Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Romano338

Did FM became too elitist tactic-wise?

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, forameuss said:

This is a very good point.  I don't particularly care to understand tactics in any great detail, either in FM or real-life football.  I enjoy watching larger-profile Rugby Union games like the Six Nations despite knowing only the basic rules.  I really enjoy going to the Ice Hockey once in a while because it's a great night out (far better than going to Firhill a lot of the time) despite a lot of the time you can barely even follow where the puck is, let alone the ins-and-outs of the sport.  

I mostly don't follow  to such minutae-detail when watching a match of football too. Perhaps a proposal: What I have always liked from day one in the game too is roughly setting styles of play into practice (as far as possible). Plus on a match management level putting measures into place that increase the likelyhood of either scoring / not conceding, all at differents points of a match / during a season [there's matches where I don't do anything as they just move along nicely]. Which has always clearly impacted the results, and is fat time rewarding. This can be done in the most simplistic of ways, no genius needed, like keeping an army of players behind the ball upon scoring the 1-0... Which is personally also where I see a possibly proper "tactical assistant" kicking in. At various points of the match players may encourage him to "go for another goal" / "protect what we have" / etc. -- the player macro managing the broader decisions, where he can still terribly misjudge a situation. Whilst the assistant carrries it all out on a micro level of tactical tweaks. That's the best of both worlds, so to speak. It would equally benefit of ever improving AI too. If you want to be invested into the finer details, fire away. If you don't -- I don't think that's all that unrealistic personally. It's already in the game in some way too in the form of FM Touch's match plans, arguably. It's just never been explored further. Maybe because players themselves can't express what they want... dunno.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


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

I am sorry but all games have a multitude of options, some games have so many you need to go out and buy 15 button mouses and gamepads just to play them at the highest difficulty, not forgetting key binding macros and actions onto the gamepads. These aren't things that the developer will suggest you do. They give you all the tools. It should be the gamers job to find out whats necessary and what isn't, what's key and what's candy.

But there's a huge difference...

Those games may require specific controllers to get the best out of the gameplay, but it's a matter of optimization (instead of pressing CTRL+SHIFT+F+Left Mouse, I'll make a macro). Other stuff is for advanced players only and isn't even essential to play and enjoy the game, especially in single player.

You don't need a special keyboard to play a Civ campaign or an Europa Universalis scenario. Just like you don't need to know all the 120 dummies and tricks to win everything on FIFA's single player modes.

FM's terminology, however, gives many players the impression that they NEED to use at least some of the TI/PI and of the "special roles" in order to achieve good results and/or the tactical plan they want.

 

Quote

Games are made easy for the casual to play, but not to master. Information should be there, but the key information should be easy to understand.  Give the user 100 buttons to choose from, let the good ones figure out what the best priority list should be. And these are the guys who end up writing guides, or creating programs to run simulated fights. Its like trying to play a warrior in World of Warcraft, anyone can play it. Not anyone can play it well enough to be on a world first team.

But then again, FM is mostly a single-players game where it's P1 vs AI, not P1 vs thousands of borderline-crazy dedicated players. The comparison shouldn't be with WoW or with any of the plethora of complicated RTSs (or with Paradox games) out there.

IMO the situation with FM is similar to what'd happen should a Triple A title hit the market with such a cryptical and counterintuitive structure and terminology to the point of confusing newbies and relatively experienced players alike.
Kinda as if in The Elder Scrolls, suddenly your Sneaking skill stopped being linked with Archery for some reason. Or if the most useful spells were at the LOWER end of the tree, because of a questionable design choice.
Or as if in a F1 game, your car could go faster with, say, specific wing setups that don't really reflect the "expectations" based on watching real F1.. E.g. relatively low wing angles at Monaco... Or, less impacting but still weird, if the name and colours for the tyre compounds were changed from the standard ones.

 

Quote

Ultimately this is a game, which tests users knowledge of football in what's meant to be a realistic simulation. Unfortunately some of the nomenclature needs to be more effectively explained, but overachieving should be hard, otherwise, let's stop calling it a simulation and just start calling this Fantasy Football Manager.

 

That's easier said than done, because if you really make the game harder due to better and less quirky, forgiving and exploitable (even unwillingly) Match Engine, suddenly all those who play FM only to fulfill their football fantasies will flood Steam with negative reviews and this board with rants about "you changed the game! It's too difficult! I can't win a game with Everton!"

It's a very complicated and delicate balance between FFM and FM. If by design only the most experienced players (who are basically "insiders" by now) who know the ins and the outs of FM's own football world can manage to achieve the same level of success, while the rest will struggle to even finish 6th with a Top Four side, the game is going to suffer. Regardless of how good or realistic it is.

A better compromise could be done, rewarding MORE those who can master a REVISED and more realistic tactical side of the game (possibly limiting the PSG-effect that in current FM is still the key factor to success), but still not cutting out the casuals with a falsely familiar language that, in reality, doesn't mean what many think it means.

Share this post


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

IMO the situation with FM is similar to what'd happen should a Triple A title hit the market with such a cryptical and counterintuitive structure and terminology to the point of confusing newbies and relatively experienced players alike.

 

Not a bad anology. Historically Sports Interactive have been very closely working together with its community. Various key employees are former community members. Various significant game overhauls were all based on community feedback. The game has gotten bigger and bigger though -- and it's been reaching out to just far more people. Which is also where my perception kicks in that the main feedback seems to come from long-term players... this is "inbreeding" by definition. The same guys knowing everything voicing the same things over and over again. It comes really down too though who SI are really making the game for at its core. A game as say, Wasteland 2 may not be at all made for fans of Fallout 3. In fact, Fallout 3 may be the reason why Wasteland 2 at all exists.

Still both share similarities and thus may attract some audience crossovers. There's inevitably those who won't like what they find in either game, as they both may be post apocalyptic RPGs -- but still very very different games from the ground up. The one is an FPS/RPG hybrid modernized to score also with a mass market crowd -- the other is a heavy stats based, fairly hardcore turn based combat experience, as the original Fallouts once were. Naturally FM is a bit unique in that it's the last big kid of its ilk on the block. That's a bit as if for fans of postapocalyptic RPGs, either Wasteland or Fallout was the only choice. Which complicates things a fair bit, also as to the diversity in feedback developers may receive. One thing for me is paramount though, personally. As long as something is in the game, and has been for long. Be that transfer AI. Transfer markets. Player development algorithms. Tactical match engines. They best not ever be diluted as such. The key question on this topic at hand is accessibility imo anyway -- and that can be achieved without "dumbing things down", taking depth out of any of the game's key areas.

Complexity isn't necessarily to be confused with depth though. In fact, I personally consider some of FM's for some seemingly overwhelming complexity as either borderline windows dressing or fully optional. That must be a challenge to balance though. In particular if you're making an inherently stats based management simulation game based on an ultra low scoring sports that has ambiguity and randomness to boot. :D

 

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


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

You don't need a special keyboard to play a Civ campaign or an Europa Universalis scenario. Just like you don't need to know all the 120 dummies and tricks to win everything on FIFA's single player modes.

FM's terminology, however, gives many players the impression that they NEED to use at least some of the TI/PI and of the "special roles" in order to achieve good results and/or the tactical plan they want.

Here is where I kind of agree and disagree with you simultaneously. Settler difficulty is very easy while to win at deity in Civ you really need to know your strategies, and you need to know all the quirks and interactions the game has. You need to know what to do and what to avoid doing, and that's even before meeting another civ at all. The same goes for FM, it's not hard to get decent results if you chose high starting rep and choosing a lower level team and play a basic 4-4-2 without any special instructions. If you start without any reputation and take over Barcelona you are going to have a rough time. Neither "hard mode" is impossible, but it's damn hard if you don't know the intricate details of the game and as you get better and understand how things work together then you might be successful.

The issue and why I agree with you, is that user get the IMPRESSION they need to use all the fancy techniques available. And this is where a lot of new players do things wrong. They add all kinds of instructions and really creates a poor tactic and can't understand why. To go back to Civ, it's like building a decent army, but trying to transport it over and ocean without protection straight into the opponent navy. You are going to get smashed because you are trying to do something that's not logical. This is something that should be easier to know as a new player, but I can't say for sure HOW the game should tell a player their tactic is illogical and erroneous without ruining the challenge of creating a decent tactic for yourself. Maybe giving the user some "pre defined" tactics that at least don't have any horrible flaws and suggesting those? Not a tactic that will let the user overachieve, but at least as a good starting point? Maybe based on the level of the assistant? I'm thinking out loud here, so feel free to come up with ideas.

Share this post


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

You don't need a special keyboard to play a Civ campaign or an Europa Universalis scenario

Yeah but to play on deity mode for Civilisation you need to know your stuff inside and out and avoid the candy in the game and focus on optimising your strategy. Anyone can play Civ, but not everyone is successful on Deity mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Yeah but to play on deity mode for Civilisation you need to know your stuff inside and out and avoid the candy in the game and focus on optimising your strategy. Anyone can play Civ, but not everyone is successful on Deity mode.

Stonehenge on Deity? If there ever were a candy to avoid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has completely jumped the shark and in the same process eaten itself.

 

 

Share this post


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

There's oft a whole lot of issues raised, but not a whole lot of suggestions. If whoever struggles cannot express what he specifically wants, it's tough.

Well, if the suggestions that deviate, even so slightly, from the current "vision" the ME has been built on are greeted with "nope, can't do that, sorry", there isn't much point in suggesting things ;)

It's like trying to propose changes to a house where every wall is a load-bearing one... If you can't tear one down or make drastic alteration to the structure because otherwise it may collapse, all you can ask for is "a window here or a door there" or, worse, "let's add one extra floor!".

FWIW:

1) Less abstract or highly specialistic lingo both in the UI and under the hood
2) More responsive and football-like foundations for the ME
3) Better feedback
4) Basic tactical templates to choose from, both as standalone tactics and as starting point for further, in-depth, elaboration
5) Better AI and less emphasis on CA/PA/Reputation and more on Performance and Perceived Ability and Reputation

 

3 ore fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

Yeah but to play on deity mode for Civilisation you need to know your stuff inside and out and avoid the candy in the game and focus on optimising your strategy. Anyone can play Civ, but not everyone is successful on Deity mode.

Still, Deity mode is a difficulty level you can easily ignore.

Newbies or casuals can play on the lowest difficulty level to learn the mechanisms of the game before moving up, or they'd as well never move up at all.

FM doesn't have that. Starting reputation and league level are secondary factors in the end. They may increase the chances of facing some extra problems (dressing room mutiny, lack of support from the players and the fans), but the basics of the game are the same.
If you misinterpret Team Shape or Raumdeuter (blah...) or "Work ball into box", you do so whether you're a former int'l star managing Barça or a random fat dude in charge of other fat dudes in the Conference North.
And the ME translates your misguided choice of instructions in the exact same way. Actually, I daresay it's more harmful if you screw up with a Top Club because at Level 8 the opponents will be too crappy to take advantage of the huge flaws in your formation. (at least they should...)

The thing is: you don't need to "know" how all the TI work, both in isolation and alongside eachother and with all the roles, but, as already said, it's easy to think WE SHOULD if we want to be successful or to successfully recreate that fancy 2-2-2-2-2 we used to play on PC Futbol.

While on Civ and other political simulations you have to learn a lot of new terminology and how it applies to the game, FM is based on the most popular sport on Earth, so nobody goes in a "virgin", and a certain degree of pre-existing knowledge, which, for better or worse, is carried into FM's gameworld. Where it fails miserably...

 

Edited by RBKalle

Share this post


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

While on Civ and other political simulations you have to learn a lot of new terminology and how it applies to the game, FM is based on the most popular sport on Earth, so nobody goes in a "virgin", and a certain degree of pre-existing knowledge, which, for better or worse, is carried into FM's gameworld. Where it fails miserably...

 

This assertion needs to be challenged some, despite all viable points I support. Everybody I have ever seen severely struggling has had weird ideas about football, personally. No less as you don't severely struggle because of a pick in team shape, or TI -- but because your core structure makes no sense. I think this can be tested quite simply. All the UI would need to introduce short-term was a helpful visualization of the  attacking shape players encourage, primarily by the roles/duties they pick. If then a specific player would always empty their midfields for nobody protecting the backline, encourage everybody to cut into the same space, encourage no movements whatsoever in completely static lines, then that is a distincitve lack of football / team sports knowledge that is to solve first. The assistants now optionally taking over match days in the game would rarely, if ever do any such, as each is naturally possibly harming the performance, and would randomize results. If assistants would struggle here, they'd be a trap! Question is then, can the game cover all that? Can it? All depends on whom SI are trying to target.

edit: I think we need to make a distinction here though between struggling for results generally and struggling to put a particular kind of football into place. My above paragraph covers the former. Trying to translate a certain kind of football into the game can already be influenced by match engine limitations (which everybody has to deal with, and which can vary between releases), not merely UI. :)

editedit: The way Civ handles difficulty is awful imo btw. It makes AI playing by its own rules, and forces you to min/max the game's mechanics in order to keep up with it. Naturally, FM will never engage in such though. :D

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


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

This assertion needs to be challenged some, despite all viable points I support. Everybody I have ever seen severely struggling has had weird ideas about football, personally.

No less than the army of people who make a 433 with attacking wingbacks and then play on a high mentality with a pushed up defensive line and then complain that they cannot protect their flanks. They may get 30 chances a game, but they fail miserably at keeping a clean sheet. Great coaches have first and foremost always advocated sorting out your defence before worrying about your attack. There are certain principles of football that escape people, and I feel that while we can discuss the limitations of the current match engine, any version of it will always fail to please a group of people. This season it could be some of you, in two years time, it will be another group of people who will complain, because their world view of football is different.  I disagree that the world has a "common language for football", even analysts and commentators don't have a common language.  They meet great coaches or attend one of their seminars and suddenly from nowhere words like tactical periodization suddenly becomes buzzwords in the coaching community. 

There are people who scream that older systems can't be replicated and that the match engine fails because of that, and they ignore the fact that the offside rule was revised in 1990. I want modern attempts at using the offside rule for a tactical advantage added to the game, like how Allardyce and Guardiola are doing it. That is still a long way from being incorporated into the game. The modern language of football, unfortunately isn't universally understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minuti fa, Svenc ha scritto:

 Question is then, can the game cover all that? Should it? All depends on whom SI are trying to target here, which is their choice.

 

It all boils down to that quote. I am guessing here, but if I was in charge, I'd have the tactical side of the game checked with coaches from Everton/Watford/Wimbledon, and I believe SI did that.  I have no doubts the SI knows precisely what is wrong with the ME/tactics. The real issue is do they want to do anything about it or not. While I believe this side of the game isn't much more than Fantasy Football manager, I really don't blame them. After all, the game always sold well and that is the ultimate goal of any company. What triggers me the most is when people try to represent the game as more than what it really is.

And to touch upon people having knowledge of football and come into game already having some ideas... The amount of knowledge (on real tactics, not FM tactics, mind you) in this forum is low and very scarce. But this isn't only limited to these boards, even pundits in TV and ex football players really lack any depth in this regard. What people have are merely opinions. The game is so popular that anyone thinks he knows something about football. How ridiculous would be if physics, or math, were so popular as football and you could hear an opinion on thermodynamics from just any guy off the street? 

Edited by MBarbaric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

It all boils down to this. I am guessing here, but if I was in charge, I'd have the tactical side of the game checked with coaches from Everton/Watford/Wimbledon, and I believe SI did that

As far as I am aware they do, they even have football players who play the game. And I am certain that to some extent they will have to walk a fine line between realism and fantasy. Ultimately SI have to define their "world of football", we are simply players on that stage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minuti fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

"common language for football", even analysts and commentators don't have a common language.

there are a lot of things that are left to interpretation, however, basics are well diffused and accepted among analysts.  Commentators excluded as that is an entirely different industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

And to touch upon people having knowledge of football and come into game already having some ideas... The amount of knowledge (on real tactics, not FM tactics, mind you) in this forum is low and very scarce. But this isn't only limited to these boards, even pundits in TV and ex football players really lack any depth in this regard. What people have are merely opinions.

I'd argue this can apply even to managers/coaches though. When Jogi Löw prior to the Euros 2012 announced that you "had to play beautiful attacking football" in order to win tournaments these days, he was swiftly disproven by Chelsea in the CL. :D Clearly he was not advocating some universal truths, rather than promoting his own preferences, ideals and fundamental beliefs. There's a fantastic book on football in German, it argues we'd be lightyears from understanding what makes football really work, and what makes teams really win matches. Naturally, on television even the most old trotted commentary cliche is treated as some word of wisdom quite so often. And the special emphasis ever since placed on useless possession, tackling and shot counts kills what's left of the insight you could gain there probably. I've always argued what FM fundamentally rewards at the core are team sport basics, more or less (I should know as I've never been a hardcore tactics buff myself). The aforementioned stuff that makes you really struggle in the game is fairly "common sense" as such.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the first person to suggest this, but in terms of what actually causes you to win, FM is a lot closer to being Morale Manager than it is to being Tactics Manager.  For all the tactical options it offers, unless you are doing something completely tactically ludicrious, if you keep morale and motivation high, you will overperform, regardless of the finer points of your tactic.

So much of the discussion on this forum is people being fooled by randomness.  As in "I changed my struggling AP/S to an AP/A and he got 2 assists and we won, therefore that must have been the 'right' thing to do" while a huge chunk of that was chance and you might have left him as AP/S in the same game and you could have won by a wider margin.

Edited by jujigatame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minuto fa, jujigatame ha scritto:

I'm not the first person to suggest this, but in terms of what actually causes you to win, FM is a lot closer to being Morale Manager than it is to being Tactics Manager.  For all the tactical options it offers, unless you are doing something completely tactically ludicrious, if you keep morale and motivation high, you will overperform.

to be fair, it could be argued that is often true in reality as well. Especially when two similar quality teams meet. complacency is a bitch.

21 minuti fa, Svenc ha scritto:

he was swiftly disproven by Chelsea in the CL. :D

I found Chelsea playing beautiful as well :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

to be fair, it could be argued that is often true in reality as well. Especially when two similar quality teams meet. complacency is a bitch.

I found Chelsea playing beautiful as well :D

 

Beauty lies in the eye of the MBarbaricBeholder. :D

I also wonder how much Ronaldo smashing the league again left, right and center since January has truly to do with any adjustments, or whether people are fooled by randomness here too. :p  [The game in my opinion is far less random than football. Morale is also, in tendency, overrated.  Much can be attributed to the influence you can have over the ebbs and flows of a match even with rather simple means, as outlined by me on the last page in the huge post. This can far surpass the influence a real manager has (for better and worse)  -- of course, if you don't manage a few bits of this, then morale and various other factors may override that. However, none of my aforementioned runs without conceding etc. had the slightest bits to do with morale. Morale doesn't cause sides to play keepball all over, for a start. Tactical decisions do, and such decisions alone.]

 

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

It all boils down to that quote. I am guessing here, but if I was in charge, I'd have the tactical side of the game checked with coaches from Everton/Watford/Wimbledon, and I believe SI did that.  I have no doubts the SI knows precisely what is wrong with the ME/tactics. The real issue is do they want to do anything about it or not. While I believe this side of the game isn't much more than Fantasy Football manager, I really don't blame them. After all, the game always sold well and that is the ultimate goal of any company. What triggers me the most is when people try to represent the game as more than what it really is.

And to touch upon people having knowledge of football and come into game already having some ideas... The amount of knowledge (on real tactics, not FM tactics, mind you) in this forum is low and very scarce. But this isn't only limited to these boards, even pundits in TV and ex football players really lack any depth in this regard. What people have are merely opinions. The game is so popular that anyone thinks he knows something about football. How ridiculous would be if physics, or math, were so popular as football and you could hear an opinion on thermodynamics from just any guy off the street? 

I'd go further and say most managers lack depth as well. No better example than mourinho. Reality is all managers rely on quality of players for performance and success levels but mourinho has shown from an tactical viewpoint he is very limited in what he can do and quite simple actually. He's trying the same tactics broadly speaking in terms of reactive tactics employed to nullify opposition (of course there will be slight differences within that to customise it for varying opposition) for years but his relative output is on the decline and his teams get worse quicker than they did. Yes he won two trophies last year which were not far off competitions where other teams plays second string so he won two reserve team trophies. Also the much pilloried van gaal won one trophy the year before and what team wouldn't get better adding pogba/mikha/ibra/bailly. Currently Jose is certainly not achieving the max out of that set of man u players but they will always get results as they simply have better players than most. Put Guardiola Poch even Klopp in charge of that man utd squad and their output would be better.

What jose shows is he's far from tactically competent more so that he is able to set up a team to defend and nullify opposition. He currently is struggling relative to his early output as the quality of defending/defenders just isn't there again pointing to its not jose tactics but quality of player he had. His recent record against top 6 teams show him to be not up to much tactically and lacking the ability and willingness to adapt...more a case of setting team up and waiting to get breaks to his teams benefit but man u are playing increasingly listlessly/lacking purpose and cohesion...in essence they are being very poorly coached.

One thing Jose seemed to have had was a strong motivational ability with his players to press their buttons but again it would appear his success there is the beneficiary of circumstances in that he had strong willed players who reacted positively to being barked at/siege mentality..all jose does these days is create a toxic environment in his squads...madrid, chelsea, man u which is counterproductive over time...so jose not able to adapt or identify this.

Really I'd liken Jose to donald trump in that they are frauds...serendipitously happening upon success being the beneficiary of the confluence of advantageous circumstances which they rode the wave :D

Jose like trump constantly disseminates self aggrandising propaganda talking themselves and their achievements up in an attempt to portray strength importance and successfulness while at an sign of adversity (jose losing game) deflecting and creating chaos to make people not properly analyse their abilities and causing the narrative to move away from portraying their lack of talent in a negative light onto anything else but them eg refs, players bottled it, players didn't carry out instructions etc...it's never them until it is...and it is when they win and they let everyone know. The purpose of their manipulative actions is to deflect from their incompetence...how successful they are in doing that depends on their audiences ability to see through that.

 

Re tactics real football is being able to coach a team to move as a unit around the pitch keeping shape and compactness in a defensive situation while allowing creativity and fluidity in attack whilst simultaneously being able to control transitions defensivey and trigger transitions offensively depending on situational circumstances.

The best examples of this are Lippi's Juve, Saachi's Milan, Van Gaal's Ajax and Guardiola's Barca. To be fair Guardiola Barca didn't have traditional fundamental defensive soundness but managed opposition transition through being so close together (more so than City currently) that when they turned the ball over their quick press was remarkably effective...so whilst the means by which barca played so cohesively was different to juve/milan/ajax it was no less effective and to be fair Barca probably took more risks offensively than the others meaning they may get stretched more than other examples.

Bottom line is that is what good coaching is. Anything else is limited coaching and often just coaching either side of the ball eg jose defensively, rodgers offensively. Poch is not far off achieving it and what he could do with better set of player will be his real test. Klopp eg is ironically given his success from attacking transitions very poor at setting his team up to cope with when his team lose the ball and their initial press is broken but he seems to be improving this recently.

Of course sometimes a coach will have to adapt to opposition or manage what players he has at his disposal and psychological/motivational factors play into how good a manager is but certainly tactically most managers are inept.

Share this post


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

Everybody I have ever seen severely struggling has had weird ideas about football

But as you pointed out in the edit, there's a difference between the two groups.

There are those who struggle because they're setting up a formation and a team like they'd do on FIFA or PES, with obviously different outcomes, as they can't dribble their way to goals with a glorified 2-4-3-1, and SI can't do much for them... Red areas in the TC should be enough to warn the more "adventurous" players...
Same for those who suck so much they can't even get barely passable results, quite frankly a feat in itself... Much more difficult than overachieving in Season One with a relegation cadidate IMO...

But they'd be struggling for plenty of reasons, and it's impossible to solve everyone's problems. Still, a leaner TC for Beginners would help them immensely.

 

Then there also are those who are doing just fine, but mostly because they've decided to bin whatever ambitious tactical project they wanted to pursue and have settled for a safer formation. Boring but practical.
Still, helping a few to understand why their Zeman 4-3-3 is working only in the sense they're shipping half a dozen goals per game, while scoring as little as San Marino, could be nice...

 

5 ore fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

The modern language of football, unfortunately isn't universally understood.

I wouldn't say the language itself isn't universally understood, more like there's plenty of misconceptions and false myths...

Sure, some concepts change from country to country, depending on the language and on the local football tradition, but it's hard to find football fans who don't agree at least on the basics.

On the other hand, as shown by the debate about "Counterattack", the same thing can be perceived differently depending on who is talking about it and where. Moreso, ideas like "possession = higher chances of winning" is probably the most base-breaking fallacy in contemporary football.
Same for "+ shots = + goals", while it's about the quality of the shots (our old nemesis CCC!) and for plenty of other assumptions about player positions and roles.

 

So, in a way, FM will always NEED to employ its own lingua franca for simplicity reasons, but there's a long way to go from the current overabundance of quasi-sectarian lexicon which doesn't mix well with what many players hear on TV or read on newspapers, magazines and websites.

Share this post


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

While on Civ and other political simulations you have to learn a lot of new terminology and how it applies to the game, FM is based on the most popular sport on Earth, so nobody goes in a "virgin", and a certain degree of pre-existing knowledge, which, for better or worse, is carried into FM's gameworld. Where it fails miserably...

I disagree, citing myself.

I loved Eastside Hockey Manager not just because I'm a fan of hockey, but because sports management sims are basically RPGs in their own right.  My first FM was 2011, and I basically knew nothing about the sport beyond "we call it soccer over here" and zilch regarding tactics.

I learned with some searching that 4-4-2 was popularish tactic, and because I like to start small in almost every game it seems... I was Lewes FC in Blue Square N/S and did a lot of save scumming because I knew I was terrible lol.  I played until I got promoted to nPower League 2 but my game got into a permanent crash with building a new arena and alas, my fictional power fantasy was over.

I came back with FM2016, again in Vanarama and doing a custom team in place of Dartford FC.  Just went with 4-4-2 since it was the one thing I sort of understood.  It was sufficient to get me to L2 where I started to struggle. A friend of mine coached me on tactics by drawing up some lines on my tactics describing how my roles would cause my players to move around on offense (I had big isolation issues, unsurprisingly).  So I started to experiment a bit more and came across a 4-2-3-1 Wide which did quite well (I snagged Peterborough as a senior affiliate and they were promoted to Championship so I basically overachieved because I had high quality youth loans that followed me up with every promotion. Callum Chettle was a super solid player that grew quite a bit for me).  Once I couldn't loan myself to victory anymore, I struggled a bit in Championship. Eventually snagged a promotion where I immediately laughed at the absurd amount of money EPL has.  I struggled, but learned tactics and ended up with a 4-1-2-3 DM Wide with defensive/support roles to hold off relegation and finish 12th. I finally was understanding tactics.

FM2017, now understanding the game better, I decide to start in the lowest league I could find... Queens University in North Ireland. It was interesting as all players were on non-contracts I won the league, then bounced over to Shivijians in India for a few seasons. Came back to Skeid football and ended up bringing Norway to a top 10 nation in continental qualifications!

But it all started from a rando that had no real clue what to do with seeds planted in 2011, taking root upon a second attempt in 2016, with virtually no tactical understanding but some decent google-fu!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23.2.2018 at 17:26, themadsheep2001 said:

1) The concept of fluid and structured actually do originate from tactical football talk (if not the names)

Structured used to be known as rule of Two,


Mechanically oldschool FM lingo ahead, don't read if not interested. :D Searching around for a few things I found some older posts, pretty much what had confused me ever since the player mentality feedback was reintroduced into the game. Because, that's how it was set up. With such large splits as in the original rule of two, picking a team mentality is being undermined. The entire point of a team mentality is/was there to be reasonably tight bands between the players individually. Or, as put back then:
 

Quote

Rule of Two isn't in the TC as its wider mentality bands prevent the strategy setting.

"Strategy setting" = team mentality of old. Just stating where I was coming from. A couple of old timers may have reacted similar on that front when that "new" feedback was introduced to the player instruction screen post FM17ish. As argued though, it's pointless, as absolutely nobody outside of SI knows what exactly has been tuned under the hood in between all these many years in its entirety. Old patch notes would oft give it away how the effect of the sliders was tweaked, for instance, a patch note may have read like this: - made advanced players on an aggressive mentality slightly more likely to track back, etc. I still remember a release where players were frustrated as unlike before, they couldn't get their AML/AMR tracking back as before -- by tuning the mentality slider all the way down, which had naturally impacted far more than just this tracking back behavior... and may have been not that adisable. :) Shame that Paul's not around anymore. Always very insightful. Some interesting discussions in that thread in general, voicing some of the same frustrations you still have today.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


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


Mechanically oldschool FM lingo ahead, don't read if not interested. :D Searching around for a few things I found some older posts, pretty much what had confused me ever since the player mentality feedback was reintroduced into the game. Because, that's how it was set up. With such large splits as in the original rule of two, picking a team mentality is being undermined. The entire point of a team mentality is/was there to be reasonably tight bands between the players individually. Or, as put back then:
 

"Strategy setting" = team mentality of old. Just stating where I was coming from. A couple of old timers may have reacted similar on that front when that "new" feedback was introduced to the player instruction screen post FM17ish. As argued though, it's pointless, as absolutely nobody outside of SI knows what exactly has been tuned under the hood in between all these many years in its entirety. Old patch notes would oft give it away how the effect of the sliders was tweaked, for instance, a patch note may have read like this: - made advanced players on an aggressive mentality slightly more likely to track back, etc. I still remember a release where players were frustrated as unlike before, they couldn't get their AML/AMR tracking back as before -- by tuning the mentality slider all the way down, which had naturally impacted far more than just this tracking back behavior... and may have been not that adisable. :) Shame that Paul's not around anymore. Always very insightful. Some interesting discussions in that thread in general, voicing some of the same frustrations you still have today.

I should definitely clarify that I forgot about Rule of Two at this point :D Im definitely talking about Bands of Two (Ferguson) in my examples in this thread. This is what happens when you talk about old theory!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I should definitely clarify that I forgot about Rule of Two at this point :D Im definitely talking about Bands of Two (Ferguson) in my examples in this thread. This is what happens when you talk about old theory!

Same thing. wwfan both used the term "Rule Of Two" / "Band Of Two" in his post too, adressing the same thing: Reasonably huge mentality splits back to front from player to player. The entire point of having a team mentality is/was to not have such big splits back to front [at least not as suggested in the visual cues that are in now). :D And that didn't happen back then (this was a structured team).  For a newcomer in particular, it doesn't matter. He won't understand it either way. He likely also doesn't frequent any FM forum. So merely makes his choices by gut feeling, or whatever sounds good to his from the text descriptions.

The big beef I find with this even as a long-term player is that significant changes are getting made and you may not even be made aware of them outside of this community. It's like behind closed doors somebody goes like, alright, we take this option and  rework this, tell one of your mods to spread the message and hope that it's enough. I also found this thread a fascinating read as it adresses the same topics you have now.... FM mechanics crossing over into actual football territory. However, even back then it was argued that crossover hadn't fully happened yet. In parts due to ME limitations. This still hasn't fully happened. TO an extent, we're at the same crossroards here as 6,7 years ago. This first quote wasn't specifically adressing the relative ambiguity of attacking and defensive shapes and the transitions in between the two,... but talking about the movement and positioning, it just well may have.
 

Quote

At some point, reflecting the full diversity of football tactics will require introducing something like "style modules" that completely reshape some of the fundamental assumptions made by players regarding movement, positioning, etc.

 

Quote

There are a number of things that the ME needs to be able to replicate in the long term. However, until they are included in the tactical concepts informing the TC, they can't be. Unfortunately, it is not an easy job to quickly slot in a new conceptual element of play. It needs to be added to the TC, conceptualized in the ME and researched so at least some AI managers have database settings that access the concept. Other elements of the AI also need to draw on these concepts to keep it competitive.

You have to take on board that the TC introduced a completely new set of concepts to FM. Arguably, the ME, and, indeed, much of the rest of the game, is still catching up with concepts introduced by the TC, and it's been three iterations since that happened.


 

Quote

At some point, reflecting the full diversity of football tactics will require introducing something like "style modules" that completely reshape some of the fundamental assumptions made by players regarding movement, positioning, etc.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


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

Same thing. wwfan both used the term "Rule Of Two" / "Band Of Two" in his post too, adressing the same thing: Reasonably huge mentality splits back to front from player to player. The entire point of having a team mentality is/was to not have such big splits back to front [at least not as suggested in the visual cues that are in now). :D And that didn't happen back then (this was a structured team).  For a newcomer in particular, it doesn't matter. He won't understand it either way. He likely also doesn't frequent any FM forum. So merely makes his choices by gut feeling, or whatever sounds good to his from the text descriptions.

The big beef I find with this even as a long-term player is that significant changes are getting made and you may not even be made aware of them outside of this community. It's like behind closed doors somebody goes like, alright, we take this option and  rework this, tell one of your mods to spread the message and hope that it's enough. I also found this thread a fascinating read as it adresses the same topics you have now.... FM mechanics crossing over into actual football territory. However, even back then it was argued that crossover hadn't fully happened yet. In parts due to ME limitations. This still hasn't fully happened. TO an extent, we're at the same crossroards here as 6,7 years ago. This first quote wasn't specifically adressing the relative ambiguity of attacking and defensive shapes and the transitions in between the two,... but talking about the movement and positioning, it just well may have.
 

 

Yep. Agree with a lot of this. I'm in agreement with @MBarbaric that all teams should defend as if they were on fluid by default, with the ability to then manipulate width and depth. That would take care of the defensive side well as a base to then start worrying about defensive presses, triggers. 

Then attacking wise you can start to have think about the various philosophies...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 20:47, Rashidi said:

We've had this before, when the defensive side of the game was so good that people would often complain that it was too hard to score, and only a handful of users like me were saying that it was best match engine to date. That didn't last long as the game was made easier for the masses to play.  Ultimately SI did not swing in the direction of the "elitistjerks". 

Out of curiosity, which edition(s) are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had a great understanding of "fluidity" so I generally don't touch it.  Is the idea here that using "fluid" makes your strikers more likely to defend because it evens out the mentalities between defenders and strikers?

That sounds like a largely good thing, but in the current revision of the ME it may not be desirable.  Defenders are so unresponsive in this ME that you can create a lot of chances by keeping 2 strikers high and pinging long balls into the channels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/02/2018 at 14:49, RBKalle said:

Still, Deity mode is a difficulty level you can easily ignore.

Newbies or casuals can play on the lowest difficulty level to learn the mechanisms of the game before moving up, or they'd as well never move up at all.

Aye, but I can't see difficulty settings ever becoming a thing in FM (I don't count rep as a difficulty setting tbh). The joys of games like Civ or Stellaris is that you have a lot of customisation control over your difficulty levels. Sometimes I like to play a war-mongering leader, but I want challenge! I want to feel the pain! So I rack up the difficulty level and wince my way through it. And sometimes, I want to roleplay a peaceful utopia Empire, so playing on Settler with its tech bonuses and everything lets me do this. People might find it boring, but who cares? It is my game, and I'm enjoying it for the option it has presented to me, it is that option that lets me while away the hours.

 

I wouldn't object if FM did something similar to that, difficulty levels or hidden underlying boosts or whatever. As long as they're optional. Let the players who want to figure things out and be challenge have their fun. Let the ones who want to live the fantasy of being super-amazing have their fun too! I don't know if FM is set up for that level of customisation though, I'd guess not. 

 

On 27/02/2018 at 15:23, Rashidi said:

 I disagree that the world has a "common language for football", even analysts and commentators don't have a common language.

Agreed, I find it fascinating reading to see how different people interpret different roles and systems in different ways.

 

On 27/02/2018 at 21:18, RBKalle said:

Then there also are those who are doing just fine, but mostly because they've decided to bin whatever ambitious tactical project they wanted to pursue and have settled for a safer formation. Boring but practical.

 

That's me. :p I know there's underlying issues with whatever I make, I can't point my finger on what it is exactly, but I get the results, so I get to grind through each iteration as it comes. I think it ties into what Rashidi says about the common language though, some people have a vision but can't quite match it up with what they're creating, some have logic issues, some just use the wrong role when a more suitable one is available but haven't quite picked up on things etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28.2.2018 at 17:38, themadsheep2001 said:

Yep. Agree with a lot of this. I'm in agreement with @MBarbaric that all teams should defend as if they were on fluid by default, with the ability to then manipulate width and depth. That would take care of the defensive side well as a base to then start worrying about defensive presses, triggers. 

Then attacking wise you can start to have think about the various philosophies...

 


Paul can in theory tweak this under the hood accordingly to phases of play. See also how a counter attack has always triggered players to be put on maximum mentality all throughout the counter attack. upon which things were flipped back. Naturally he could also tweak the exact effect of the mentality settings, which is why it's not advisable to "have it" in the game anymore, imo. This stuff should be firmly hidden, and @MBarbaric is completely right on that too. As an aside, I personally find it curious that nobody could tell me upon enquiring how much you should and could compare the feedback in the individual player instruction screen (mentality bar) to the instructions of old iterations (mentality slider notches). As argued, there were releases where I'd never played a structure as suggested on the structured shapes, ... and my initial instinct was to go wholly fluid simply because of that when that bar was introduced by FM17. Putting defenders on like mentality 1 and attackers on 15+, spreading things like that, could lead to some bloody ugly disconnected football on older releases for sure (atop of that it would undermine picking a team mentality completely).

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok...

I'll post in this thread, despite both my general ignorance of football, and of FM (so to speak).

First, it has been a superb thread, with many comments about the "soul" of the game. 

A (small) few may recognize my nick from the Paradox Interactive fora - from 2001 to 2006 I was both a "professinal" beta tester, and to the public, an emmisary of PI to the public (ie, normal gamer folk) putting game issues in perspective - ie, Paradox have limited resources (at the time), fan requests might (while suggested as "easy" might be very "expensive" from Paradox's view) and such - especially that any feature change is likely to be "expensive" given the economic model of game development at the time. And, most importantly, that I knew the deficieinces of the game engine... I imagine that I could, by analogy, stand in for several posters, in thread, that may be constrained by NDA, or simply be unwilling to talk about deficiencies of the game. And further the "notion" of game is important. It has been mentioned previously that FM should be treated as a game - Johan, the chief architect of the EU franchise and spinoff's has always been adament that the result was gameplay first, regardless of any immersive historical bit - you can play Baden in the 1400's and conquor the world a couple houndred years later, or you can play Ipswitch Town and become a repeated CL winner and such... Neither is realistic, but both are great gameplay...

I'm a Yank and I've never played football, so, in principle I have no idea about anything that goes on in-game, let alone IRL. I love sports management games and bought FM09 in 2011'ish. I probably played the equivalent of 80-100 years in my saves, then bought FM12 in 2015 (my comp was a bit ancient and FM12 was said to be all my comp could support). I had my best save in this version, btw. A year ago, I bought FM17 (and a new PC) and had a two year save that was interesting (killed by a presumed bug that I never researched or reported). A year later I am now revisting FM...

Anyway, this was all prologue to the argument about newbies vs folk that know the game very well (which is a major theme in thread). FM is not friendly to newbies, nor are PI products. Very complex games are not friendly to newbies, and I guess that is to be expected, and that the presumption is that that newbies seek help in the forum and from FAQ's and such...

A few points in regard to newbies (or folk that struggle with the game) that are in no paricular order:

1) forgive my long experience as a software developer, but SI manages to continuously revamp their UI to make it worse. My impression from the three versions I've played is that SI creates their UI from the perspective as "coders". This is an internal criticism amongst IT folk that gifted, technical folk, don't have the faintested idea how to create an UI that works for the the folk using the software.

2) i'm new to the game. I just want to play a simple 4-4-2. Maybe I wan't to concentrate on building my squad, rather than tactics. or play some other basic formation because of the talants of my squad. The base formations in game gave me less than nothing - in FM09 or in FM12 of FM17. I should be able to select (and evaluate) tactics in game (not downloadable stuff) - like have a few variations of each basic formation. This has a side-affect of showing players a realistic formulation of a tactic.

3) coaching staff, etc. should actually be useful (like have your ass man run games). Now, I admit that this is very difficult to achieve, but still... This is the nirvana of players that want to focus on squad development (and a nice contributor to very tacticly oriented players)

4) uber-realism - i'm sure Wenger and Arsenal mangement are having an interesting time right now - would you really like to play that out? Or would you rather play FC Copenhagen to repeated CL fame?

Blah, blah, blah,...

Cheers,

State

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paradox Interactive Games are oft a bit weird. I'd actually class them "hard to get into but easy to master". But that may be shaped by a few unfortunate AI experiences, and a patch that I did not have. The first time I'd tried to get into Hearts Of Iron, I was as hapless as a puppy. Then I read the manual (which is a pretty good one, btw.) and slowly started to get the hang of it. By the time I started to get to the experimental stage, I would find that stopping the Wehrmacht from waltzing into France apparently was as easy as allocating all the ressources at the start to finishing the Maginot Line (upon which France would not be attacked). And that the Battle Of Britain basically would oft not play out as such, as for some reasons upon landing on the shores, Britain had ceased to deploy much of any units at its shores. :D Admittedly, I did not get to the level of conquering the world with Luxembourg, which according to various YouTube let's plays you can do by cheesing the AI, but yeah.

To some degree it is a good comparison to make though. To some degree it is not. Paradox Interactive Games are highly mechanized things. There is naturally randomness to the encounters, but you can put a number onto literally everything (as does the game). Units have this much attacking/defending power. Divisions precisely cost this much time to build. If FM, at least the core football simulation would ever attempt to work anything like that, it would play out like this... may be fun, but would stop to be a football management simulation game. Agree on the assistant upgrades. Question is whether SI do. That said, assistants can  take over matches already. I'd often tested what happened if I applied to a club and straight out holidayd. Then I posted some of the findings and had my inbox full of PMs, like "What'S the point of playing then?" :D Depends naturally a bit. The problem for some is, that assistants don't do the stuff typically that the exploity stuff in the download sections does. So they conclude assistants must be horrible/a complete waste in general, rather than those tactics being exploits that don't merely let you focus on squad development, but make nothing much matter. I've argued everybody who exclusively plays that way has technically never played the game -- at least, he's never needed to manage, and that's true. I've tried it. The assistants could still be massively expanded. As to the UI assessment, definitely sticks true. It's in many ways more of a coders thing. That coder language and logics needs to make the jump to football. It's arguably not purely the UI though. It's also the ME coding that needs to embrace football logics and management techniques. There's no use if somebody suggests various football concepts and the ME coding wouldn't or couldn't fully embrace it.

 

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Svenc said:

To some degree it is a good comparison to make though. To some degree it is not. Paradox Interactive Games are highly mechanized things. There is naturally randomness to the encounters, but you can put a number onto literally everything (as does the game). Units have this much attacking/defending power. Divisions precisely cost this much time to build. If FM, at least the core football simulation would ever attempt to work anything like that, it would play out like this... may be fun, but would stop to be a football management simulation game.

I have always assumed that the ME worked out similar to what you mention of PI stuff - of highly mechanized things. "Units have this much attacking/definding power" vs striker has this much jumping reach/centre back has this much jumping reach... My interpretation of ME has always been of a series of "die rolls" where technical/mental/physical attributes "conflict", modified by morale, and other bits and such. The visual (or 2D) representation being "nonsense", or better, being feedback to the human player. Though, I do not discount your point that PI stuff has overtly defined stuff where FM things are not so easily defined...

And "hard to get, but easy to master" seems quite true for FM as well. Just handle your roster management (transfers and such), and have a reasonable tactic and you will win CL a few times. Hell, I've done it a lot and I don't even know football...

Cheers,

State

edit: spelling correction

Edited by State Machine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, State Machine said:

I have always assumed that the ME worked out similar to what you mention of PI stuff - of highly mechanized things. "Units have this much attacking/definding power" vs striker has this much jumping reach/centre back has this much jumping reach... My interpretation of ME has always been of a series of "die rolls" where technical/mental/physical attributes "conflict", modified by morale, and other bits and such. The visual (or 2D) representation being "nonsense", or better, being feedback to the human player. Though, I do not discount your point that PI stuff has overtly defined stuff where FM things are not so easily defined...

Pretty much. :) If it would do such, it would stop being a football management game experience, as football is full of ambiguity. Take your dice rolls. A player may not at all go into a match with the attributes visually displayed to you fully at all -- as he also has values for his confidence, his consistency, match condition. Then there is match preparation further influencing things, as well as match events andn the run of play. Players becoming frustrated after missing shots or seeing referee decisions go against them (see also the body language feedback). Then there is the pace of play, the nature of the match event (shot in a fully packed box may be treated differently than a tap-in off a counter attack). Then you have the various roles interacting with one another in various ways, the ball physics code,... and the butterfly is in fully swing. A manager can't ever put an exact number on anything, that's not how a sports works. He develops various techniques how to get the best out of his side, and how to increase the likelyhood of winning some -- which is where the crux of this thread lies, at least on the tactical front. There's man management, squad development and media handling to consider just as well. The 2d/3d representation isn't just "nonsense" though. It's following stuff second by second, including on and off the ball movement.

A while ago Paradox had slipped that they would love to do a football management game. I'd be really curious what that would look like! Hope it would come to pass one day, as their games are quite fascinating. :thup:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/06/05/paradox-crusader-kings-2-future/

Quote

Andersson tells me there are three games he wants to make before retiring – a grand strategy game (DONE), an RPG (probably in the works) and… a football management game.

“When I was a teenager, on the C64, I made so many cool games for myself. A Ports of Gold clone, a strategy game simulating the Great Nordic War, a Formula One management game. I learned to code when I was twelve or thirteen. There was a manual for the C64 that taught Basic, and I had a friend and she had learned to code from her father and she taught me how these things worked.

“But one of the first games I made was a football manager game. As we’ve talked about before, I love Football Manager, or Championship Manager as it used to be called. There was a basic management game on the C64, very basic, and it took forever to sort the table after a round of matches. I got irritated because if your team was too good and scored too many goals in a game – I think it was seven – it would wrap back round to zero. So I coded my own football management game. This must have been before the Premier League because I called it Divison One. It must have been 1990 or 1991. I remember Blackburn were coded to be good so it must have been a long, long time ago. I even made my own window system so you could have proper windows that popped up on the C64!”

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


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

Pretty much. :) If it would do such, it would stop being a football management game experience, as football is full of ambiguity. Take your dice rolls. A player may not at all go into a match with the attributes visually displayed to you fully at all -- as he also has values for his confidence, his consistency, match condition. Then there is match preparation further influencing things, as well as match events andn the run of play. Players becoming frustrated after missing shots or seeing referee decisions go against them (see also the body language feedback). Then there is the pace of play, the nature of the match event (shot in a fully packed box may be treated differently than a tap-in off a counter attack). Then you have the various roles interacting with one another in various ways, the ball physics code,... and the butterfly is in fully swing. A manager can't ever put an exact number on anything, that's not how a sports works. He develops various techniques how to get the best out of his side, and how to increase the likelyhood of winning some -- which is where the crux of this thread lies, at least on the tactical front. There's man management, squad development and media handling to consider just as well. The 2d/3d representation isn't just "nonsense" though. It's following stuff second by second, including on and off the ball movement

Football Manager is a game made by gamers about football. It isn't a game made by football managers. I got my head around the fact that this is ultimately a game that tries to simulate human behaviour and its randomness early, so that's probably why this game is so...simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where common sense meets FM

5a9a70a9bfeda_ScreenShot2018-03-03at5_52_56PM.thumb.png.917b96f6ab917380e6629622e579cfda.png

Assume you start a game and you see this kind of a formation, what do you do? 

Personally I keep it really simple: Know what the roles do and prepare for it. 

1. DFB likely to hoof the ball up..dangerous cos its possibly to a TM
2. DCB beside the DFB, bloody double jeopardy. Gotta watch playing a high line now, there are two of them
3. Standard/Structured, Not likely to be taking too many risks passing the ball around, midfield may pass it safely but the boys at the back are gonna hoof it. And they could utilise the space for the 2 Wingers.
 

So, I need to watch my defensive line, try and keep the ball well, and target their right flank as a way in. With a FB pushing up there, there could be space behind him. All done, I went into the match, played a system and found myself struggling cos these two kept hoofing the ball up to their targetman and the winger on the left was just charging up and beating everyone by dribbling past them to score. I was not playing a game where I was applying pressure to their backline. We conceded two goals, I changed my system to apply more pressure on the backline, isolated their striker and we won 4-3. 

My shape mentality were irrelevant, how I applied pressure to their backline and forced that winger to be more defensive was the key.   I don't know, but it seemed like common sense. Make sure we press high and are able to hold our shape and defend well at the back. 

Screen Shot 2018-03-03 at 6.05.48 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-03 at 6.06.30 PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Football Manager is a game made by gamers about football. It isn't a game made by football managers. I got my head around the fact that this is ultimately a game that tries to simulate human behaviour and its randomness early, so that's probably why this game is so...simple.

To me it's that simple (or can be) in big amounts due the reasons outlined in the big post on the last page. Those "holes" talked about... and the patterns that develop off it, e.g. deeper midfielders just rarely ever much getting pressured, and so on. Due to all of this you can have a direct grip over the ebbs and flows off a match a real manager just doesn't have. There is no space on a football pitch these days, not as it exists on FM. 3 forwards just hanging their unchecked. Deep midfielders seeing little pressure. Pressing killed it. Zonal defending did. It simply does not exist. In the match engine, it always does somewhere. To me this is an ME weakness (which game AI will never find a reply to). To others, it's the point of "playing the game". You can't beat football to the point that an opposition never wins a game. Depending on the release, on FM, you could. Older ones in tendency were more robotic and predictable full stop. You also had a larger amount of direct control over players, e.g. FM 07, players acting like puppets on a string. Each ME iteration that moves away from that is an upgrade -- at least in my book. :D

AI managers that still mainly react to scorelines won't simulate the dynamics of football too. The way the Ai works: If a top sides playing an aggressive game ships a soft goal or two. Not only can't it spot/fix the problem. It would get even more aggressive, at it is desperate to get back into the game (focused on the bad scoreline) -- increasing the likelyhood of conceding on its end further. Whether that's were the game is headed long-term, no idea. :D

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah which is why in that game, i was down 2-0, saw that the AI was still using attacking fullbacks and just attacked that space, twas an epic match, with 2 goals scored in stoppage time. Personally this year, the game became even more easier with all these Scouting Reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Where common sense meets FM

5a9a70a9bfeda_ScreenShot2018-03-03at5_52_56PM.thumb.png.917b96f6ab917380e6629622e579cfda.png

Assume you start a game and you see this kind of a formation, what do you do? 

Personally I keep it really simple: Know what the roles do and prepare for it. 

1. DFB likely to hoof the ball up..dangerous cos its possibly to a TM
2. DCB beside the DFB, bloody double jeopardy. Gotta watch playing a high line now, there are two of them
3. Standard/Structured, Not likely to be taking too many risks passing the ball around, midfield may pass it safely but the boys at the back are gonna hoof it. And they could utilise the space for the 2 Wingers.
 

So, I need to watch my defensive line, try and keep the ball well, and target their right flank as a way in. With a FB pushing up there, there could be space behind him. All done, I went into the match, played a system and found myself struggling cos these two kept hoofing the ball up to their targetman and the winger on the left was just charging up and beating everyone by dribbling past them to score. I was not playing a game where I was applying pressure to their backline. We conceded two goals, I changed my system to apply more pressure on the backline, isolated their striker and we won 4-3. 

My shape mentality were irrelevant, how I applied pressure to their backline and forced that winger to be more defensive was the key.   I don't know, but it seemed like common sense. Make sure we press high and are able to hold our shape and defend well at the back. 

Screen Shot 2018-03-03 at 6.05.48 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-03 at 6.06.30 PM.png

I would use that formation against 4-4-2 any time because when your defensive midfielder has the ball, he's got about 20 yards of space due to the fact that, in FM, none of the forwards drop deep to pressure the man in possession. That's why I always use DLP there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 11:47, XaW said:

Maybe giving the user some "pre defined" tactics that at least don't have any horrible flaws and suggesting those? Not a tactic that will let the user overachieve, but at least as a good starting point? Maybe based on the level of the assistant? I'm thinking out loud here, so feel free to come up with ideas.

IMO the "mentalities" with generic roles are the pre-defined tactics. It just got less and less obvious as the tactics creator evolved over the years. Not in the least by renaming it "mentalities" (suggesting it just affects mentality), from "strategies" (suggesting something broader).

I agree though that SI seriously needs to make labels and descriptions accurate and clear. However, this has been an issue with the series since forever and they go backwards as often as they go forwards.

Edited by Farina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add my 2 cents, for me the game does feel too "elitistic" now in the way that I can't seem to get anything going like I probably could have or did in some of the older iterations. I'm not one to understand either the ME or even real-life tactics very well, yet somehow I could get a playing style to the lines of my general idea of how I'd like my team to behave on the pitch a few years back and I found this easier in the sliders era.

Nowadays, in FM 18, despite some oppinions that it's now easier because of all the information, I can't get any sort of consistency other than underperforming, at least by the standard I'd expect for the game to be fun or worthwile for me. And this even after reading a ton of stuff here. On one hand I read @Cleon doesn't micromanage half as much as people think, then there's @Rashidi who offers analysis and reactions just like the above.

I, for example, pick up the game and think, well Monza have never been to Serie A, there'd be a nice challenge and possibly a long rewarding save to get them there (currently in Serie C). Trust me, I do pre-season by the book to get fitness, tactic familiarity and morale as high as possible. All my pre-seasons are fantastic (I've done a few). Then when the actual competitive matches start it's all D-D-W - (so far so good) - L - L - L ... And that's when I realise time and time again it's just not working. I ended up playing by viewing the entire match, trying to spot things I need to change or adapt to, but this also hasn't turned out too well. And it's quite time consuming as you can imagine and even more frustrating when I realise that I might as well be playing on Key Highlights since I usually end-up with the same results anyway. Taking a side predicted to finish 15th and actually struggling to finish 15th is not the fun or the game I was looking for - I'm not actually a manager clinging to that in-game wage, I would like to get home from the actual wage-earning job IRL to blow off some steam and have some kind of fun or rewarding free time, this isn't the case with FM now.

Maybe it's just my expectations, maybe it's because I'd rather win 1-0 than 4-2 (I suppose my biggest "achievements" were some consecutive 0-0's which, having played the entire matches, were quite rewarding in the sense that they weren't lucky, the opposition really was shut-out. Obviously my side too, as we had nothing attack-wise - this with a 4-2-3-1 2DM, the one with ML, MC and MR, not the top-heavy popular one).

Bottom line, I enjoy more reading about the game now than playing it, I suppose that's quite telling.

PS (and can be edited-out if not appropriate): I've had way more fun and immersion with a certain cycling manager game - this is personal, and it's quite different (as the two sports themselves are) than FM, and the time spent with that doesn't usually end-up with disappointment or rage quits, as opposed to spending an entire weekend setting up a pre-season in FM, only to go on the proverbial losing streak.

Edited by Jebedaias
Typos and typing walls of text on tablet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm not even close to an expert as the ones you tagged, @Jebedaias, I have managed to build certain tactics that work, and a whole bunch that don't. Before FM17 I usually relied much more on player quality and transfers and development than tactics, mostly because I enjoy it more than tactical work, but also because I weren't very good with tactics. I could often make one that did "ok", but nothing more.

Towards the end of the FM17 lifecycle I realized I wanted to learn tactics better and understand the how's and why's of FM. I pulled out a pen and thought about what I wanted to do. I ended up wanting to try to emulate Klopp's Liverpool at the time (you know, before Salah and with Coutinho). I crafted what I wanted and tried to keep it simple. I only added instructions because I felt they would do what I wanted. After playing some games I felt it were good, but could be better so I posted on the tactics forum and asked if anyone had any suggestions. I got some suggestions and tried to implement the ones I felt would fit into my philosophy. And in the end I had created what I would call a very good tactic. Of course it still require some fidgeting in game, but having successfully created a good tactic gave me motivation to keep trying other tactics. While some of those have been poor and unsuccessful, it's still something I enjoy much more now. I also recreated the same tactic I had success with in FM18 and it works like a charm still.

There is one part of this game that I think should be presented better to the user, and that is why the tactic isn't working as intended. I've offered my thoughts on this a couple of places, but I might as well offer it here as well. Without having played the game quite a lot it can be hard to spot why the tactic is failing. For those who have played for a while it sometimes is easier to spot, but I think the game should be more forthcoming to the user about the erroneous tactical dispositions. Having the assistant give some contextual input could work wonders, provided the instructions are precise enough to be helpful without being the definitive answer to win everything. The balancing could prove hard here...

The other thing I could offer is that you should have realistic expectations. If the team is predicted to finish 15th and you actually finish 15th, then you have a good job. It's easy to forget that in the grander scheme of things. I've seen people post in here because they "struggle" when they in reality are fighting for the title first season with West Brom...

While this might not be very helpful for you, I would advise you to try something similar. It is very rewarding and it will help you understand the tactical part of the game better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, XaW said:

Before FM17 I usually relied much more on player quality and transfers and development than tactics, mostly because I enjoy it more than tactical work

To an extent, the "ideal" management experience allows you to overachieve via different means anyways. After all, not every top level manager is reknown for the same things -- and not even at the very top, every manager is reknown for a particular tactically "genius". Some of the labels attached to managers in the media may be cliche (the Motivator, the Wheeler Dealer, the Tinkerman). But management apart of tactics and match management is build around roughly four cornerstones: 1) squad and staff management (keeping the players happy and motivated, delegating staff accordingly) -- media handling/PR (selling the results to the public) -- squad development (improving teams on the training ground) and general transfer/contract dealings (getting the most out of the budget available). You may get away with lacking in one area, but you have to excel at least somewhere. And if you're not interested in any of those, you're probably playing the wrong kinda game :D

What can fuel into this: I think some older iterations had a --- different balance --- between player quality and tactics, albeit not necessarily in realistic ways.Some of the "Super dribblers" in the FM14/15 era for instance meant that you had to do a lot of flat out garbage to getting the top sides underperform almost all alone -- and yes I tried. Even if the likes of Hazard, Messi et all were completely left out in the cold, the moment they'd get the ball they'd run around everyone, many times a match. That naturally applied to lesser degrees across all levels and teams. However: such a touched balance too always goes two ways. If you're on the other end, the side with the inferior players, that may also mean such opposition are harder to stop... (e.g. the side predicted to finish 15th place is more likely to finish 15th place). :D

What has always fueled into this too is that long-term AI squad development is naturally not hard to surpass, so everyone tends to be that successful Wheeler Dealer / Transfer Specialst (who long-term overperforms AI on the transfer market / squad development front).

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


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

as opposed to spending an entire weekend setting up a pre-season in FM, only to go on the proverbial losing streak.

Ah, I've run into that problem far more than I care to admit.

Setting things up takes ages for me, especially so if it is a team I've never managed before and have zero knowledge of. Sometimes, even with clubs I am familiar with, it takes an age as I have to sort out the rather imbalanced staffing set ups. Manchester United for example, I think under Van Gaal had something like six fitness coaches and nothing else. Then this season their scouting staff is way over limit. And of course, you theorycraft a set up and get things ready for it, only to face a humbling realisation that your set up isn't working.

Either you try and refine it, where failure can be game-ruining enjoyment wise, or you down tools and start again, whereby you'll essentially go through the same arduous process. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stopped playing this due to over-complicated tactics creator, players don't do what you ask anyway so whats the point in it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 ora fa, speedy316 ha scritto:

Stopped playing this due to over-complicated tactics creator, players don't do what you ask anyway so whats the point in it!

It's your fault for not knowing "Counter" isn't really counter-attack, "Work ball into box" doesn't mean "play possession game" etc... ;)

Jokes aside, unfortunately FM Tactical Creator suffers from the "too many cooks spoil the broth" syndrome. There are way too many options with confusing names and vague explainations, often with little similarities with concepts commonly used in real football (and in football talk, which is where most users get their vocabulary).

So you can easily build a formation that IN NORMAL FOOTBALL TERMS makes sense, but in the TC/ME has a lot of hidden pitfalls or is simply not what you though it would be. And then you're at a loss because you don't really know how to fix it.

Edited by RBKalle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think its elitist at all.  It just needs to be seen from a different angle.   My post will now redeem S.I as I look over it, because the tactics are a very commendable part of this game.  This thread is a good discussion though. 

So, as per the OP post,  just how tactics should fit in? I think we must remember the game itself is made to appeal to a wide range of people and styles.  To that end it needs some atmosphere and agency into how it presents these things, while also being accessible to the user, and able to manipulate the side on the pitch.  But just on that I think the disconnect we're talking about as the crux of the issue (across the O.P and the thread) is perfectly good!  I am talking about the fact that this is not like NBA2k where as a game we are able to control each player.  As in life you can tell a player all day long until you are blue in the face but he needs to do it on the pitch... and so with all the permutations of stats and game-day, etc, I am 100% comfortable with where the title sits in relation to control/input/output/results/expectations, etc.  

One thing people are struggling to come to terms with who make these threads is that tactics are no longer the only thing this game has going for it.  And I used to appreciate that fact.  For mine I think people expect this ultra-realism, when in a gaming sense its NOT USEFUL to be 100% realistic.  Go play an actual game of football at the local... for mine, my attitude is even though I am not overly fond too much of the wide kicks at goal this year, and I legitimately thought the corners to goal kicks were a gross oversight, my opinion on the wide kicks just fits nicely into what I think the game does well this year: if I have not mentioned it, I will>  feedback.  And it relates to realism, for a game you need obvious feedback and indicators.   And in terms of the O.P's original intended discussion point, I will address that fact here:  some things the title does is for feedback/input=output, some for atmosphere and ambiance, and some things truly don't make sense such as the ME sounds, but the core of the game itself is great.  I would rather they push ultra realism into other areas like if you're viewing the 3d engine from the tv/box, have chatter and cheers from your support staff around you, and I wish they had better crowd noises.  THAT would do wonders for things - i.e a better sound engine... but I digress a little; the series is heading in the right direction or in the right place insomuch as its a game and it does 'gameplay' well.  I am not missing that it was poorly received this year, maybe they do need a new sound engine.  But they don't fully need a new ME from a gameplay perspective.  They will eventually, but again I digress, its in a good spot from a gameplay perspective.    

I believe the OP of the thread has misconceptions about the way they tie into the whole setup at the club.  While I actually categorically think this is the best ME ever done - well it has niggles but overall from a gameplay perspective it provides more feedback/representation than ever and is far more engaging, while its also forgiving (some may say easy, depending) it also has enough bite to mount some kind of challenge.  The flow of the game is not out of wack - at times I know I need to give the players more input on the pitch and at other times I know to just let them go about things as they see fit within the bounds of the tactics:  and anything in between... so I feel the ME and the tactics by extension are really well done; and I feel as though the descriptions of positions, etc, are well done because its not meant to be accurate as such, but rather [I can tell] to add ambiance to the game.  I don't think the reviews were able to play long enough to describe this fact about the ME for the most part, and I also think the point is missed by many who complain about the game.  

Some others have provided a definite response in this thread, I would like to think this takes a new definitive angle to add to the discussion.  So, I think like some others I can offer a unique perspective and tips because this game is far from being a plug and play tactic machine.  In fact I thoroughly enjoy myself now more than ever; the whole game feels more fluid, matches are not even something I want to skip through in any plug and play manner anymore as there was a transition the series made from playing a season in an afternoon to taking much more time.  The `18 release has been chastised in a lot of places but honestly I've been playing for years and it is probably the best ever 'overall' without a doubt; this from myself who rated for instance `17 very high.  I also play with the FLUT skin as I feel its not only more colourful but lays out its information better, of which a lot of information is better presented.  I also like to use 18's data analyst view, and I watch in 2D mainly.  

I'm from Australia so I don't know football that well really and we have a dutch coach in the national side at the last minute which pretty shows how we roll here lately; I am more at home with rugby in general, the NRL-rugby-league 13 a side sport especially since its like the number 1,2,4 and 5th most watched television matches of any type of tv program each year (and actually the closest competition in world sport so naturally I am keen on tactics), and cricket where lately we've needed to cheat and tamper with the ball it seems to make a dent in south Africa; I watch soccer occasionally but being a sports fan I of course keep up with it and tune in as well to the big events.  I am big on sport and a strategical person so I can apply this to the game.  Therefore I think some miss the point of the game - its the whole thing about football so naturally I am going to place importance on training, coaches, man management, future team list, development, etc, and not just tactics.  I've honestly never felt out of depth with the game.  

Like with rugby/NRL especially and cricket, once the team is out there, its out there and there's not too much the coach/manager can do.  Thats how I treat this game.  But I play on comprehensive or full match in 2D, and I like this years need to react.  I don't find the game difficult but I find it engaging.  

With that in mind, this is what I do surrounding that.  

- I take a holistic squad view.  I want to sort the wheat from the chaff in the squad, I need soldiers, so to speak and we need to last the season.  The first thing I do is do very high fitness pre season, get in any new coaches/convince board and then set balanced a week out from the first proper matches or whenever we get fully fit to start with.  Probably 4 friendlies, a training camp maybe, maybe an extra friendly if needed.  

- Then I actually check what the coaches say about the overall squad and I set about trying to improve our weaknesses.  Maybe I have a kind of tactic in mind, maybe I don't but one should try to strengthen the squad if possible. 

> But I set up 3 tactics to start the season with to get familiarity up ASAP.  

^ Making a tactic is not hard.  Its like any team sport thing.  You just make a tactic, ANY tactic, select from the pre defined ones, and adjust roles/duties if you must, but one should look at how the team plays the tactic.  Then who is missing passes/tackles, who is getting the ball and when, how is the team handling defence, where are the hot areas in the match analysis.  Its not like the game is difficult.  

^ But its during the match where you need to actually manage, moreso in the past couple of years.  I make use of shouts - seriously there is a decent option for most situations, and I am not shy from changing my attack/defence levels (i.e attack/control/counter, etc) as I see fit.  Sometimes when I want more flexibility I set wing backs for example on Auto and maybe one midfielder, but I want a core backbone of the team to form around.  

^ At this point it depends on what your team is like and actually what team IT IS.  My striker (and I will often just go with one striker) will change his duty depending on what the team is doing.  He may be a poacher or false nine if I think he can handle it, but if the team shape and attack/defence mentality is right for it maybe he switches to a complete forward.  

> I will use my goalie as a sweeper keeper sometimes to help the defence out.  Many goal keepers in the game can do that role fine.  I will set the goalkeeper to distribute the ball to the wing backs or central defenders, and I will try to make one of those guys a ball playing defender.  If I feel they need to hold the line because we need to be more structured I will make them (almost always) a BPD [defender] but if I feel the opposition can be exploited I will make them a [stopper].  If my defenders are not up to scratch for those duties they are simply central defenders.  Our shape will switch from fluid to flexible a fair bit but if we need to be more solid because the opposition can tear us apart maybe or pry us open too much, I will use structured.  

^^ So I see to defence first, and before defence I see to fitness.  

>> Only then do I consider the attack and for me my attack must be based on a well performing midfield where the wingers/wide players play second fiddle in the scheme of things but often (but not always) prove to be the shining lights in the team.  These can be inside forwards or wingers, depending on their abilities.  

^ Like I said, depending on how the game is going or the opposition depends on what role my strikers get.  

:: Just on that, then.  The club you play at obviously denotes what sort of setup you go with as it will determine the access to the players you want, and of course defines the players you have.  And this is where the game takes on a whole other dimension.  I always see to my defence first.  In the NRL rugby league at least [6 tackles] (and in the NFL 4 downs), and rugby union (unlimited tackles) a season is almost always defined around defence.  I am not so sure football is much different.  So if its a lower team I am not going to be making a core tactic that does anything wild, I want safe plays, and we will try to grind out wins.  By comparison to playing with a higher league team, a lower league or lesser team will literally be holding each others hand.  So they do nothing too adventurous except try to make their chances count.  They don't even want to ever try to give up the ball too depending on how leaky their defence is. 

I know the above may sound trivial but the game may be deep, and also wide however its designed so that anyone can do it.  Especially in the last few iterations.  

The key this year moreso than any other year is watching the match and adjusting depending on how things are going.  In years gone by many may have watched just key moments mostly.  Well one may need extended at least but actually comprehensive.  In terms of adjusting well the game leads you in this direction with the pre-game tactics, and the pre-game lineup screen.  Its clearly designed to sink your teeth into.  

I use the 1.9 FLUT skin so things may be slightly different, and its a skin I wish FM `19 adopted, but its colours point your eyes to the key info, and its layout is just very nice, and its (and the games) team talk screen is much improved now.  

I rarely critisize my players, but am not afriad to do so, I just don't do it too much.  I will praise them for conduct if they are moping about the place to give them a pick-me-up.  If they come to me wishing to play in the side because I left them out of the starting lineup I ALWAYS let them by saying I will start you.  You have ages to do this, and think about it - he's itching to go, he will probably perform and no matter what happens its usually a benefit in some way in performance or (less frequently) you're moving him on.  

>> If I have the side for it, obviously I want to play attacking football.  I try to balance my formations, true, but I do sometimes offset players/asymetrical and all that.  I have done many formations and a lot are perfectly viable.  I will keep my wide backs 'back' or move them up to wing backs and run with two wide wingers who I will use as inside forwards, or use one inside forward and a winger (so the formation is really a circle kinda on the pitch with just 3 central defenders and 2 central midfielders; if I think they can handle it).  And I will move my backs in a game sometimes back or forward, but I have 3 different tactics I can use... though usually I don't change formations in a game, I make the most of my pre-match analysis.  

- During a game I will pay attention to the assistant but not always.  Games are dynamic than ever so any any time maybe we need to pump the ball into the box.  I will switch from roam from position depending on the team to stay in place in team instructions, I will play it shorter if the assistant really thinks it (usually the assistant is one step ahead of you, but he is not always right as there's some dynamics/randomness/his skill involved), if I am not getting the ball up the other end and I have the team I will go more direct.  

- In regards to individual instructions, well first I have a certain team shape (formation) and structure (flexible, structured, etc) I just don't use individual instructions that much on most teams.  Lower teams moreso I use those, but depending on where the space seems to be, I may wish to get a midfielder running wider either by changing his role to Mezzaza or Carrilero, but the other midfielder would be more defensive or attacking depending on game situation/opposition.  So actually in regards to player instructions, I said I have my formation, etc as a base and an individual instruction would be to just move where and what he does with his attacks.  Sometimes as a team instruction I set run at defence - if these guys are not passing right or the opposition has us on passing, I will get them to dribble more, pass into space, etc.  I will use shorter passing as a team instruction, and if crosses are not happening I will change them up.  If we don't head well (your striker thats not his thing) they go low, they cross early, they are passing into space, and your wide players are pushing up (in an attacking formation)... 

-.... so I am pointing out - well the game kinda tells you via stats whats going on, you just have to pay attention to those as well as watch... you can see the opposition formation with a good skin/selection of menu's in the pitch-between screen... so IF a player is not performing, he's around 6.6 and the game is wearing on I will take him off since its not his day.  IRL managers do this all the time.  There's so many players in a squad as it is and you bring 5 extra to the match.  I will sub a goalie sometimes to give him some experience, and I try to blood young players if I can be allowed to do it owing to team performance.... so a lot is going on.  If my team-list is not constrained I can do that, but when it is well you must make do.  You really want to sub those positions you think will make a difference when they get into their mid-low 70's.  Sometimes I sub at half time but rarely.  I try to make 2 subs by 65-70 mins at least, and cross my fingers when I make the 3rd sub.  I will change up strikers if he's not performing sometimes; but other times I realize a striker needs time on the pitch.  

> I try to support my squad as best I can.  

^> Of course some of those things they all depend on how much the opposition is outplaying you.  If the team is truly performing well, and you will soon know by half-time, then thats great.  But sometimes you just want to adjust the attacking mentality back a bit. 

^ Because football cycles attack/defence very fast and there is always a contest for the ball you really need to be mindful that attack and defence are inextricably linked.  If we are playing more defensively then I am not going to want to open ourselves up too much depending on how the game is traveling.  Many are the times I can get players with some forsight to kick the ball up the field to a charging forward, and he breaks through to score.  Maybe that player is the wing back, or a deep midfielder, but its always nice when they see those opportunity's.  Other times its a struggle to even hold onto the ball, and it requires me to adjust the roles slightly.  

:: Currently I do not see many goals scored by crosses as I am not playing like that; but they do happen.  I have seen goals scored from free kicks, from long range, and right up close in traffic, both from myself and opposition.  It depends how you play/what players you have.  < I try to utilize pace but the different ways goals can come this year is good.  

:: If I am being out-done I will switch to hard tackling/make sure my opposition instructions are current (sometimes you just simply forget if its not on auto, etc or you want to adjust), or I go through periods where I will close down more.  But I am mindful of our stamina levels and with hard tackling being carded.  

^^ Just on that, in this years more reactive engine the opposition seems to go through smarter periods and you need to keep it tight because they rally hard.  Many are the games this year and last where its been a roller coaster ride of a game, late equalizers/wins etc.  

>> Maybe you want to pay attention to what formation the opposition uses and copy theirs.  

Of course the tactics are just one part of the puzzle now.  

In light of all that, a tactic does many things.  But if its playing to a teams strengths thats a good start.  I don't mind aiming to simply draw games and scrounge out a goal now and then, and I look at things in terms of the future.  

Even if I used Barcelona as my team I would look at things the same way.  

But the reality is, the game is designed to help or hinder you any way you like.  Set your manager up as a reasonable 'average' manager and start in the lower leagues, do whatever you like, start with a better team.  The game is designed so you are able to progress at least a little.  

No, its no fun losing every game, depends how much you want to slip into the manager's boots, but if tactics are a problem, then just play the game and get booted from the club, go to any club via an advert.  Like in real life some seasons are simply destined for the trash heap.  

In the game these days a tactic is just the middle of a long chain of things to do.  Even a good tactic will require attention on match day quite often. 

I primarily wrote this post to try and show that tactics is a big progression and focus point across a wider scope in the later versions of the game, and if they are challenging, then thats only good.  It could be something as simple as learning tactics at a different club, or buying a new player.  

I think the game shows this well that despite any managers best intentions once they are in the midst of a season anything can wrong.  I think the game displays this well.  

I dont think its elitist at all.  It just needs to be seen from a different angle.  

I have a wide variety of games/shots/possession - one recent match in a save by the time Leicester had 17 shots they had zero goals, but we had 13 shots and had 2 goals.  This is just one example but I find the stats largely match up with actual football.  There used to be a lot of talk about the ME and tactics not feeling great, but I honestly feel they do.  There's other games towards the start of the season with this new team where we had 24-30 shots and didn't score.  Simply, while the results and stats should usually be pretty close to RL across a season, this year's game/stats/variety of viable styles of play and better defence mechanics in the ME lead to a much better overall experience.  

^ And just on that point, after several seasons worth of playing this year I can say I have enjoyed it more thoroughly than ever.  My teams on these saves in the top league have finished top table, but not always first, quite often we come in top 4, maybe 3 or 2, maybe 4th.  In years gone by I could have made each and every year come out number 1 or 2.  So I think this has been a really good release and the tactics are just that bit better (or a lot really) overall given the wider variety of viable tactics you can perform during a season.  And unlike previous years to obtain such a variety you have not had to gimp the system or seek out "the wonder kids" to purchase, or try the magic formation you downloaded - not that I ever did too much beyond experimentation, but its entirely unnecessary.  I feel as though the teams are performing more or less (within the framework of the gameworld) how you would expect; and the propensity for your input as to the stats you view and make decisions upon to have an effect on outcomes is largely in line with how I would hope.  So its all a credit to the developers there despite the wider scope and more fluid/wider match engine that its still a solid simulation plus gameplay.  










 

Edited by footballmanager1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, footballmanager1234 said:

I've honestly never felt out of depth with the game.  


Purely tactically, what the game rewards at the core as such is team sports basics 101 anyway. They apply to all sports, and shouldn't be compared to anything happening in football at the top. E.g. top managers, depending on which, preparing detailed plans against each opposition -- and still only shifting the probabilities a few in their favor rather than coming up with imba stuff that decisively outwits opposition. No less also because the engine doesn't hugely support many things to begin with. Somebody inevitably always will feel out of depth, even if the game would have the balance "realistic", and playing the game "tactically" was about shifting the odds a few in your favor. I think that this place too used to be more "elitist" ten years ago. I still remember a thread where a user was complaining about the broken match engine, and nobody (including some staff due to time commitments) was prepared to take a look anymore when it was announced that the player made his side sitting deep, whilst maxing all closing down sliders. That's violating a few team sports basics right there. There was even written something about this in the print manual back then.

However, from observation it's more often simply not that people can't play the game using simple, even flawed tactics and not much doing anything. Plenty of casual users achieve plenty (see YouTube). The problem is oft that a lot of long time players are used to instant miracles and nigh infinite streaks when the game may (arguably) model inconsistency and player flaws/traits more severely -- see also my remark about super dribblers in the past. This isn't made up -- not long ago you could keep all outfield players behind the ball (FM lingo: defend duty) and boot the ball upfield to Messi. That would never work in football. He'd simply get outmuscled and disposssessed. In-game, though, it still was decent enough to keep Barca in the top four in the league. That's no longer than three/four iterations back. See also the opening poster, big, big hints here (not having played the game in 5-6 iterations).

** As an aside, I wonder how many face added struggles via easily losing the dressing room/board confidence due to picking the "wrong" manager starting reputation also. The further you go back, the less that mattered too. Aside of the club picked, it's the closest thing FM has ever had to picking a difficulty level, same goes for the attribute points you allocate, as they influence how the board treats you, same as players.

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having spent a few more (dozens ?) hours trying in vain to get something going and also reading this again, it's become quite obvious I just don't enjoy the game anymore, so I've finally decided to uninstall it and move on. Farewell FM I guess.

That being said, I'm definitely in the "too elitist" side. I don't know what it is, and although I can understand why some folks enjoy it, I simply can't play this in a way that makes it worthwile for me. Too much of a hassle, too much predictable unpredictability (if that makes any sense). And not half as addictive as it used to be. Unfortunately it does feel worse than FM 15 (which was the last one I played before this), so from where I'm standing I can't see myself being interested in the future of the series anytime soon. Like with FM 18 (which was just a momentary impulse buy), I might get an itch to try some future iteration at some point, but I'm not putting my hopes up too high. I'd rather play CM with an updated database to be honest.

Share this post


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

I'd rather play CM with an updated database to be honest.

That's the way it goes sometimes and it's okay if you feel that way too.

Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jebedaias said:

Too much of a hassle, too much predictable unpredictability (if that makes any sense).

That makes perfect sense. This dates back to "is the game too random?" threads that crop up every year. They also relate to how you view football, and where your personal tipping point is regarding how the game should model that. I don't know how you generally perform of course. But I have a theory that's why some players that either a) were used to "ME/AI breaking" tactics ever since CM or b) find the game too "random" now yearn for such an experience now too. I am not arguing you were using similar. This is about the topic of perceived randomness. As with those tactics, which are offered on these boards too, the game doesn't just become hugely easier: It stops being anything like football too much.

In football, matches are settled by the slightest of margins, key moments in what is 60 minutes of play. Using such a tactic gets rid of that. Suddenly your team (regardless of players) may have up to a 100% better shot conversion rate than the average opponent, and may score an average 2.5-4 goals per match. Football matches are mostly settled in goal margins of +1 or +2. Using such a tactic, most matches in-game stop being close to that. Additionally, if you're not following much tactical on a basic level, it can be hard  to determine what was influenced by tactics and what wasn't. Matches on FM aren't settled by just tactics at all -- not unlike football, you can win matches in sequence despite your side not creating much quality chances.  Which also come about by skill rather than anything tactical; most obvious perhaps in the more dribblings a better dribbler makes. All of this removes the big uncertainty of footbal. And turns it into something where you can be dead pan certain that at the end of the day .... you win.

Such tactics as a means of convenience have always relied on defending flaws affecting everything though. To an extent, SI may have created the first software business in the world where at least a section of its consumer base not only tolerates bugs but thrives off them :D. So that's probably not a possible way to cracking the problem. If they ever see this as an issue: The key probably really is (aside of stopping to make the UI an increasingly mentality micro tweaking puzzle): Assisstants taking over optionally, and making this so that players trust them (feedback!). As argued,  management is not about tactics, not purely about tactics... whilst a certain standard of knowledge is expected, different managers excel at different things. There is that popular theory that Klinsmann tactically wholly relied on his assistant Löw, naturally coming about how he failed at Bayern without his. Whilst that may take things a tad far, proper tactical assistants are obviously used in the game. But that assistant part is a bit of a repeat, sorry. :D

Edited by Svenc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jebedaias said:

Having spent a few more (dozens ?) hours trying in vain to get something going and also reading this again, it's become quite obvious I just don't enjoy the game anymore, so I've finally decided to uninstall it and move on. Farewell FM I guess.

That being said, I'm definitely in the "too elitist" side. I don't know what it is, and although I can understand why some folks enjoy it, I simply can't play this in a way that makes it worthwile for me. Too much of a hassle, too much predictable unpredictability (if that makes any sense). And not half as addictive as it used to be. Unfortunately it does feel worse than FM 15 (which was the last one I played before this), so from where I'm standing I can't see myself being interested in the future of the series anytime soon. Like with FM 18 (which was just a momentary impulse buy), I might get an itch to try some future iteration at some point, but I'm not putting my hopes up too high. I'd rather play CM with an updated database to be honest.

Too much of a hassle indeed. I used to think FM (or rather the old CM) was relaxing and fun. Now it's just exhausting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...