Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
herne79

No tactic* and lots of experimental shouting

Recommended Posts

Yes interesting that you see frustration as positive or negative as per context. 

I've always felt with team talks... The red or green if we assume negative/positive response isn't always how I would classify them... Similar to your shout example. However, I have always gone on the basis that regarding of the wording... The game would read green reactions as a positive and red as a negative when feeding into any 'calculations' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic initiative and great insight into shouts!

@herne79 is it possible for you to share some detailed league stats?
As in... if you have a low shots on target ratio maybe could be worth a try to add the "Work ball into box" TI, or if your team isn't creating enough chances maybe we could try adding "Be more expressive" or give some players the instruction to take more risks...

Don't get me wrong, I love the minimalistic, "vanilla" tactic and it's a fantastic starting point and it works (as you've shown), but I mainly use TI's and PI's to sort out some aspects I detect through seeing the games or analyzing the stats, and with your feedback relying solely on body language doesn't give us the feeling of what's going on on the pitch and what difficulties are you experiencing and how do you stand compared to other teams in the league ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, davidbarros2 said:

is it possible for you to share some detailed league stats?
As in... if you have a low shots on target ratio maybe could be worth a try to add the "Work ball into box" TI, or if your team isn't creating enough chances maybe we could try adding "Be more expressive" or give some players the instruction to take more risks...

Sure it's possible, but that's a whole different topic.  This thread isn't about tactical instructions as such so I don't really want to get distracted into that subject here I'm afraid.  In this particular save I'm not interested at all in TIs etc - I couldn't care less about league stats, shots on target ratios, pass completion rates et al - I'm purely focussed on letting the players play and talking to them :).

Share this post


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

Of course the shouts do something, it's just very difficult to assess exactly what and to what magnitude.  All I (or anyone else) can pass on is how we go about things and our thought processes.

btw there's no need to quote in full such long posts as it blocks threads, so I edited it out for you :thup:.

No problems will watch out for that in future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, westy8chimp said:

However, I have always gone on the basis that regarding of the wording... The game would read green reactions as a positive and red as a negative when feeding into any 'calculations' 

Technically speaking you could well be right, although only the devs would know for sure.  I'm just looking at things from a "manager's" perspective, putting a positive spin on things and assessing context.  To follow the example of "Tighten Up", I'll happily continue to use that shout in this save regardless of reactions because telling my players to tighten up at the end of a close fought match is (rightly or wrongly) the logical thing to do.

On the other hand, if I'm 4-0 up with 5 mins to go I'm not going to tell my team to tighten up.  I'll probably listen to the "we want 5" chants coming from the stands and Demand More of my players :D.

There's something else to consider as well, but I'm (dangerously) getting into speculation here: consider this - players may not like what I say to them (red body language reaction) but that may not mean they'll ignore my instruction.  So perhaps (and here's the speculation) they do actually "tighten up" and the body language reaction is just showing me they don't like doing it.  Now perhaps that's a stretch too far, but it's something interesting to consider and discuss, even if it does nothing more than add to the immersion / role play aspect.  And at the end of the day, that's kind of the point of the game - it's not an exercise in understanding calculations, it's supposed to be a simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the most demotivating posts I've ever seen on these boards.  

Share this post


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

There's something else to consider as well, but I'm (dangerously) getting into speculation here: consider this - players may not like what I say to them (red body language reaction) but that may not mean they'll ignore my instruction. 

I don't think its a stretch too far. id like to think that's how it works.. or even better - depending on player personality some will listen but be unhappy... some will refuse (maybe they are temperamental and have high flair … Taraabt!) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is great. 

It really highlights how much can be achieved by simply setting up your team with a decent formation that fits the players and then picking sensible roles for those players. We are all a little obsessed with over complicating the game and throwing all the available options at the wall. Why is there a perception that more TI's = Better?

I would name this style of play... the Zidane.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ugeine said:

This is one of the most demotivating posts I've ever seen on these boards.  

Are you referring to the post directly above yours?  The opening post?  A different one?

If you're referring to the opening post, I'm trying to show there is another set of tools available to us which is often overlooked or dismissed which could help us achieve things.  If you're referring specifically to a lack of tactical instructions, have a read of @HUNT3R's excellent post on the previous page where he discusses starting with nothing and building from there :thup:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you have a try without doing any shouts? Just vanilla + role/duty? What i mean: Is it really the shouts or properbly just a good combination of roles and duties? Interesting anyway. Properbly also a good example of how poorly some aspects of the game are thought out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Are you referring to the post directly above yours?  The opening post?  A different one?

If you're referring to the opening post, I'm trying to show there is another set of tools available to us which is often overlooked or dismissed which could help us achieve things.  If you're referring specifically to a lack of tactical instructions, have a read of @HUNT3R's excellent post on the previous page where he discusses starting with nothing and building from there :thup:.

I meant it in a humorous way, though looking back I realise that’s not immediately obvious. Sorry if it seemed a bit glib, it’s a good post and it’s given me some food for thought about how I use shouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I frequently use shouts, and one that seems to work well for me in my latest save is the 'show some passion' in the last 20 minutes of a match. It tends to be the shout that leads to the most positive feedback.

It seems counter intuitive, and the type of situation where 'concentrate' or 'demand more' might seem applicable. But by using 'show some passion' in the last twenty minutes, it can help stop your players from switching off or temporarily override players who have become complacent at a time in the match when conceding means there's not much time to get a goal back. 

Also, I find that 'concentrate' as a shout for your entire team at points where it would seem useful (you've gone two up and the've pulled one back, for instance) rarely has the desired effect, and usually ends up frustrating or overwhelming players who you're not aiming the shout at. I find it's better used on individual players in key positions  with negative body language.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ugeine said:

I meant it in a humorous way, though looking back I realise that’s not immediately obvious. Sorry if it seemed a bit glib, it’s a good post and it’s given me some food for thought about how I use shouts.

Haha ok, no worries :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest i think the game would still be better if you had to give the instructions yourself, rather than be at the mercy of the AI and the guy thats programmed the game.

Obviously, the combination of roles is important. But thatll show you either nothing, or some very basic instructions hard coded that said player will attempt in the game, along with his preferred moves.

It would be much easier if you could just pick players in positions, and tell them what to do.

Every central midfielder is a central midfielder. Just design them to do what you want them to do, without having to second guess what the programmer thinks they should do or some hard coded behaviour you dont want.

Ive heard people say the hard coding is necessary to set boundaries for the AI to operate in, not sure what that means but maybe theyre right.

 

Im going against the grain on this thread but i still think its absolutely painful that the AI cannot combat your vanilla formation and shouting. i mean its actually really silly.

Over half the roles in the game arent needed. it makes me lose respect for the game.

Share this post


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

Over half the roles in the game arent needed

Could you please explain this claim in a bit more detail?

Share this post


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

Could you please explain this claim in a bit more detail?

well, the vanilla formation is full of generic roles (that youre supposed to then design the player you want from?) which have been left empty, to leave the players to decide their own thing.

And the formation was highly successful.

So it seems like much of the hard coded behaviour wasnt needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this test is far from conclusive. There are too many factors that could affect the result such as player preffered moves, injuries, consistency attribute. Moreover, one season sample size is too small. Reload and replay the same season for 5 times and we will get a somewhat clearer picture.

Share this post


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

Technically speaking you could well be right, although only the devs would know for sure.  I'm just looking at things from a "manager's" perspective, putting a positive spin on things and assessing context.  To follow the example of "Tighten Up", I'll happily continue to use that shout in this save regardless of reactions because telling my players to tighten up at the end of a close fought match is (rightly or wrongly) the logical thing to do.

On the other hand, if I'm 4-0 up with 5 mins to go I'm not going to tell my team to tighten up.  I'll probably listen to the "we want 5" chants coming from the stands and Demand More of my players :D.

There's something else to consider as well, but I'm (dangerously) getting into speculation here: consider this - players may not like what I say to them (red body language reaction) but that may not mean they'll ignore my instruction.  So perhaps (and here's the speculation) they do actually "tighten up" and the body language reaction is just showing me they don't like doing it.  Now perhaps that's a stretch too far, but it's something interesting to consider and discuss, even if it does nothing more than add to the immersion / role play aspect.  And at the end of the day, that's kind of the point of the game - it's not an exercise in understanding calculations, it's supposed to be a simulation.

I do believe it adds to the immersion value when you ask your team to tighten up to hold on to a narrow in.  Certainly feels satisfying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:

well, the vanilla formation is full of generic roles (that youre supposed to then design the player you want from?) which have been left empty, to leave the players to decide their own thing.

And the formation was highly successful.

So it seems like much of the hard coded behaviour wasnt needed

It depends what you mean by 'not needed'

Not needed in so much as you need to use some roles in order to win games? That doesn't make any sense. Its not like Man City is thinking 'We need to play with an IWB and a Mez or we cannot possibly win the premier league' , Klopp doesn't look at Salah and think 'Damn hes playing like an Inside Forward, when I need him to play like a Raumdauter.. I can never win' 

Roles allow you to play in a certain way and give you the freedom to achieve playing styles. Its not about selecting all the buttons and then that makes you win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, russell9 said:

I think this test is far from conclusive. There are too many factors that could affect the result such as player preffered moves, injuries, consistency attribute. Moreover, one season sample size is too small. Reload and replay the same season for 5 times and we will get a somewhat clearer picture.

I don't think that this thing can be tested effectively. Even if you did that, those 5 seasons woudn't be the same simply by chance. Other clubs would over(under)achive, different trasfers, injuries etc. And if shouts have any effect, that effect is likely very, very small. Maybe sometimes doesn't have any effect at all, and when it does it is undetectable for the human eye. If this could be tested, it probably needs more sofisticated method of measuring then human eye, some softwere or something. And you would have to know what to measure. No one knows what the shouts do, in the first place.

But as I said, this is still a intriguing thread, and I'm looking forward to see how people use shouts.

Share this post


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

... There's something else to consider as well, but I'm (dangerously) getting into speculation here: consider this - players may not like what I say to them (red body language reaction) but that may not mean they'll ignore my instruction.  So perhaps (and here's the speculation) they do actually "tighten up" and the body language reaction is just showing me they don't like doing it.  Now perhaps that's a stretch too far, but it's something interesting to consider and discuss, even if it does nothing more than add to the immersion / role play aspect.  And at the end of the day, that's kind of the point of the game - it's not an exercise in understanding calculations, it's supposed to be a simulation.

 

18 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

I don't think its a stretch too far. id like to think that's how it works.. or even better - depending on player personality some will listen but be unhappy... some will refuse (maybe they are temperamental and have high flair … Taraabt!) 

I hope that it works like this ... its also similar to receiving adverse reactions when you criticise or warn a player. Although there may be an immediate adverse reaction it doesn't mean that the player doesn't take notice of the conversation and react well in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:

well, the vanilla formation is full of generic roles (that youre supposed to then design the player you want from?) which have been left empty, to leave the players to decide their own thing.

And the formation was highly successful.

So it seems like much of the hard coded behaviour wasnt needed

Only 2 CMs and AM are generic roles in Herne's setup. But apart from that, his tactic is not successful because he uses generic roles, but because he knows how to fit the players you have into an efficient tactical systems in different ways. I am sure he would create a good tactic with these same players but in a very different setup (in which maybe there would be no generic roles). So this was just one possible way of creating a tactic, not the only. And he did it for the sake of experiment. The point is, when you understand how tactics work and you know your players, creating a good tactic becomes a lot easier, as you can play around with different options, all of which can be successful.

Share this post


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

I am sure he would create a good tactic with these same players but in a very different setup (in which maybe there would be no generic roles)

Already did ;).

I understand why the term gets used, but personally I don't like the term "generic" role.  I know it stems from describing roles which don't have any set PIs, but for me a role is a role regardless of how many set PIs it has, and I'll use what I consider to be the best role available for whatever set up I happen to use.  In this particular case, there simply isn't a need for anything other than a CM or AM (not having a go at you btw ED, just explaining my thought process for others).

So for example, take the AM(s).  What are my other options there?  A playmaker role or a Shadow Striker.  But I'm using a playmaker on the wing so want to retain that sole focus and a Shadow Striker looks to run beyond the striker, which'll be difficult with an Advanced Forward.  So, perhaps change my AF to a supporting role with an SS behind?  But then what does that do to my TQ & IF on the wings, they'd probably need changing too.  And don't forget I don't really have anyone at the club capable of playing as a Shadow Striker, so why over complicate matters?  Plus with Lanzini's Traits and attributes he's quite comfortable playing a pseudo-playmaker role without actually defining him as such.  So he's an AM - not because I want a "generic" role, but because it's the best fit for what I want.

One other thing I want to mention about this "no tactical instructions" thing I started.  Whenever a Mentality gets selected, a whole bunch of tactical instructions change.  All I've done is select the middle strategy which gives me neutral settings for my tactical instructions.  So we can't ever select no tactical instructions - all I've done is not adjust them further because there is simply no need for the purposes of what I am doing:-  I don't want a possession tactic; I don't want to gegenpress; I don't want to reduce long shots; I don't want to create better quality chances; I don't want to focus my play through a particular area of the pitch; I don't want to create overloads or further influence transitions;  I don't want my defenders to mark tighter or stand off/press hard; I'm not trying to recreate a real life system.  So if I don't want any of those things, why would I change any tactical instructions away from what the chosen Mentality sets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I understand why the term gets used, but personally I don't like the term "generic" role.  I know it stems from describing roles which don't have any set PIs, but for me a role is a role regardless of how many set PIs it has, and I'll use what I consider to be the best role available for whatever set up I happen to use.  In this particular case, there simply isn't a need for anything other than a CM or AM (not having a go at you btw ED, just explaining my thought process for others).

So for example, take the AM(s).  What are my other options there?  A playmaker role or a Shadow Striker.  But I'm using a playmaker on the wing so want to retain that sole focus and a Shadow Striker looks to run beyond the striker, which'll be difficult with an Advanced Forward.  So, perhaps change my AF to a supporting role with an SS behind?  But then what does that do to my TQ & IF on the wings, they'd probably need changing too.  And don't forget I don't really have anyone at the club capable of playing as a Shadow Striker, so why over complicate matters?  Plus with Lanzini's Traits and attributes he's quite comfortable playing a pseudo-playmaker role without actually defining him as such.  So he's an AM - not because I want a "generic" role, but because it's the best fit for what I want.

One other thing I want to mention about this "no tactical instructions" thing I started.  Whenever a Mentality gets selected, a whole bunch of tactical instructions change.  All I've done is select the middle strategy which gives me neutral settings for my tactical instructions.  So we can't ever select no tactical instructions - all I've done is not adjust them further because there is simply no need for the purposes of what I am doing:-  I don't want a possession tactic; I don't want to gegenpress; I don't want to reduce long shots; I don't want to create better quality chances; I don't want to focus my play through a particular area of the pitch; I don't want to create overloads or further influence transitions;  I don't want my defenders to mark tighter or stand off/press hard; I'm not trying to recreate a real life system.  So if I don't want any of those things, why would I change any tactical instructions away from what the chosen Mentality sets?

All this makes perfect sense, and I fully understand what you mean :thup: 

 

9 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Which, on the flip side, created a sort of "problem" - people who rushed to simply copy-paste your tiki-taka tactic (as if it was plug-and-play), instead of looking to understand its principles and adapting them to their respective teams's strengths and weaknesses. I hope it won't be the case with this thread/tactic. Because, as you said above, "context is everything" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

Which, on the flip side, created a sort of "problem" - people who rushed to simply copy-paste your tiki-taka tactic (as if it was plug-and-play), instead of looking to understand its principles and adapting them to their respective teams's strengths and weaknesses. I hope it won't be the case with this thread/tactic. Because, as you said above, "context is everything" :)

Interesting comment because according to the circles the CM(d) and T(a) don't seem to be particularly suited to their respective roles. :)

Edited by Hovis Dexter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't always work

We're away at fierce local rivals, Spurs.  The fans will be up for it, I certainly am (my wife and twin brother are real life Spurs fans), so I want to make sure my players know what's on the line:

I passionately tell them to go out and give the fans something to cheer.

DObvYpW.png

C42xaHQ.png

Good.  They understand.

On 10 mins we have a goal ruled out.  I don't know why - it went to VAR, the VAR replay didn't appear, no message was given and the game simply carried on. :rolleyes:

Anyway, half an hour in and the game is delicately balanced.  Nobody really has the upper hand so I shout some encouragement:

Yvpf70z.png

Perhaps Maxi would like to talk it over?  And then before we can, Spurs go and score :mad:.  Ugh.

Nearing half time I decide to be demanding - c'mon boys you're better than this:

LFIGdkS.png

And apparently they agree.  Well, except Maxi...

1-0 down at half time and I'm not happy.  I let my players have it with both barrels, demanding they show me something else in the second half:

ylxVQMa.png

ugvPtZN.png

They seemed to get the message :thup:.

Note - if I'm losing at half time I usually have a vent.  Perhaps encouragement would sometimes be better, but against fierce local rivals?  Either way I don't like losing to Spurs.

And just to make sure they're fully aware, I get all demanding again when they get back onto the pitch:

ASlFwrM.png

And sure enough, 5 minutes later in the 52nd minute Spurs score their second.  Bugger.  This time I offer some encouragement:

cccB78Y.png

Thanks for turning up Maxi...

On the hour I make a couple of substitutions but I fear it's not going to be my day:

AUS8rw8.png

And with 15 minutes to go I remind my players I still expect to see some passion in the derby game:

zZKan9C.png

Looks like Donny's been having a chat with Maxi...

Anyway, 5 minutes later Spurs score their 3rd and it's game over.  One final shout to push my players forward but they're not having it:

p3LE1vC.png

Heads have dropped, time to go home :(.  One final shout at my players to tell them they've got extra training to look forward to makes me feel better (it doesn't really, I just lost 3-0 to Spurs.  Nothing makes up for that).  At least they seem happy at the prospect:

mN5g51j.png

So Spurs had a good day, we had an off day,  It happens.  Usually I'd have made tactical changes of course, but that's not on the cards here.

Lessons I'm learning from this are perhaps less is sometimes more.  Maybe if my player's body language is positive there's not always a need for me to say anything?  If I have a good reaction at half time, why say anything more when they get back on the pitch?  It's perhaps unlikely any amount of shouting would have had much of an influence on the result, but it's certainly food for thought.  I also clearly upset my main striker early doors - and he did miss a couple of good chances after that - so again something to ponder.  All good stuff though :D.

Except the result.

full time 2.png

Share this post


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

Interesting comment because according to the circles the CM(d) and T(a) don't seem to be particularly suited to their respective roles. :)

Good job I never look at the circles then :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/06/2019 at 22:33, FMunderachiever said:

A clearly defined style of play should get you to third (POSSIBLY) as West Ham. You should have to do something massively unbelieveable to finish 3rd. 

Not picking generic roles with no instructions at all and finishing 3rd.

Your players should be worse than half the league. So they should be also worse at making decisions, positioning themselves, passing, making space, etc etc etc

Exactly. Putting a balanced tactic and playing to the strengths of the players should be the bare minimum for the professional managers the game is supposed to be simulating. Giving Zabaleta a defensive duty isn't exactly rocket science.  It shows, more than anything else, that the AI isn't getting the roles right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would point out that West Ham have some very good players in FM19. 3rd is very good but not beyond the realm of realism given who they bought 

Share this post


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

Interesting comment because according to the circles the CM(d) and T(a) don't seem to be particularly suited to their respective roles. :)

Circles don't matter as long as the player has the right attributes and traits for the role.

Share this post


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

Lessons I'm learning from this are perhaps less is sometimes more.

This has always been my take  on shouts; a well-aimed comment here and there, rather than repeatedly.

Purely speculation, but I have always assumed there is some control - let's call it a 'timer' for sake of description - that proportionately increases/lessens the effectiveness of a shout the less/more it is used. Whether that applies to each shout individually or all shouts, unknown. That follows on from the logic I use to approach team talks; the more a certain talk is used > the less effective it can become > variety and timing is key.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, herne79 said:

Good job I never look at the circles then :D.

So get rid of the circles then, theyre clearly irrelevant.

Get rid of everything thats irrelevant out of the game

You cant say they have any useful purpose in the game, and then say that you ignore them.

And no one plays a game this complicated if they cant work out from real football what someones usual role in a team is.

MAYBE it might help if youre managing in China or somewhere and you dont know any of your players. thats it

Edited by FMunderachiever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, AndySummers said:

This has always been my take  on shouts; a well-aimed comment here and there, rather than repeatedly.

Purely speculation, but I have always assumed there is some control - let's call it a 'timer' for sake of description - that proportionately increases/lessens the effectiveness of a shout the less/more it is used. Whether that applies to each shout individually or all shouts, unknown. That follows on from the logic I use to approach team talks; the more a certain talk is used > the less effective it can become > variety and timing is key.

I’m pretty sure this also applies to team talks. I’ve noticed repeatedly using the same team talk every game seems to have less effect. 

Usually I use ‘ have faith’ for personal talks and it always produces a positive result.. until it stops doing that 

Share this post


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

Interesting comment because according to the circles the CM(d) and T(a) don't seem to be particularly suited to their respective roles. :)

 

1 hour ago, Experienced Defender said:

Circles don't matter as long as the player has the right attributes and traits for the role.

Agree ... my long standing gripe that the circles should matter otherwise they are worse than useless in that they are misleading. As @FMunderachiever said get rid of them if they are irrelevant or, preferably, make the work correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I just feel what this thread demonstrates is for casual players or beginners, or even regular players who just cant get it all together, there are too many things on the game that are leading them into needless blind allies.

A new player is going to, very logically, want a screen full of green pies and a pitch map without any red on it. Theyll perceive that as meaning their tactic is well balanced when of course it wont be.

Theyll then think ok im west ham. So im going to need to pass a certain way, defend a certain way, transition a certain way. Thats what a manager would do for real. Unless he had the most supremely gifted players of a like the world has never seen which west ham clearly dont.

Youre playing the role of a football clubs manager. The prematch briefings, training methods, instructions you give to players should all matter MORE (imo) than the absolute basics of a logical formation and roles.

A logical formation is bare minimum. Like evo stik league minimum. That should make you sort of roughly achieve about what youre predicted and is realistic

A football clubs manager doesnt just stand there idly letting all his players and staff decide what they want to do, whether theres behaviours programmed into the game or not.

And if you choose to do that in the game then you shouldnt be rewarded by finishing 3rd.

Its like a driving simulator with all the driving aids on. Why would i turn them all off if i can go quicker with them on?

I can let the game decide for me and win? Makes no sense to me.

Neither does the fact that AI klopp, guardiola, mourinho, pochettino, benitez etc etc etc cant figure you out on a regular basis

Edited by FMunderachiever

Share this post


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

I just feel what this thread demonstrates is for casual players or beginners, or even regular players who just cant get it all together, there are too many things on the game that are leading them into needless blind allies.

A new player is going to, very logically, want a screen full of green pies and a pitch map without any red on it. Theyll perceive that as meaning their tactic is well balanced when of course it wont be.

+2 ... well said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think this thread needs to lead on to another about creating simple, logical tactics.

Edited by Southern Buddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/06/2019 at 17:42, herne79 said:

I've been having a little experiment and playing around with using Touchline Shouts with no tactical instructions*.

* No tactical instructions here means no TIs, PIs or OIs used and Mentality left on Balanced.

All I've done is pick a team, a formation and thrown together some player roles & duties.  Then during matches I just use touchline shouts, no other changes (apart from subs).  I've never done this before so I wanted to see two things:

1) The effect of using no TIs, PIs or OIs.  I want to leave things as "vanilla" as possible without bogging players down with tactical instructions.  In other words, I give them the framework (Mentality, formation and roles) and then let them get on with things.  I have no tactical style in mind (a primary reason for using TIs etc) and want to remove (as far as possible) any outside influence which may distract my players.  I want to focus on the players as much as possible.

2) What happens when using the shouts?  Does it do anything?  It would be even harder to gauge this if I threw a bunch of TIs at my team or made constant tactical changes during the course of a match.

My Setup

I wanted to use a mid-table predicted team.  So I should expect to see some close matches against similar teams, some (hopefully) easier matches against the relegation candidates and tougher matches against the top teams.  I want a variety of different levels of match, which I wouldn't get if I went with a top or bottom club.  This is also why I chose to go with the Balanced mentality.  So I chose West Ham.  Yes I'm fan, but I'm also pretty familiar with the players which helps me set things up.

oEGrXgl.png

That's literally it.  The only slight tactical change I sometimes made was changing the AF for a Poacher, but that was rare.

So my goal was nothing more than achieving my start of season objective (9th place).  With West Ham I can win the Premier league first season if I set up a certain style of play using the tactical creator and mess around with things during matches, but here I'm not doing any of that so all I want to do is finish at worst 9th.  Going forward, the plan is to gradually improve the players at the club - so improvements in league position would come from better players rather than my tactical genius (*ahem*).  Here's how I did at the end of season one:

dDDnlPE.png

I finished 3rd, which surprised me no end tbh.  I know a "no  (or few) tactical instructions" approach can still produce good results if the player roles & duties are well defined, but the interesting part here for me is the impact of in-match touchline shouts.  I never use them and to be fair it's hard to decipher just what impact they actually do have - it might be nothing more than a placebo - but having used them all season, seen the player's reactions to them (not always positive btw) and the results, it's hard to discount their effect.

I've just finished the first season and going through some squad building.  Moise Kean and Donny van de Beek for 20m and 15m respectively lol (Juve and Ajax must be mad) along with Jack Butland in goal also for 15m will do nicely.  So once I start playing matches again I'll go through in more detail (with examples) of how I've been using the shouts.

I have to say, season one was pretty interesting and a bit of an eye opener.

I'm curious how well your players fared in terms of goals and assists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The green circles aren't misleading or useless. They tell you the position the player is most comfortable in (according to the game)... Playing the player in an unfamiliar position can affect their morale (they might ask to be played in their preferred position)... It will affect their attributes as some CA will be absorbed by learning new position (this may be outdated info) and at a guess it possible contributes to their consistency. 

I personally ignore them and a lot of us do... Which is fine, but ultimately there is a purpose to them and a cost for ignoring them. I'm willing to pay the cost if I've got a player with the right stats to fill a different position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Circles don't matter as long as the player has the right attributes and traits for the role.

Sorry to go on a tangent, but could anyone elaborate on this? Is this an absolute known fact? It would follow what I was starting to believe, but I always have a nagging feeling I'm not maximizing my chances somehow if I choose a player who isn't green for a particular position/role. 

 

(This is a great thread, by the way. Appreciate OP and everyone's constructive comments!)

Edited by puma2442

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:

So get rid of the circles then, theyre clearly irrelevant.

Get rid of everything thats irrelevant out of the game

You cant say they have any useful purpose in the game, and then say that you ignore them.

Me saying that I don't use them is nowhere near the same thing as saying they're irrelevant or that they have no purpose.

Green circles are guide - a starting point - especially for new or inexperienced players of the game who don't know where to start.  It gives them an indication of "oh, that player may be good for this role, lets try it out".

So yes, I can say they have a useful purpose in the game even if I ignore them, because I don't write things just from my own perspective.

13 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:

I just feel what this thread demonstrates is for casual players or beginners, or even regular players who just cant get it all together, there are too many things on the game that are leading them into needless blind allies.

A new player is going to, very logically, want a screen full of green pies and a pitch map without any red on it. Theyll perceive that as meaning their tactic is well balanced when of course it wont be.

Theyll then think ok im west ham. So im going to need to pass a certain way, defend a certain way, transition a certain way. Thats what a manager would do for real. Unless he had the most supremely gifted players of a like the world has never seen which west ham clearly dont.

Youre playing the role of a football clubs manager. The prematch briefings, training methods, instructions you give to players should all matter MORE (imo) than the absolute basics of a logical formation and roles.

A logical formation is bare minimum. Like evo stik league minimum. That should make you sort of roughly achieve about what youre predicted and is realistic

A football clubs manager doesnt just stand there idly letting all his players and staff decide what they want to do, whether theres behaviours programmed into the game or not.

And if you choose to do that in the game then you shouldnt be rewarded by finishing 3rd.

Its like a driving simulator with all the driving aids on. Why would i turn them all off if i can go quicker with them on?

I can let the game decide for me and win? Makes no sense to me.

Neither does the fact that AI klopp, guardiola, mourinho, pochettino, benitez etc etc etc cant figure you out on a regular basis

I really don't think you are reading things properly and taking them in.  You seem to have this real bee in your bonnet that what I'm doing shouldn't be possible just because I'm not using a heap of tactical instructions.  And yet I've already explained that the roles and duties aren't just "splaffed" together; already explained that choosing the Balanced Mentality (indeed any Mentality) adjusts and sets a whole host of tactical instructions; already explained what further adjusting tactical instructions is actually for; and explained why - in this particular set up - I don't want or need to do that.  And @HUNT3R has also very eloquently explained why starting from nothing and building from there can be an excellent way to go.

So when you say:  "A football clubs manager doesnt just stand there idly letting all his players and staff decide what they want to do, whether theres behaviours programmed into the game or not" the only place that is happening in this thread is in your own head.  I'm not just standing idly by because I've thought about what I want to do and told my players how to go about doing it.  My only idleness comes from not adapting my tactical system from match to match - I could have easily beaten Spurs in that game I highlighted above if I'd mucked around with my tactics but I chose not to for the purposes of this experiment.  But I still wasn't completely idle because I had told them how I want them to play and then spent 90 minutes shouting from the touchline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite into my fitness and gym life... when I'm not playing FM, and these conversations remind me quite a bit of the way people talk about fitness and nutrition. A lot of people get over obsessed with the details at the edges and don't get the fundamentals right. So for instance a lot of people over obsess with what time of day they are eating food (after 6pm etc) and ignore the fact that they don't pay attention to their calories. But Calories are the first thing you need to be making sure are in check. There is a useful pyramid diagram that sums it up:

Nutrition+Pyramid.png?format=1500w

 

I think in some ways FM tactic building is a lot like this. Too often there is obsession with what PI's individual players have selected, and not really paying attention to the fundamentals like what is the overall formation, what mentality are they using, what is the split of mentalities across the team in midfield.

I don't know what a FM diagram would look like, but I guess it would have 'good players' at the bottom, then formation, mentality, roles.. then right at the top it would be stuff like 'is my striker an AF or PF?' 

I'm sure there is an idea for this to be done to better explain how to think about tactics in there somewhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, puma2442 said:

Sorry to go on a tangent, but could anyone elaborate on this? Is this an absolute known fact? It would follow what I was starting to believe, but I always have a nagging feeling I'm not maximizing my chances somehow if I choose a player who isn't green for a particular position/role. 

 

(This is a great thread, by the way. Appreciate OP and everyone's constructive comments!)

The pie circles are designed as a starting point and guide.  It's the game (your Assistant Manager) giving you advice that Pogba won't be very comfortable playing out wide as a Winger but will be more comfortable having a central midfield role.  If you're new or inexperienced with the game these in game "guides" can be a good starter for ten to help you understand how player attributes can impact player roles.

I say it's a guide because as you become more experienced with using the game you can start to use player attributes to your advantage to get roles to play out in different ways.  I always use the Trequartista as an example here - in game, the role description would have you believe he's your flair player who just floats around doing nothing defensively but is a genius in attack.  And if you use a player with little Determination and Work Rate that'd be true.  But use a player with a lot of Determination and Work Rate instead and he'll play the role in a different manner.  Roles define the framework, the player paints the picture.

Share this post


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

Giving Zabaleta a defensive duty isn't exactly rocket science.

And yet for a whole host of new or inexperienced managers it kind of is, as many people simply don't put these things together.

I'll also mention that using a Wingback (defend) in this system isn't just because I have Zaba in the team.  I use this role and duty regardless of who the player is because it's suited to my system.  When I come to replace Zaba (at the end of this season) that player will still be given the WB(d) role/duty - so I therefore need to make sure I do not employ a player who has the "Gets Forward Often" Trait.  Again, not rocket science to you or I perhaps, but a large number of people wouldn't consider that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

stated the obvious. deleted

Edited by Hovis Dexter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Just now, herne79 said:

Me saying that I don't use them is nowhere near the same thing as saying they're irrelevant or that they have no purpose.

Green circles are guide - a starting point - especially for new or inexperienced players of the game who don't know where to start.  It gives them an indication of "oh, that player may be good for this role, lets try it out".

So yes, I can say they have a useful purpose in the game even if I ignore them, because I don't write things just from my own perspective.

I really don't think you are reading things properly and taking them in.  You seem to have this real bee in your bonnet that what I'm doing shouldn't be possible just because I'm not using a heap of tactical instructions.  And yet I've already explained that the roles and duties aren't just "splaffed" together; already explained that choosing the Balanced Mentality (indeed any Mentality) adjusts and sets a whole host of tactical instructions; already explained what further adjusting tactical instructions is actually for; and explained why - in this particular set up - I don't want or need to do that.  And @HUNT3R has also very eloquently explained why starting from nothing and building from there can be an excellent way to go.

So when you say:  "A football clubs manager doesnt just stand there idly letting all his players and staff decide what they want to do, whether theres behaviours programmed into the game or not" the only place that is happening in this thread is in your own head.  I'm not just standing idly by because I've thought about what I want to do and told my players how to go about doing it.  My only idleness comes from not adapting my tactical system from match to match - I could have easily beaten Spurs in that game I highlighted above if I'd mucked around with my tactics but I chose not to for the purposes of this experiment.  But I still wasn't completely idle because I had told them how I want them to play and then spent 90 minutes shouting from the touchline.

Ok, so there are a gazillion little instructions built in that we cant see. I get that. 

My gripe is this:

1) the game is engineered to be a huge immersive experience, with an enormous array of roles, duties, and instructions. 

To many people who are not you, this array of options is mesmerising, baffling and gives the impression players need to micromanage everything.

Loads of people would be better at the game but the game itself is diverting them away from success into cul de sacs

And by NOT micromanaging surely this is taking away the point of the game? If you can come up with a good tactic just by thinking about positions and roles which id guess most people can, and then not touch it and just shout all season and finish 3rd, its kind of.... yeah i finished 3rd on a highly in depth game using 10% of the game.

2) The "bee in my bonnet" is that youre the manager of mid table poxy west ham. Youre supposedly coming up against the best managers in the world who the AI is controlling and they cant on a regular basis figure your basic tactic out despite those teams having the better players.

Youre letting your own players figure out how to beat their opponents who are mostly equal to or better than you, yet they cant do the same back to you and theyre TRYING to beat you, not just run an experiment deliberately changing nothing.

You do have a logical tactic and the roles are good. Great. And yet the supposedly best in the world AI managers cant adapt to your never changing tactic? Like WHAT?

Im comparing what you did to a similar club like Leicester City who won the league.

To do that they had tactics that were hard to stop and an extremely well schooled shape. Every player had clearly visible playing traits to make that happen.

But in real life, teams begun to adapt to it and they have returned to normal.

3) what is the point in giving an inexperienced player a base tactic as a starting point and already programming errors into it and lots of instructions? What is the point?

99% of people arent going to be so stupid as to think yes hmmm im managing Port Vale so what im going to do is choose the highly intracate tiki taka with registas and raumdeuters.

But they probably WOULD choose a  more simple base like wing play or direct counter attack, and these will have loads of instructions built in, then theyll have to figure what it all does, then turn ones off that "should" go with that approach etc etc.

Its messy and its utterly needless. Theyre being set up to fail.

Its the weirdest thread ive ever read. It partly wants to make me congratulate your ability to make neat tactics, and partly makes me think the game really is bobbins.

Edited by FMunderachiever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, herne79 said:

The pie circles are designed as a starting point and guide.  It's the game (your Assistant Manager) giving you advice that Pogba won't be very comfortable playing out wide as a Winger but will be more comfortable having a central midfield role.  If you're new or inexperienced with the game these in game "guides" can be a good starter for ten to help you understand how player attributes can impact player roles.

I say it's a guide because as you become more experienced with using the game you can start to use player attributes to your advantage to get roles to play out in different ways.  I always use the Trequartista as an example here - in game, the role description would have you believe he's your flair player who just floats around doing nothing defensively but is a genius in attack.  And if you use a player with little Determination and Work Rate that'd be true.  But use a player with a lot of Determination and Work Rate instead and he'll play the role in a different manner.  Roles define the framework, the player paints the picture.

Who is going to play Pogba as a winger??? That would be like playing Douglas Costa in centre midfield when hes obviously a winger. This is a football management game, not sonic the hedgehog. It implies youre already going to have an interest in football to pick the game up.

The reason the pies will screw people up is because theyll build a tactic and their tactic WOULD function brilliantly if they left Pogba as a yellow half pie.

But then theyll thing hang on. Hes Pogba..... ive watched him play a lot and hes my main man. He kind of plays this way and i want him to do this....

But the game says hes a half yellow pie doing that. So theyll think, hes Pogba i need him in there.

So theyll not use the half yellow pie role and build around giving him a green pie. Same with the next key player and the other key player.

Because logically, full green pie = player will be super comfortable and play that role brilliantly.

And hey presto, by being logical with info presented, their tactic is now ruined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

Ok, so there are a gazillion little instructions built in that we cant see. I get that. 

You can see them.  They're in the Team Instructions and Player Instructions user interfaces.

9 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

what is the point in giving an inexperienced player a base tactic as a starting point and already programming errors into it and lots of instructions? What is the point?

Programming errors?  More like "one tactic doesn't fit all".  The default tactics newly arrived in game for FM19 are just an indication of how someone may be able to go about setting up a certain system.  Some of these base tactics are better than others and require less tinkering.  There's certainly room for improvement though and I'd expect to see updates for FM20.

5 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

Who is going to play Pogba as a winger??? That would be like playing Douglas Costa in centre midfield when hes obviously a winger.

I was exaggerating to demonstrate a point.

8 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

The reason the pies will may screw people up is because theyll build a tactic and their tactic WOULD could function brilliantly if they left Pogba as a yellow half pie, just as it could function brilliantly if they left Pogba as a green full pie.

Fixed that for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...