sliders in FM

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

This is really random, at such an hour too, but anyhow. I really dont know why FM still has sliders in, its good that they are 'seen' less with the new tactics module in FM12, but my issue is with sliders that have several or more 'clicks' on that really shouldnt have that many on.

There should be less options because thats what it is like in real life, and thats what SI are trying to do, make it as life like as possible, right? A real life manager wouldnt say to a player i want you to have a mentality of x/20 for example. Or however many.... which brings up another point of, why does 'mentality' have the effect on where a player passes the ball (forwards or backwards)? I read a random forum topic about if a player has a high mentality setting he will shoot not pass to a player behind him to score. And i can confirm that happens a hell of a lot. I always thought that kind of thing was down to a players decision making stat, and possibly creativity, and teamwork in the mix to boot, not mentality. Going forward in general is mentality, how much you want to try to score or defend, not a decision on passing or shooting. It makes the ME make the players out to be greedier(or stupider) than they are supposed to be on paper (screen, lol).

Furthermore to this is the speed of play. I know the basic idea around direct passing is equal to a quick passing tempo, but it is possible to play a quick style of play knocking short passes around playing some attractive football - But that isnt depicted in the tactical set-up for whatever reason. Yeah you can select quick tempo and short passing but we're told by SI that direct football goes hand in hand with a fast tempo and vice versa. What is really meant by 'tempo' is how many passes it takes to try to get from A to B. But thats not really the 'tempo' of your play now is it? Its really quite self-confused. Ive never tried putting short passing on with high tempo just incase the ME goes kaput....

[kepap]

quick tempo and short passing definitely works if you have the players for it. as for the sliders, I think that's due to the match engine ultimately being just a bunch of code. it's very hard to make it truly dynamic and probably beyond SI´s resources.

[BiggusD]

The pre-set roles in FM are unrealistic too. A poacher, for example, doesn't dribble a lot. He poaches... that is, he is lurking around the box hoping to pick up passes or crosses.

Besides, the roles are just interpretations of the sliders. I can't think of a non-numerical way to communicate what you want your players to do in the ME, and "sliders" are just a visual representation of that. Even if you got to choose between "very attacking, attacking, slightly attacking, normal, slightly defensive, defensive and very defensive" it would just be a 7-point visual representation of numerical input rather than a 20-point one, and how is that better?

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

Its better because it becomes less complicated in a way that doesnt need to be. Things cant go 'wrong' in a tactically confused manner all because damn sliders are so accurate and could upset a balance with others in a tactic. Its not realistic so would be better in a simulation of real life orders. I mean hey, id love to be on the training ground or dressing room where a real life manager is trying to get the players to understand a multiple slider range of certain aspects of play. Yes, its a visual representation, but what im merely saying is that there are simply too many clicks for most items. Alot of the football is down to a players decisions, and/or their training, I.e you could have a regime working on certain build up moves on a tactical pitch. Now that would be fun and realistic....

It may even be less complicated for the ME also, so making it better for everyone, and hopefully less bugs

[spankie]

I don't think it would go down well with the natives if the sliders were removed from tactics. Did you see the excrement storm raised by SI changing the training in FM13 so that people don't have access to the sliders?

That would be a 100x worse with the tactics.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

Im not necessarily saying sliders be removed, just made more realistically 'simpler' ie less clicks.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

And this is coming from a very good FM player. I am tactically good. I am one who wants saves to be harder. Particularly sorting out longterm issues. So im not a moaner wanting the game to be easier if that is gonna come up soon. I just dont think the current tactical setup is realistic in any way, shape, or form

[andyinuk]

The slider are not an exact replication of a manager's action in real life. Rather, it's a way to interpret what a manager would do when he set out his team to play. He may not tell his midfielder to have a 10 notches of dribble and 7 notches of passing. Instead, it is an interpretation to what a manager would have done to get his midfielder to play it at that style. The fine tuning of the sliders, are basically what the manager would do to fine tune his player's would-be action either via instruction or any other means (hair dryer perhaps, or white board diagram, or a nursery rhythm)

[x42bn6]

Sliders are nothing more than an "abstraction" of "focus" to some extent. So when Sir Alex tells Valencia to start tracking back more aggressively to protect a lead, say, he is effectively telling Valencia to reduce his offensive mentality and increase the rate at which he closes down (amongst other things). It just so happens that the latter can be well-represented by sliders, by dropping mentality and increasing closing-down. An alternative abstraction might be, say, numbers, where the user enters numbers. Of course, this is probably more fiddly.

However, the argument for tactics is that instead of mimicing Sir Alex's instructions to the letter by adjusting sliders, the game should be able to give the user a way of "saying" "protect your flank more to protect the lead", and the underlying mechanics will have the same effect.

However, human language is pretty vague and in a lot of ways, there may come a time when you cannot really express what you want to do in words, and need to resort to more precise instructions. Or you are Marcelo Bielsa and a control freak to the nearest millimetre in terms of player positioning. This is where sliders, or some form of "custom, precise UI" comes in, where you can tinker in more detail.

Is it more or less realistic? Bielsa goes down to that level of detail during drills in training. Bielsa is, of course, one of a kind, but then again, you have to take into account that top-level training and tactics are extremely sophisticated nowadays, and that a lot of attention is paid to these things, so very "niche" tactics can indeed be possible.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

And this is coming from a very good FM player. I am tactically good. I am one who wants saves to be harder. Particularly sorting out longterm issues. So im not a moaner wanting the game to be easier if that is gonna come up soon. I just dont think the current tactical setup is realistic in any way, shape, or form

You are absolutely right, it's a computer game. I used to find this "realism" argument funny, but it has become as boring as FM press conferences. I just wish people could come up with something more unique when they don't like the way a feature works.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

One cant be unique about how a feature doesnt work, when it hasnt worked for so long.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

All a manager can do from the touch line is to give the player/s a few words to say where he wants them etc. And players dont always do exactly what a manager has told/hasnt interpretated it correctly. It happens. That little bit of leeway for error of player judgement should possibly be in the game, rather than have so many fine minute detail of preciseness about it.

And im not stupid. Its an interface. The tactical part of the game has to be put across in some way. Im not saying the sliders themselves, just to reiterate myself, are wrong. Just the actual high number of SOME of them. Theres also a lack of 'moves' that you train players to do. Theres no part of the tactics or training module at the minute where you want players to be in differing open-play situations, alla set-piece instructions. Wouldnt it be cool to make up little counter attacking moves or little triangles of play....or is that just me?

[BiggusD]

Its better because it becomes less complicated in a way that doesnt need to be. Things cant go 'wrong' in a tactically confused manner all because damn sliders are so accurate and could upset a balance with others in a tactic. Its not realistic so would be better in a simulation of real life orders. I mean hey, id love to be on the training ground or dressing room where a real life manager is trying to get the players to understand a multiple slider range of certain aspects of play. Yes, its a visual representation, but what im merely saying is that there are simply too many clicks for most items. Alot of the football is down to a players decisions, and/or their training, I.e you could have a regime working on certain build up moves on a tactical pitch. Now that would be fun and realistic....

It may even be less complicated for the ME also, so making it better for everyone, and hopefully less bugs

I agree that the current slider system is unrealistic and a bit tedious to figure out, although I don't mind testing "click by click" when creating tactics.

However, let's take your suggestion to the extreme and imagine a tactical system that consists of on/off options. Mentality: attacking/defensive, forward runs: yes/no, and so on. It would be difficult to create different playing styles with such a system unless variation depended much more on the players. All the attributes would have to be much more "sensitive" and there would have to be a lot more PPM's as well as football culture no longer being hidden (i.e Norwegian: direct/counter attack/discipline/efficiency).

It could work, but would require much more information from the club researchers. Conversely, let's imagine a greatly extended range; 1-100, for instance. It would give us much more control of the behaviour of our players, so that we would be able to fine-tune our tactics to a much higher degree. The tactical (and thus cultural) variations would almost be infinite and the database would already have more than enough information. It would require a lot from the ME, though, and most of us would try out settings between 25-75% anyway - perhaps advancing to increments of 10 if we were really pedantic. Thus, such a range would be unnecessary in most cases. The current 1-20 model would (and is) extensive enough.

Let's imagine a 1-10 range, then. If you want to create a defensive or attacking tactic, I believe it would work fine, since you are trying to achieve a quite specific behaviour from your players. However, if you want to create a balanced tactic where the players are supposed to be able to make good decisions in a variety of situations; joining the attack when it is a good idea to do so, and staying back when that makes sense, then the difference between setting 5 and setting 6 could be too large. How could the Creative Freedom slider simulate the different football cultures of the world -and- the difference between S.A.Ferguson and R.D.Matteo when there's only 4 clicks between "normal/medium" and "max"?

[MSCCG]

I always believed that the sliders were not indicative of real life, but served as an adequate replacement for the lack of real communication between player and manager. In real life, a manager has the entire week to work with the player and getting them to position and move exactly how you like. This is what the sliders compensate for.

I would agree with individual shouts as soon as the match begins in order to maintain some kind of consistency between team and player instructions however.

[Ackter]

Can't wait for the day when FM has no sliders anywhere.

I'd also like positions to be removed and replaced with roles.

[MSCCG]

Can't wait for the day when FM has no sliders anywhere.

I'd also like positions to be removed and replaced with roles.

Even for the goalkeeper?

[Ackter]

Yup .

[WizbaII]

You should understand that less complicated means less control. That's the deal with the sliders. And when you've been playing this game for thousands of hours like I have, you can see the point of a 20-notch slider and it makes sense to have the sliders. It may seem insignificant to you, but it isn't insignificant by any means. At least for me with the type of football I play, there is a tangible difference between one notch higher or lower, especially compared to the notches of other players.

Another thing is that I can't think of a better idea than sliders and, basically, that's why we have sliders. It's the best thing available. You can talk about the limitations of coding a football game, or blah blah blah, but just because real-life coaches don't use sliders to talk to players, it doesn't mean that they don't convey the same information to the players. And I don't want to have tactics where I literally have to write in what I want the player to do instead of just using a slider.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

But my point is that, for example, when you set a TEAM mentality, its only a handful of options. Why is there 2-3 times as many clicks for players? I'll go on the game in a little bit and further look into what I mean/im thinking.

[Keyzer Soze]

Yup .

I dont understand! So you dont distribuite your players on the pitch? Just give roles to 11 players?

And if i want my "wingers" to play like playmakers? How would the game know that?

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

Im pretty sure ackters being sarcastic.

[Keyzer Soze]

Im pretty sure ackters being sarcastic.

Oh... ok!

shame on me then! :o

[BiggusD]

But my point is that, for example, when you set a TEAM mentality, its only a handful of options. Why is there 2-3 times as many clicks for players? I'll go on the game in a little bit and further look into what I mean/im thinking.

The Team Mentality doesn't have any significance on the players in Classic mode. The only team sliders that do are Width, Tempo and Defensive Line. If you are talking about the Philosophy selection in TC mode, why are you complaining about sliders? Those things move the sliders for you, precisely the way you want...

[Ackter]

Im pretty sure ackters being sarcastic.

nope, genuine.

I dont understand! So you dont distribuite your players on the pitch? Just give roles to 11 players?

And if i want my "wingers" to play like playmakers? How would the game know that?

The pitch positions would still be there, I just meant that instead of a player being listed as a DM, for example, he'd be an Anchorman etc

[BiggusD]

nope, genuine.

The pitch positions would still be there, I just meant that instead of a player being listed as a DM, for example, he'd be an Anchorman etc

I would go even farther than that. How well a player performs in any role should be entirely up to his attributes and PPM's. There shouldn't be pre-set behavioral patterns tied to positions at all. An anchorman should be a bad striker because he is a bad striker, not because he doesn't have the position in his player profile. This means that things such as wide movement, tactical discipline and attacking/defensive mentalities should be added as an attribute or a PPM.

[Motherlover]

I'm definitely in the 'find a way to replace sliders with something less abstract' camp.

[x42bn6]

I would go even farther than that. How well a player performs in any role should be entirely up to his attributes and PPM's. There shouldn't be pre-set behavioral patterns tied to positions at all. An anchorman should be a bad striker because he is a bad striker, not because he doesn't have the position in his player profile. This means that things such as wide movement, tactical discipline and attacking/defensive mentalities should be added as an attribute or a PPM.

Positional knowledge is definitely important. Rafael of Manchester United, for example, has two strong feet so in theory would be a decent left-back as well, but his positioning is noticeably worse (even by his standards) at left-back, even though the position is a mirror image. Nani is largely two-footed but is noticeably less effective on the left because he has a slight tendency to cut in. At the highest levels, you don't stick players in a position because they are good there in theory - it takes a long time to learn the position properly (although it is probably easier to learn an attacking position due to the fact that mistakes are less costly up front than, say, centre-back).

Generally-speaking I don't see why people want to get rid of sliders in the same way that managers clearly do not assign numbers from 1-20 when it comes to judging players on their attributes. It's an abstraction of scale, rather than an exact instruction. Closing down 15, for example, might mean "close down aggressively, but not overboard". BiggusD in #13 details why we might need some degree of slider control. However, detailing what "Closing down 15" entails is key here, rather than removing the sliders. Maybe we could have a circle around the player detailing how far he will close down 95% of the time when we move the slider, for example. The same goes for passing - how far he will generally look to pass 95% of the time. For creative freedom, instead rescale the slider to have explicit UI labels 0% and 100% at both ends, representing how often the player ignores the instruction and does his own thing. And so on.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

The Team Mentality doesn't have any significance on the players in Classic mode. The only team sliders that do are Width, Tempo and Defensive Line. If you are talking about the Philosophy selection in TC mode, why are you complaining about sliders? Those things move the sliders for you, precisely the way you want...

Im not moaning about sliders per se. I know in TC it is very handy and its what i have used since its invention; a very good addition to the game. The whole million slider clicks thing and the game putting in small print on a screen out of the way saying 'you're leaving too much space inbetween the midfield and defence' wasnt good enough.

Knowing like in RL i want a such and such type player to cover my back four and another player to do this, is much more simpler to understand, particualrly for beginners of the game, and people who cant waste games away just testing out slider clicks to precise measurements and still not work. The only way people in the main knew what to do with these before TC was to read it on here and people say you got to have so many click apart in the mentality....silly really. I mean mentalities not positioning afterall; or even the chance of playing a ball forwards or backwards. (See somewhere i refer to players not passing a square ball or laying off backwards to a player to score a goal because his 'mentality' made him shoot.)

Its just the principle of it and the fact i like being the devils advocate now and then. It still doesnt make sense in terms of the team setting. You have a team mentality, then you want certain players to be more defensive to hold the midfield for example, and another to be attacking at the pinnacle of midfield. One may have a defensive setting and the other attacking. Having these on a various scale of out of however many several more than necessary is absurd to be quite honest. maybe have one click inbetween the middle and each extreme extra is fine, but not to the point its like 20 clicks overall.

In RL a player wouldnt be told in one game, oh have a mentality of 14/20, then the next game is told 13/20. In the real world theres no discernable difference. A player doesnt play to a set scale of 1-20. And yes, i know its a visual representation - but its too fiddly to be anywhere near realistic to life.

[higgins]

Can't wait for the day when FM has no sliders anywhere.

I'd also like positions to be removed and replaced with roles.

I didn't understand, what would you use instead of sliders?

The tactic creator is far from being perfect.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

Positional knowledge is definitely important. Rafael of Manchester United, for example, has two strong feet so in theory would be a decent left-back as well, but his positioning is noticeably worse (even by his standards) at left-back, even though the position is a mirror image. Nani is largely two-footed but is noticeably less effective on the left because he has a slight tendency to cut in. At the highest levels, you don't stick players in a position because they are good there in theory - it takes a long time to learn the position properly (although it is probably easier to learn an attacking position due to the fact that mistakes are less costly up front than, say, centre-back).

Generally-speaking I don't see why people want to get rid of sliders in the same way that managers clearly do not assign numbers from 1-20 when it comes to judging players on their attributes. It's an abstraction of scale, rather than an exact instruction. Closing down 15, for example, might mean "close down aggressively, but not overboard". BiggusD in #13 details why we might need some degree of slider control. However, detailing what "Closing down 15" entails is key here, rather than removing the sliders. Maybe we could have a circle around the player detailing how far he will close down 95% of the time when we move the slider, for example. The same goes for passing - how far he will generally look to pass 95% of the time. For creative freedom, instead rescale the slider to have explicit UI labels 0% and 100% at both ends, representing how often the player ignores the instruction and does his own thing. And so on.

But with player attributes, you NEED to have a set scale of number from 1-20. With tactical setup you dont. You can tell a team and each player what to do, i,e instructions for the match and then they play it. Sliders are obselete. Its just the way they have created FM though. But really, sliders really dont even have to be in it at all. As i say, it could be easy enough to make it imo more life like to give them a set of worded instructions from a list, maybe a drop down menu or whatever, then they have to go along with that. Thats just from the top of my head just now, but it does have a fair argument in the case against sliders altogether to be honest.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

I didn't understand, what would you use instead of sliders?

The tactic creator is far from being perfect.

No sliders in the Ui for the player to see. They would be in the game code probably though.

[higgins]

No sliders in the Ui for the player to see. They would be in the game code probably though.

But the tactics creator should be really improved, not enough flexible at the moment, I often need to tweak my tactical asset using sliders.

[x42bn6]

But with player attributes, you NEED to have a set scale of number from 1-20. With tactical setup you dont. You can tell a team and each player what to do, i,e instructions for the match and then they play it. Sliders are obselete. Its just the way they have created FM though. But really, sliders really dont even have to be in it at all. As i say, it could be easy enough to make it imo more life like to give them a set of worded instructions from a list, maybe a drop down menu or whatever, then they have to go along with that. Thats just from the top of my head just now, but it does have a fair argument in the case against sliders altogether to be honest.

Would you really want a list of words, though? Words can be ambiguous and scrolling through the words can actually be more time-consuming than the possible drag-and-drop nature of sliders.

In addition, as has been stated above, with words, there'd surely be less options which means less control. And some managers, like Marcelo Bielsa, absolutely adore control, down to the last centimetre on the pitch.

Take closing-down - what values would you put in instead of sliders? Very passive - passive - normal - aggressive - very aggressive? What about things in between? For example, if a player is on a yellow card, you might want to have something in between "normal" and "aggressive". Personally, I don't think 5 values are granular enough. So it might end up being: Ultra passive - very passive - passive - slightly passive - normal - slightly aggressive - aggressive - very aggressive - ultra aggressive. At which point I would argue it's not any better than the slider system since you have just put words on a scale - a worded slider, if you like.

The only possible advantage is that you could possibly combine sliders into words, so "very aggressive" (or above) could automatically trigger hard tackling (two sliders into one, effectively), and "very passive" or below could automatically trigger easy tackling.

As long as you have a "range" of values (words, numbers, symbols, etc.), it is natural that a slider-like system is a plausible abstraction. It's not wrong. It's possibly more fiddly than it's worth and there are probably better GUI layers that can be put on top of it, but it is also possible for managers to give precise instructions when it comes to tactics, and that is where very granular sliders come in.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

Words is what real life people have. Cant say it any clearer than that really. It would have to have 'situational' instructions included with it. It could make it MORE controlling in honesty. Instead of currently players doing a certain thing all the time from the sliders, you could set him to only get forward when you see you're opposing full back out of position, for example.

Closing down, you could have a pitch where you set on it when a player enters a certain area, he closes him down. Realistic to a training pitch etc.

Things like getting carded, you could say, hard tackling, but not when you get a yellow card.

[higgins]

Would you really want a list of words, though? Words can be ambiguous and scrolling through the words can actually be more time-consuming than the possible drag-and-drop nature of sliders.

In addition, as has been stated above, with words, there'd surely be less options which means less control. And some managers, like Marcelo Bielsa, absolutely adore control, down to the last centimetre on the pitch.

Take closing-down - what values would you put in instead of sliders? Very passive - passive - normal - aggressive - very aggressive? What about things in between? For example, if a player is on a yellow card, you might want to have something in between "normal" and "aggressive". Personally, I don't think 5 values are granular enough. So it might end up being: Ultra passive - very passive - passive - slightly passive - normal - slightly aggressive - aggressive - very aggressive - ultra aggressive. At which point I would argue it's not any better than the slider system since you have just put words on a scale - a worded slider, if you like.

The only possible advantage is that you could possibly combine sliders into words, so "very aggressive" (or above) could automatically trigger hard tackling (two sliders into one, effectively), and "very passive" or below could automatically trigger easy tackling.

As long as you have a "range" of values (words, numbers, symbols, etc.), it is natural that a slider-like system is a plausible abstraction. It's not wrong. It's possibly more fiddly than it's worth and there are probably better GUI layers that can be put on top of it, but it is also possible for managers to give precise instructions when it comes to tactics, and that is where very granular sliders come in.

Agree, sliders + numbers are the lesser evil compared to other solutions.

[Motherlover]

Take closing-down - what values would you put in instead of sliders? Very passive - passive - normal - aggressive - very aggressive? What about things in between? For example, if a player is on a yellow card, you might want to have something in between "normal" and "aggressive". Personally, I don't think 5 values are granular enough. So it might end up being: Ultra passive - very passive - passive - slightly passive - normal - slightly aggressive - aggressive - very aggressive - ultra aggressive.

For me this would preferable to the current set-up.

However what I would prefer is a system that was oriented towards telling players how to act depending on whether they are currently in an attacking or defensive (or transitional?) period of play... and when or how to read the situation as such.

[x42bn6]

Words is what real life people have. Cant say it any clearer than that really. It would have to have 'situational' instructions included with it. It could make it MORE controlling in honesty. Instead of currently players doing a certain thing all the time from the sliders, you could set him to only get forward when you see you're opposing full back out of position, for example.

Closing down, you could have a pitch where you set on it when a player enters a certain area, he closes him down. Realistic to a training pitch etc.

Things like getting carded, you could say, hard tackling, but not when you get a yellow card.

This is approaching a business rules level of logic where you have explicit conditionals ("WHEN opposition full-back is out of position THEN get forward EXCEPT if your own full-back is out of position"), which would be a lower level of "control" than currently exists (the slider approach is the lowest level). In effect it's an actual new system in itself.

The business rules approach is pretty fun, of course, because users effectively design the logic. However, a rules-based approach can become very messy and unwieldy - especially when deciding which rule takes precedence over another, or when rules contradict each other.

An example: What are the possible scenarios where the winger would get forward?

- When the opposition full-back is out of position?

- When the opposition centre-back is out of position?

- When the opposition winger is out of position?

- In a scenario where attackers outnumber defenders? By how many?

- When the opposition winger is Mario Balotelli, having swapped positions with the other winger all game?

- What if your full-back is out of position too?

- What if the ball is miles away from you? i.e. a left winger deep in opposition territory, but the ball is with your team's right-back having just won the ball near the corner flag?

- ...

The word-based approach is unfortunately as complex as the language you speak. And no matter how many values you put down, there is always the argument that it isn't enough, and there exists a niche instruction that isn't in that list.

Then there's things that result in "deadlock":

- Left-winger: Get forward only if the left-back supports me

- Left-back: Get forward only when the left-winger supports me

What will happen here? Both players are dependent on each other for movement, but it's a chicken-and-egg scenario - someone has to move first. Even if you suggest adding an attacking modifier of sorts, what if both players have contradicting modifiers?

Sliders would never be able to replicate this, of course, as the conditions depend on the opposition team (the sliders - and tactics wizard - are largely independent of what the opposition does. Tactic T1 against a 4-4-2 is the same tactic against 4-3-3 although there may come times where you wish T1 could change (slightly) based on the opposition). However, it could get very messy trying to replicate it with words.

So while I agree with you in principle, I'm not sure it is a better user experience. I mean the ideal system is voice detection and motion detection, where you shout at your monitor, and wave your hands around, and the players magically understand what you are say, even if your accent is stronger than Kenny Dalglish's. But it doesn't mean that words are necessarily a better user interface. Even things like how the words are conveyed (i.e. tone and volume) can change the instruction substantially - Sir Alex waving his hands gently to suggest "get closer to him", or Sir Alex going red in the face yelling "get closer to him!" at Valencia's face.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

For managers such as Bielsa, they could place the players on the pitch (training pitch) as per situation. Theyre exactly where you want them, and theres no sliders involved.

[hursty2]

Sliders just represent what we would be saying to them imo but I think a better way would be allowing us to draw on the pitch.

Forward runs, how wide the team should be, where the centre backs should be when its a goal kick. Allowing the tactics interface to become a drawing board as such would remove the need for sliders. Then accompanying this with general shouts such as I want us to get it forward as quickly as possible, or saying to the centre backs to bring the ball forward when there is no pressure from the front men.

In real life, well from my own experiences as a player. Coaches draw their tactics on the board then communicate to player groups. Common individual instructions would include; 'use your pace', 'don't take too many touches', 'two touch passing in the final third', 'back into the player', 'don't let him turn you', 'get wide asap'.

[Motherlover]

My ideal would be something like this:

Simple to understand and easy to work.

I'd also like more options in the vein of 'Cut Inside', 'Move Into Channels' etc.

[higgins]

Sliders just represent what we would be saying to them imo but I think a better way would be allowing us to draw on the pitch.

Forward runs, how wide the team should be, where the centre backs should be when its a goal kick. Allowing the tactics interface to become a drawing board as such would remove the need for sliders. Then accompanying this with general shouts such as I want us to get it forward as quickly as possible, or saying to the centre backs to bring the ball forward when there is no pressure from the front men.

In real life, well from my own experiences as a player. Coaches draw their tactics on the board then communicate to player groups. Common individual instructions would include; 'use your pace', 'don't take too many touches', 'two touch passing in the final third', 'back into the player', 'don't let him turn you', 'get wide asap'.

In the past we called that wibble/wobble, still missing such a tool.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

This is approaching a business rules level of logic where you have explicit conditionals ("WHEN opposition full-back is out of position THEN get forward EXCEPT if your own full-back is out of position"), which would be a lower level of "control" than currently exists (the slider approach is the lowest level). In effect it's an actual new system in itself.

The business rules approach is pretty fun, of course, because users effectively design the logic. However, a rules-based approach can become very messy and unwieldy - especially when deciding which rule takes precedence over another, or when rules contradict each other.

An example: What are the possible scenarios where the winger would get forward?

- When the opposition full-back is out of position?

- When the opposition centre-back is out of position?

- When the opposition winger is out of position?

- In a scenario where attackers outnumber defenders? By how many?

- When the opposition winger is Mario Balotelli, having swapped positions with the other winger all game?

- What if your full-back is out of position too?

- What if the ball is miles away from you? i.e. a left winger deep in opposition territory, but the ball is with your team's right-back having just won the ball near the corner flag?

- ...

The word-based approach is unfortunately as complex as the language you speak. And no matter how many values you put down, there is always the argument that it isn't enough, and there exists a niche instruction that isn't in that list.

Then there's things that result in "deadlock":

- Left-winger: Get forward only if the left-back supports me

- Left-back: Get forward only when the left-winger supports me

What will happen here? Both players are dependent on each other for movement, but it's a chicken-and-egg scenario - someone has to move first. Even if you suggest adding an attacking modifier of sorts, what if both players have contradicting modifiers?

Sliders would never be able to replicate this, of course, as the conditions depend on the opposition team (the sliders - and tactics wizard - are largely independent of what the opposition does. Tactic T1 against a 4-4-2 is the same tactic against 4-3-3 although there may come times where you wish T1 could change (slightly) based on the opposition). However, it could get very messy trying to replicate it with words.

So while I agree with you in principle, I'm not sure it is a better user experience. I mean the ideal system is voice detection and motion detection, where you shout at your monitor, and wave your hands around, and the players magically understand what you are say, even if your accent is stronger than Kenny Dalglish's. But it doesn't mean that words are necessarily a better user interface. Even things like how the words are conveyed (i.e. tone and volume) can change the instruction substantially - Sir Alex waving his hands gently to suggest "get closer to him", or Sir Alex going red in the face yelling "get closer to him!" at Valencia's face.

You have a point in there, but it was just a momentary idea. What my original gripe was about the amount of clicks. But im just being picky

[x42bn6]

You have a point in there, but it was just a momentary idea. What my original gripe was about the amount of clicks. But im just being picky

I know - my post was kind of a "brain dump" too.

There are definitely better ways than sliders and what you are proposing is a good idea (it's miles more complex than what the forums call "wibble-wobble", though). Getting to the point where we can succinctly tell the UI to do a particular thing, reducing the number of mouse clicks and level of thinking, is a good thing. Then, any additional mouse clicks and thinking go purely into tactics design (which doesn't even need to place on the UI - you can think about your tactics on paper), which is even better.

[MSCCG]

Words is what real life people have. Cant say it any clearer than that really.

Just wanted to point out that this is not quite true. Psychologists have spent decades trying to figure out how to use wording that transmits the same information across individuals and cultures. It hasn't been going well.