisions on this that make AI not even have players out wide basicaly (just as on FM 2014), plus as outlined, it seems all the added feedback is solely to spoon-fed the human player (red zones on the pitch). Or else they too would never put up tactics that push every single player boxside, squeezing the space going forward to the size of a tunafish can with everybody sitting right atop the opposition box picking their noses. It's no much wonder that sticking to a few basics is so much.

Some of it will remain, as there must be a balance between tactics and player quality... developing better squads long-term is no much hard. I think where players on occasion make it worse is randomly switching things as soon as a few results turn "pear-shaped" -- probably aided by FM myth such as AI cracking tactics. If you would follow football, you'd know that streaks can happen all by themselves as matches are settled in key seconds of play, and for most sides in a league matches are pretty close affairs that at some point can go totally either way (unless you are say, Celtic crowning over your pears like barley any side does in European football, amassing twice the amount of goal attempts as even your closest "rivals" per match average). For as long as similar the most common win marins on this too will remain by the odd goal, FM may be somewhat similar here...

[tacticsdude]

52 minutes ago, El Payaso said:

Also something like "you cannot always sign this player because the AI works well on the transfer market too" would be a real step forward instead of letting human players always without competition pick every player that they want.

On my FM17 save I'm having a torrid time of trying to sign players. Coming up from the Serie B, it was near impossible to get a single promising prospect in the team, only non-EU players wanted to sign and I had to get the season done with the use of 5 loan players. On my second season in Serie A things opened up a bit and I started seeing real interest from some promising prospects, but it still feels that more than half won't even listen to my offer or their club has no intention of giving me a reasonable price.

So there's certainly something already in place to make transfers hard/realistic. Of course, if you are managing a top tier team then it should be fairly straightforward to just sign nearly whoever you want, short of legendary players and single club players.

Also, in terms of tactics difficulty, I don't feel the engine doing much to counter my tactics. Feels like once I get the sense of how the opposition is playing, I can attune my tactics and gain the advantage in a match without fear of the opposition recognizing my changes and doing something about it. I hardly have to do any tactical work past the first 20 mins of a match. Other FM versions were much more competitive in this regard. In FM11 I would go toe-to-toe with many of the big clubs, losing and regaining the momentum every 15 minutes, feeling like the game could break either way or worse pinned against a corner not knowing how to get out, resigned to playing for a tie. That seldom happens to me on FM17, even when playing big clubs. I lose games in FM17 but mostly to individual moments of skill brilliance, not to being outplayed tactically.

[RBKalle]

2 ore fa, Svenc ha scritto:

Do you understand why the above set-up may oft generally produce some consistency / not make a side terribly underperform its ability?

Yes, I do.

It's the football equivalent of McDonald's

It's not fancy, it's not complicated, but it's serviceable.

Which is NOT the point I'm trying to make... I've kept my tactics simple for years because I've never had the time or the desire to fiddle with sliders or with the intricate web of Roles, Duties, Team and Player Instructions (plus Opposite Instructions).
I can't say that approach hasn't served me well either. It's just that I've willingly accepted to go with the flow.

Whatever the ME's "option of the year" is, I'll live and die by it.

It was pacey strikers in FM14 (and earlier), it was far-post crossing in FM16, with 4-2-3-1 often being the go-to formation. For a change, it was narrow formation in FM17 instead, but can't tell that myself, I've never made it too far in that iteration. As per FM18, I'm not sure yet.

Still, despite not having tried my darnedest, I've seen that more often than not, my team doesn't react to Roles/Instructions the way I'd expect. In past iterations, possession and tiki taka were prevalent even with "Go Route One" and "Direct Passing" being selected. Again, not a big deal, as my team was strong enough to win no matter what, but still annoying when you want the ball in the box ASAP and your CM still plays back-and-forth with the winger...

For the umpteenth time: why not Preset Gameplans? That'd save many players a lot of time. And all the more tactical-savvy guys on this board a lot of trudging through rants and complaints.

[Svenc]

That's too easy. Can you tell why you consider it the "football equivalent of Mc Donald's"? What makes it so specifically? Is it the formation? Is it the duty? Is it the combinations of them? El Payaso has already outlined a few reasons for picking the duties, individually. I'm going to push you here as this is in your interest, as it may reveal something blatantly overlooked in the UI. The answers aren't tactical guru stuff, but team sports basics 101. I've never been a guru either, I am arguing and will continue to argue that anbyody struggling  struggles with basics rather than anything, which probably no UI will solve. Even presets if possible may get you a instant coffee solution of approaching some basic styles of play, but no understanding of your results, or why the preset would look like it does (you may even disagree the same way that many do with the role interpretations fed into the UI... which are "presets" in a sense after all too). Probably worse, you may disagree with the football you see with such a preset, similar to the coded behavior inherent to some roles. Thinking about it that may actually be a good argument of not doing presets (though the AI arguably needs a few sign posts either way).

 

1 hour ago, RBKalle said:

Still, despite not having tried my darnedest, I've seen that more often than not, my team doesn't react to Roles/Instructions the way I'd expect. In past iterations, possession and tiki taka were prevalent even with "Go Route One" and "Direct Passing" being selected. Again, not a big deal, as my team was strong enough to win no matter what, but still annoying when you want the ball in the box ASAP and your CM still plays back-and-forth with the winger...

Either you have a different idea of tiki-taka than the game (which is fine) or you did something that completely prevented those balls, completely puzzled. I consider this the opposite personally of the guys who see constant hoofball (reported every year), which if anything was the more prevailing feedback in the last couple iterations (which puzzled me likewise, you could easily sit on the ball all match long even with worse sides, a weakness if anything...) That there's something always a bit overpowered in the ME in tendency irks me too, but doesn't mean much. No less as no opposition is coded to be aware of it. They simply do their thing, employ all kinds of formations.. I've never shied away from any personally. All formations used by AI can obviouisly work either way, I have even seen somebody arguing the  4-4-2 to be overpowered in FM17. There is one, consistant logic fed into the game that has worked over the last decade, it's based on basic football/team sport logics, has nothing to do with any short-term ME quirk and it relates to the above question what specifically makes this a "MC Donald's" of FM tactics.

[forameuss]

On 07/12/2017 at 00:50, tacticsdude said:

That's true, I misspoke. What I meant is that I go out with tactics that don't portray what I meant to say to the players. I think I'm telling them to do something, and I watch them do something else and fiddle as I might can't seem to tell them something that feels very simple.

For instance, I'm playing a tough game against much better opposition and I told my players to pass simple and short and to dribble less. I'm watching Namli as CAMR attempt silly dribbles and get pummeled every time. If I was standing on the side of the pitch, I would simply say: 'Hey, Namli, don't dribble. Look for the pass and keep them short.'

I change my tactics and make my midfielders support him even closer, and set my fullback winger to attack so he comes up around Namli sooner, so now Namli has tons of support from each side, clear line of sight for simple passes. Then he does it again, gets the ball and without looking for supports starts dribbling at the defender, knowing full well that the defender is twice as skilled as he is. So he ends up eating grass again. I would say: Namli, that's what I'm talking about, don't dribble, you have the support. Pass first and play short.'

Yet he dribbles at the defender and once again he is left eating grass. I look at this role and it has "dribble more" locked in, even though I've told the team to dribble less and be less creative. But if I want to give Namli a role that puts him in the position where I want him, the same role also forces him to dribble. I'm left having to choose to assign him a role that puts him in the wrong place, or a role that makes him do stupid things.

Sorry if it sounds like hyperbole, I don't meant to be disparaging to the people here or the game. I'm expressing how I feel when I can't get the tactical engine to convey my instructions, it feels difficult and rigid, and I feel my players could be doing more to not play like clowns (thus I call their style of adherence to the tactics moronic.)

No, that's all fair enough, agree with most of it.  It's a tough balancing act though.  I don't think we should ever necessarily get to the point where the Match Engine 100% obeys instructions all the time, but there are plenty of examples of them doing things completely contrary.  While a lot of the specific situations are completely explainable (I told you to short pass, but there was absolutely no option on), it's not made overtly clear to the player anywhere.  As someone who has never played the game in forensic detail, and usually just follows the ball while watching games, rather than a tactical pervert, I just see a player making a stupid decision, and I'd like to be able to tell him not to be so thick.  It's rarely that simple though.

Although I would like to tell a forward not to be such a greedy little **** when he can square it to either one of the two forwards he's broken free with.  Or I'll break his legs.

[RBKalle]

44 minuti fa, Svenc ha scritto:

Can you tell why you consider it the "football equivalent of Mc Donald's"? What makes it so specifically? Is it the formation? Is it the duty? Is it the combinations of them?

It's a combination of a relatively plain and straightforward formation with generic-ish roles and duties. With the added bonus of both Shape and Mentality being as "neutral" as the game allows them to be.

Fullbacks will help the wide players (wingers?), moreso the one on Attack duty. The central midfielders provide enough defensive coverage, although I'm not sure the BBM (S) and the CM (A) won't leave too much room, especially when the BBM is marauding forward. Poor DM could end up being outnumbered and conceding yellow and red cards.

The lone striker on Support won't stray offside and will likely create room for the wide players. Although I'd be tempted to play a traditional #9 as Target Man to whip crosses at him, 1980s style.

Anyway, my counter-question is: what kind of football would such a formation play in FM? And in real life? And which would be the most reasonable/profitable choice?

 

44 minuti fa, Svenc ha scritto:

Either you have a different idea of tiki-taka than most or you did something that completely prevented those balls, completely puzzled. I consider this the opposite personally of the guys who see constant hoofball (reported every year), which if anything was the more prevailing feedback in the last couple iterations

Keep in mind my most qualified feedback comes from my long save on FM14, so it may not be 100% relevant anymore.

I've tried (or been forced to, while trailing) to play more direct game, as my pacey strikers and my talented MC/AMC have the right attributes to pull it off. And while it works at times, when building from behind, there's almost no way to make them play long/through balls once they're in the final third. Against established defenses, the buildup is almost always slower than intended, with many fancy passes.

I see why it can happen at times, as there's little space behind the defensive line, but most of the time it's either a web of short passes or mindless long shots, while opening the play out wide for the cross would have made sense, in line with the Instructions.

[Svenc]

24 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Anyway, my counter-question is: what kind of football would such a formation play in FM? And in real life? And which would be the most reasonable/profitable choice?

Depends entirelly on the players. None of the above is tailored to any players specifically hugely, nor any particular style. This goes for defending and attacking, as none of the extremer encouragements (deep/high line) are activated also.  You touched on some good stuff, the key components thus to this (and it relates to what the game has rewarded since, as all of that is generally rewarded in any team sports from my end)

- Movement between the lines on either flank and centrally. Any team that doesn#t have movement will and should find its attacks easier to defend. It also encourages guys to be higher up the pitch when losing the ball, rather than always defending off their flat lines.
- Employing a lone forward that links up with the rest of the team, and also isn't the sole focal point of attacks, with all finishes falling to his.
- Having at least one guy not merely covering the centre of the pitch and protecting the central defenders. But with his also one guy staying in deeper areas to provide an option to get easy ball circulation going (the Busquets of FM).
- Mixing things up on both flanks, which isn't a must, but oft of benefit in particular if you aren't into managing much. Eventually, some opposition approaches will find defending overlap harder than others, the same on the other flank the wide guy pushing ahead.
- Thus providing multiple types of assists too, rather than channeling play all through a very specific player (who can have off days, too)

Being on FM14 puts things a few into perspective, I can't remember much of it. Up until FM 2012 or thereabouts at least, the difference between passing styles alone wasn'T that pronounced either way. I struggled with that some too. Nowadays you'll see tons more balls pumped forward simply by fielding a Target Man up top, which is also a missing UI cue (and no doubt a source of the more recent influx of "All is see is my defenders hoofing it" feedback). Connected to this though, you'd need to be careful as to use him. If you would use a lone forward as Target Man as you suggest, he may be easy to crowd out and dispossess, depending on how you set the players up around his. A Target Man always needs support, in-game and in football (again, which is the universal basic logic coded into this). El Payaso hasn't mentioned them, but player traits (PPMs in particular) may make the above tactic play out quite differently still... obviously a Robben always cutting inside wouldn't always stay wide here as intended, and a wide back "who stays back" may not overlap as often. Some see this as overcomplicating the game, to me it's one of the best parts of the thing as it replicates what managers go through decently (the research handles out such stuff faaar too readily though if you ask me).

[tacticsdude]

Thanks to this conversation, I think I figured out that for me the problem is that the named roles are rigid. What I want instead is a canvas to create my own roles. I don't wan to tell my AMC to play as a "playmaker", I wan to tell him:
- don't dribble
- pass short
- be a target to receive the ball, then hold it a bit and dictate the tempo
- don't try to do anything heroic, just preserve possession and move the ball
- once we've built the play into the final third: push the ball into the wings for crosses or look for through balls to the ST
- look for opportunities to put the midfielders in position to take long shots
- when we don't have the ball come back down and support the midfield line

Whatever that "role" is might be very unique to me as a manager and to the player I've given it to that has a particular set of skills and style that fits well with it. I don't mind as much that there are named roles in the engine, what I mind is that I can't configure them.

For instance, there seems to be no role I can give a wide AM to make him look for wing runs and also inside runs while playing defensively when we don't have the ball. Right now when I have an effective winger on the pitch I resort to changing his role every 15 mins to get him to try some wing runs or inside runs at intervals.

 

A better system (and what I think is more realistic) is to have 3 layers or instructions + the player style:

1. Player style: the natural way the player wants to play. DM stays back, wingers like to be high up in a dangerous position, etc.

2. Overall player instructions: these are not team tactics but instructions you give the player at the club. Like an AMC with a nag for dribbling and he is bad at it, so you just tell him that you don't wan him dribbling when he plays for the club. I'd also tell a CB to generally play short and simple passes.

3. Team philosophy: Like at any club with a world-class manager, many instructions are not per match but a club philosophy that rules over many years. If you play for Guardiola you are passing and possessing, closing down the ball, playing out of the back. Always, not just per game.

4. Game tactics: these override the other 3, but in practice would be a small set of instructions because the other 3 layers covered most of it.

 

That's why I envision a tactical engine that would be much easier to get started with using "automatic" roles, because by the time you are trying to set game tactics and roles, you've already customized player styles with individual instructions, and set a club philosophy. So all the "automatic" roles are simply the players playing their own style while working as a team under your philosophy.

Then FM would make much more sense. Say you are new to FM and want to build a 442. You go out and buy your favorite players and you know where to put them in your 442. You've seen these players play so you know what to expect, and when you send them out with your club philosophy and automatic roles, they'll play very much like what you had envision without fiddling with tactics or roles.

Then game tactics would be smaller, targeted adjustments like positional tweaks during the game to cope with opposition. Like in my team I would normally tell my fullbacks to look to attack, but when I come against Atalanta (Alejandro Gomez) I would tell my fullbacks to hold back if Gomez is on their side. Otherwise I would need no further instructions for that match, they would go out with automatic roles and I'll tweak a bit as the game goes on.

 

Also, for those thinking that the tactical aspect should be harder:
Say I want to play a 4312. At the back I have last year's Juventus back 4 (Sandro, Chiellini, Bonucci, Dani Alves). At front I have Zlatan at his prime and Aguero playing deep ST. The CAM is De Bruyne. The mid 3 are Nainggolan and Pogba type of players that can do it all, play box-to-box and read the game well.

After they have gelled the formation and each other's style, what do I have to say that will make them stronger on the pitch? What could I forget to say that would allow opponents to find holes and "destroy" my team?

All you need to say is: play fluid, look to attack on the wings, control the game, defend as a 442, press the ball, and give the ST's some creative service.

Done. Perfect starting tactics. Will win most games regardless of opposition and 100% retain a Champions League place in any league.

[TheresOnlyTwoFilipSebos]

Evening all.

Been a long time lurker/reader, but have never contributed anything. Played (not every, but most editions) since CM00/01. I like the way the game has evolved slightly every year. Much like real life football. 

The earlier editions were all about making a basic tactic, with a few arrows, and subsequently winning the Champions League with the likes of Queen of the South or the World Cup with San Marino. Very basic, a lot of fun.

Then came the 'slider' editions which were completely 'elitist' in my opinion, and these editions resulted in downloading a Diablo or suchlike, to reach the same aim. Not at all basic (in tactical understanding terms) but fun in its own right.

In my opinion, tactics haven't become 'elitist', they've just been made more realistic, but at the same time made over complicated by a lot of users.

I myself tried to over complicate things by adding unnecessary TI/PI combos, without actually knowing why. But since around FM14/FM15, I began to visit these forums and read up, research and try to implement all these ideas into my own tactics, from the likes of @Cleon and @Rashidi to name a few. Most of these articles were helpful, but there was so much contradictive information out there it was hard to filter what was useful. I can't remember who it was, where i seen it, or what edition it was written for, but I read an article titled KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid), and my game playing became a lot more productive from employing that concept. Instead of TI/PI heavy tactics, it was to the comparison screen to see where the team strengths lay, stripping it bare, a few simple instructions to implement the style I required, and working from there. 

When I started my first FM18 save, my team were top for first touch and passing, pretty decent grafters, with good full backs and wingers; hence my basic 4231 wide to accommodate my best players. Fairly standard player roles, with TI play out of defence, and close down more. Only my GK has a PI of distribute to CBs. From there i watch the first 15 minutes to make sure my team are playing as expected, and aren't being exploited. If i see things I don't like, I adapt slightly making subtle changes. Conceding long balls over the top, then we drop slightly deeper etc. This is just my real life football knowledge/common sense taking over.

I'm no tactical expert, and don't fully understand mentality/team shape so i keep it standard/flexible. Common sense also tells me not to have your whole team on attack mentality, or defence mentality for that matter, and that a balance needs to be struck. 

And much like real life, player management is the biggest change I've seen in recent editions. A happy camp is an easier camp to manage, and in my experience produces better results. Not to say the odd bollocking isn't required at times though! 

I'm not saying this is the approach to take, but it works fairly well for me. I enjoy the man management side of things (less so the never ending media demands!) and figuring out the subtle tweaks that can mean the difference between a loss or a draw. It all stems from a bit of common sense, a bit of general footballing knowledge and the phrase that rescued my FM playing experience 'Keep it Simple, Stupid'

[Svenc]

4 hours ago, looping said:

The only secret is pushing the right buttons at the right moment. That's all you need.

I'm sensing BS, as usual. The above is a perfectly solid argument. What El Payaso failed to add is that he likely doesn't sell superior forwards to replace them with worse ones because they haven't scored in x matches. Or that he likely doesn't panic/gets easily frustrated because he hasn't won a match in x. Basically, he's not doing a "looping", as he knows that short to mid-term anything can happen, including a mediocre season, however long-term that doesn't detract. The above as such is perfectly legit, as the base structure ensures a few base principles rewarded in any sports in the world, everywhere. It's also more sound that quite a few stuff AI opponents use very readily. The only thing that in-game could seriously unbalance it some was positional traits of players. As I have yet to see any evidence that AI opposition takes all those traits into account in a truly intelligent way, that may only harm this far, too, though. Understanding why the above suggestion was, as was put, the core of a "Mc Donald's" is another thing. I personally think it is vital to the enjoyment of the game, as else you won't have an understanding of your results, be it good or bad. But as downloading tactics is that popular, apparently such understanding of one's results seems overrated by me, either way.

What's missing in El Payaso's is naturally, that tactics are only one part of the job (and better should be). He also doesn't argue this to be some magic tactics drawing player quality bust, so with a yet not developed mid-table team against which you face tons of level opposition, lots may happen. It has the ability to frustrate, perhaps in parts as El Payaso has a different gauge of being "successful" than you (he may even cherish getting sacked at least once every blue moon, as that's a part of football, who knows!), and it's naturally not a way to get the absolute most out of the game, purely tactically, as it ignores in-match strategies, players available completely. Expecting better results is reasonable, to a degree. This is the worst post in this thread, and you have a long-term history with such. If there's anybody misleading, it's you. Reported.

[looping]

13 hours ago, Svenc said:

I'm sensing BS, as usual. The above is a perfectly solid argument. What El Payaso failed to add is that he likely doesn't sell superior forwards to replace them with worse ones because they haven't scored in x matches. Or that he likely doesn't panic/gets easily frustrated because he hasn't won a match in x. Basically, he's not doing a "looping", as he knows that short to mid-term anything can happen, including a mediocre season, however long-term that doesn't detract. The above as such is perfectly legit, as the base structure ensures a few base principles rewarded in any sports in the world, everywhere. It's also more sound that quite a few stuff AI opponents use very readily. The only thing that in-game could seriously unbalance it some was positional traits of players. As I have yet to see any evidence that AI opposition takes all those traits into account in a truly intelligent way, that may only harm this far, too, though. Understanding why the above suggestion was, as was put, the core of a "Mc Donald's" is another thing. I personally think it is vital to the enjoyment of the game, as else you won't have an understanding of your results, be it good or bad. But as downloading tactics is that popular, apparently such understanding of one's results seems overrated by me, either way.

What's missing in El Payaso's is naturally, that tactics are only one part of the job (and better should be). He also doesn't argue this to be some magic tactics drawing player quality bust, so with a yet not developed mid-table team against which you face tons of level opposition, lots may happen. It has the ability to frustrate, perhaps in parts as El Payaso has a different gauge of being "successful" than you (he may even cherish getting sacked at least once every blue moon, as that's a part of football, who knows!), and it's naturally not a way to get the absolute most out of the game, purely tactically, as it ignores in-match strategies, players available completely. Expecting better results is reasonable, to a degree. This is the worst post in this thread, and you have a long-term history with such. If there's anybody misleading, it's you. Reported.

Yes, anything can happen. Including severly underachieving/sacked in every single sabe (but one). I've been testing last month with different teams and leagues and only once this produced positive results. Once. And probably caused by the superb quality of my players, despite what I was doing.

What you wrote doesn't difer much from what I said. People who dominate the game go autopilot and don't even realize what you are doing. Your top striker doesn't score for 3 months. Any other player in his position scores, including a fb out of position. Sure there is a root cause of it and insisting on playing him won't change facts: he won't score. He will keep missing chances.

As an experienced player you would do something you wouldn't even realize to change it. What? Literally no idea. But that's the fact. it's like driving. Take someone who has never drived a car and tell him to drive. It's very easy: accelerate, brake, turn left and right, etc.. Well, first would happen is the car would stall. Did he/she do anything particularly different? No, he accelerated. He did what he was expected to do. But he did it at the wrong time and failed.

The same applies to fm, with the difference fm is driving an aeroplane. Lots of buttons to press, vague information... And the plane finally crashes. 

You must understand the logic behind the game, what the game expects you to do (when to accelerate, when to brake), at the right moment.

On top of that, until you don't understand the logic, asking anyone for help is the worst you can do. I've read here teamtalks and training are not important. Even i've read transfers don't fix your problems (previous iterations: sign better players=win, not anymore). And these are not my words, I can quote very renowned users. So it seems everything can be fixed tactically (standard answer: I'm losing----> it's your tactics). Finally, you have a tactic that should produce comfortable results and you don't get them. 

If training and teamtalks are not important. If transfers won't help me. If tactics are ok and I still lose, what can be done? Nothing particularly. It's just details, pressing the right buttons at the right time (accelerating at the right time). I'm doing things right, in general terms, it's just experienced players don't realize what they do because they go on autopilot. They press certain buttons under certain circumstances and are not able to explain how and why they do it.

I've experienced it too on the other side: by no means I'm good at any videogame but I can beat any of my Friends in PES. They do the same exact things I do but I win. Why? Details. I've tried to explain them but it's just me going autopilot and failing to explain certain details. To some extent, it's the same here. Go autopilot and not explaining things you believe anyone can easily see/do which finally are the difference between a win and a defeat.

The alternative is the game is bugged. I really think there is something wrong with the patterns of results but that doesn't explain everything. Results are too trendy, sometimes too easy to play, sometimes simply imposible to win. That should be addressed, but once addressed, I would probably only lose.

The game is very very difficult and finding out why things happen is almost imposible (players not tackling= def line too dep, FFS) unless you know and understand the logic the game follows (when to press certain buttons). Until this, the game becomes a random sequence of results impredictably dictated by random events, unless you cheat (and that includes downloading P&P exploitative tactics) which is how I suspect most of the people play the game.

[RBKalle]

50 minuti fa, looping ha scritto:

The game is very very difficult and finding out why things happen is almost imposible (players not tackling= def line too dep, FFS) unless you know and understand the logic the game follows (when to press certain buttons). Until this, the game becomes a random sequence of results impredictably dictated by random events, unless you cheat (and that includes downloading P&P exploitative tactics) which is how I suspect most of the people play the game.

The final statement is probably too harsh and unfair, but it's hard to disagree with the rest of the concept.

One week your tactic allows your midtable side to hold your own (and possibly take points) against a Top Club, only to get DOMINATED one week later by a relegation cadidate that played with the same exact formation...

As I've pointed out countless times already, FM's biggest issues are the lack of straightforward tactical feedback and its very specific lingo.

Many players simply see what works (even without knowing why) and will try not to rock the boat. Which is rather disappointing in a game where realism and immersion are major selling points. But as it's a game and not a job, I can definitely see why many will just say "oh, screw that!" and set up/download whatever "supertactic" works better in the year's match engine.

[kandersson]

15 hours ago, Svenc said:

I'm sensing BS, as usual. The above is a perfectly solid argument. What El Payaso failed to add is that he likely doesn't sell superior forwards to replace them with worse ones because they haven't scored in x matches. Or that he likely doesn't panic/gets easily frustrated because he hasn't won a match in x. Basically, he's not doing a "looping", as he knows that short to mid-term anything can happen, including a mediocre season, however long-term that doesn't detract. The above as such is perfectly legit, as the base structure ensures a few base principles rewarded in any sports in the world, everywhere. It's also more sound that quite a few stuff AI opponents use very readily. The only thing that in-game could seriously unbalance it some was positional traits of players. As I have yet to see any evidence that AI opposition takes all those traits into account in a truly intelligent way, that may only harm this far, too, though. Understanding why the above suggestion was, as was put, the core of a "Mc Donald's" is another thing. I personally think it is vital to the enjoyment of the game, as else you won't have an understanding of your results, be it good or bad. But as downloading tactics is that popular, apparently such understanding of one's results seems overrated by me, either way.

What's missing in El Payaso's is naturally, that tactics are only one part of the job (and better should be). He also doesn't argue this to be some magic tactics drawing player quality bust, so with a yet not developed mid-table team against which you face tons of level opposition, lots may happen. It has the ability to frustrate, perhaps in parts as El Payaso has a different gauge of being "successful" than you (he may even cherish getting sacked at least once every blue moon, as that's a part of football, who knows!), and it's naturally not a way to get the absolute most out of the game, purely tactically, as it ignores in-match strategies, players available completely. Expecting better results is reasonable, to a degree. This is the worst post in this thread, and you have a long-term history with such. If there's anybody misleading, it's you. Reported.

Yo Svenc why do you hate the guy so much . @looping I have a lot of sympathy for you and think you do possess valuable football knowledge, though it seems to me your expectations are too high (especially from Belotti ), this is a video game thus has its limitations. In the end you have to find a balance between what 'works' in the game and what you find entertaining in real football. If you can't find the right 'compromise' then it's probably better for you not playing this game. Which btw is something I'm strongly considering myself despite massive success I have in every league I've played. I'm always amused with the bashing of the 'easy' FM12 and the infamous collision issue (if this is what makes FM13-18 'harder', I'm sorry but it didn't work). For me it's still the most entertaining ME because it offered the most variety of attacking play (through passes, crosses, dribbling in central areas, solo goals, beat offside, go round keeper, lob the keeper, diving headers- where are you gone diving header!?) and it felt like you really had control over your players, of course pace was overpowered (it still is) and there were many other issues, well today we simply have some new ones. Personally I find FM18 even 'easier' fwiw.

The game hasn't progressed like i hoped or expected. I see these type of threads and start to wonder. Too elitist... It's a matter of semantics maybe? Svenc you're one of those german masters of gegenpressing, honestly tell me what you think when you can choose to instruct your team to 'close down more/much more or less/much less' and then single players to 'close down more/less or SOMETIMES' (when? where? who?). Then there's so-called 'team shape' and I'm not going to say much about that except it needs to go away from the game. I'l take sliders plus trial and error any day thanks. As noted many times, the game still fails to tell the player what/why is happening and feedback is borderline trolling. Pre-game Assistant manager feedback: change formation to HIS favourite formation (ALWAYS). In-game AM feedback: we're seriously overrun in midfield (winning 4-0 with 60% possession); we're superior in the air let's cross more (EVEN MORE?) etc. These are just examples, for me the game needs to make lots of changes because personally I don't enjoy playing this series anymore and I've run out of good will (the state of regen faces/hair and SI's way of dealing with this, while very minor to other users and off topic here is also cause of great frustration for me). Hiring someone like @MBarbaric (an example of a guy with excellent football knowledge, experience with FM and specific ideas to implement) as a consultant would be a step in the right direction, though I don't see this happening. If I sound like I'm very frustrated with the game, it's because I am. Elitist, meh...

[themadsheep2001]

56 minutes ago, kandersson said:

Yo Svenc why do you hate the guy so much . @looping I have a lot of sympathy for you and think you do possess valuable football knowledge, though it seems to me your expectations are too high (especially from Belotti ), this is a video game thus has its limitations. In the end you have to find a balance between what 'works' in the game and what you find entertaining in real football. If you can't find the right 'compromise' then it's probably better for you not playing this game. Which btw is something I'm strongly considering myself despite massive success I have in every league I've played. I'm always amused with the bashing of the 'easy' FM12 and the infamous collision issue (if this is what makes FM13-18 'harder', I'm sorry but it didn't work). For me it's still the most entertaining ME because it offered the most variety of attacking play (through passes, crosses, dribbling in central areas, solo goals, beat offside, go round keeper, lob the keeper, diving headers- where are you gone diving header!?) and it felt like you really had control over your players, of course pace was overpowered (it still is) and there were many other issues, well today we simply have some new ones. Personally I find FM18 even 'easier' fwiw.

The game hasn't progressed like i hoped or expected. I see these type of threads and start to wonder. Too elitist... It's a matter of semantics maybe? Svenc you're one of those german masters of gegenpressing, honestly tell me what you think when you can choose to instruct your team to 'close down more/much more or less/much less' and then single players to 'close down more/less or SOMETIMES' (when? where? who?). Then there's so-called 'team shape' and I'm not going to say much about that except it needs to go away from the game. I'l take sliders plus trial and error any day thanks. As noted many times, the game still fails to tell the player what/why is happening and feedback is borderline trolling. Pre-game Assistant manager feedback: change formation to HIS favourite formation (ALWAYS). In-game AM feedback: we're seriously overrun in midfield (winning 4-0 with 60% possession); we're superior in the air let's cross more (EVEN MORE?) etc. These are just examples, for me the game needs to make lots of changes because personally I don't enjoy playing this series anymore and I've run out of good will (the state of regen faces/hair and SI's way of dealing with this, while very minor to other users and off topic here is also cause of great frustration for me). Hiring someone like @MBarbaric (an example of a guy with excellent football knowledge, experience with FM and specific ideas to implement) as a consultant would be a step in the right direction, though I don't see this happening. If I sound like I'm very frustrated with the game, it's because I am. Elitist, meh...

Who says SI don't already have consultants who would be far more knowledgeable than someone like MBarbaric?  Knowing the game is completely different from implement something into code. 

[kandersson]

4 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Who says SI don't already have consultants who would be far more knowledgeable than someone like MBarbaric?  Knowing the game is completely different from implement something into code. 

@MBarbaricis an example of someone who has football knowledge, experience and passion as a FM player and has given very specific ideas and feedback in the past. It's a good combination. His last post in this thread has some very good ideas, and it's not the first time for him. The fact that current interpretation of so-called 'team shape' is still in the game after all these years makes me think that hiring more people like Mbarbaric as extra consultants might help the development of the game.

[themadsheep2001]

2 minutes ago, kandersson said:

@MBarbaricis an example of someone who has football knowledge, experience and passion as a FM player and has given very specific ideas and feedback in the past. It's a good combination. His last post in this thread has some very good ideas, and it's not the first time for him. The fact that current interpretation of so-called 'team shape' is still in the game after all these years makes me think that hiring more people like Mbarbaric as extra consultants might help the development of the game.

Ideas are not the same as implementation. SI have access to coaches, scouts, analysts. But none if that means it can suddenly be translated into code. 

[kandersson]

7 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Ideas are not the same as implementation. SI have access to coaches, scouts, analysts. But none if that means it can suddenly be translated into code. 

This I understand, though mbarbaric strikes me as someone who has excellent football knowledge yet is able to think in FM terms. I don't think it's that common, and personally see this as a potential asset for future development of the game. If I had twitter I'd be trending #hireBarbaric

[themadsheep2001]

14 minutes ago, kandersson said:

This I understand, though mbarbaric strikes me as someone who has excellent football knowledge yet is able to think in FM terms. I don't think it's that common, and personally see this as a potential asset for future development of the game. If I had twitter I'd be trending #hireBarbaric

Its considerably more common than you think. And respectfully it wouldn't be adding anything they haven't got access to already. 

[kandersson]

18 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Its considerably more common than you think. And respectfully it wouldn't be adding anything they haven't got access to already. 

If this unlimited 'access' lead them to 1) come up with current interpretation of so-called 'team shape 2) keep it in the game for years, then I strongly maintain my opinion that more people with ideas a la barbaric should be hired. I respect your opinion if you think otherwise, please respect mine.

[themadsheep2001]

1 hour ago, kandersson said:

If this unlimited 'access' lead them to 1) come up with current interpretation of so-called 'team shape 2) keep it in the game for years, then I strongly maintain my opinion that more people with ideas a la barbaric should be hired. I respect your opinion if you think otherwise, please respect mine.

Respecting an opinion doesn't mean I have to agree with it in any way. And team shape actually came from real life tactical theories

Structured (or rigid) was actually based on how Alex Ferguson set up his sides with different levels of compactness

Fluid (originally 5x5) is directly based on Arrigo Sacchi 

Balanced (or role theory) is directly based on Wenger. 

Team shape still matters, because of compactness. This is something that still differs from side to side. Its something that can evolve. But the varying levels of compactness that comes with team shapes exist in real life. 

And hiring someone new in now way actually means that's codable. It's pointless hiring someone for that when they are already getting that advice, and getting that advice doesn't mean it's instantly translatable