FM14 - New Tactical Elements

[themadsheep2001]

I've said it before, the tactical aspect is what has always drawn me to the game since the very early editions back in the 90s. I couldn't care less what else they improve, because the other aspects don't intrigue me, apart from training which I link to the tactics. I wish training was even more linked with the tactical side and I know you feel the same way, because you have expressed so in previous posts. And I wish the guys at SI spend their time in improving training, tactics and the link between the two rather than all other nonsense parts of the game. If we talk realism, that link needs work in the game. If I want my team to play a certain way, then I want the ability to train them to play in said way.

10 years ago it was easy to intrigue me to buy and play the game. Now as I'm older, I'm looking for more perhaps. For the last two editions of FM (FM12 and FM13), I've gotten into and out of the game way too many times. I've gone through spells of short addictiveness and periods where I don't want to even touch the game.

I want SI to show me more than a couple of new player roles (which overlap a little bit with some existing ones and perhaps aren't even realistically created) and some individual shouts like "pass shorter/more direct", "cross more often/less often", etc.

I'm sure the two of us are not the only ones. Maybe 3 months from now I would feel different and check out the game anyway. It may hook me again, it may not. Maybe between now and the demo, SI will show me something more from the tactical side that will make me try the demo and/or buy the game.

Or maybe just play the free demo and decide? They have a marketing spiel (whether people agree with it or not) if you want to see it all, then get the demo.

They only way they can show you the actual depth that is for you to actually play the demo, and see the match engine for yourself. Given that its free, its foolhardy to not test it to get a better picture and then write it off.

I dont know what it will be like, so I'm not going to decide from tidbits, or sneak previews, the video updates, or demand that they reveal more, when there is a demo/(easily cancellable) BETA for me to experience the whole thing before I make a commitment to buy.

[yonko]

Isn't this exactly what the system in FM13 is? You train your team in the tactics you want to use, with the training taking into account granular aspects of your trained tactics (i.e. If train your team in a tactic that uses a quick tempo, a switch to a new tactic that also uses a quick tempo will still benefit from the tempo training done for the previous tactic), and you train your players in the role you want them to play. The gains from taking the time to set up a rational training system becomes apparent in your team and players' play in the ME very quickly.

No, the training in FM13 is not what I meant. I want training to have even more impact/effect on my tactics. Plus IRL, coaches do not choose roles for players to train in, they choose training activities for the individual, group or team.

Years ago we had a training model where we could choose a training schedule of activities, such as "Pig in the Middle", "Attacking Overload", "Defensive Overload",etc., on a weekly basis. That was much closer to RL than anything else we've had, even though the mechanism underneath it wasn't programed to work as it supposed to.

Do you think that Tata Martino tells Messi for example to train as Trequartista this month and as Advanced Playmaker the next month?

Or maybe just play the free demo and decide? They have a marketing spiel (whether people agree with it or not) if you want to see it all, then get the demo.

They only way they can show you the actual depth that is for you to actually play the demo, and see the match engine for yourself. Given that its free, its foolhardy to not test it to get a better picture and then write it off.

I dont know what it will be like, so I'm not going to decide from tidbits, or sneak previews, the video updates, or demand that they reveal more, when there is a demo/(easily cancellable) BETA for me to experience the whole thing before I make a commitment to buy.

Have you been reading my posts? A lot of games have free demos, it doesn't mean I try them all or any of them, because they just don't intrigue me to try their free demos. I've said that so far I haven't seen anything to make me try even the demo. That may change 3 month from now or after I read others' feedbacks on the demo/full game. That's why I'm trying to say that maybe SI should try harder and/or show more to make people like me stay with the game.

As of now, SI have shown me that they have removed the sliders and have replaced them with individual shouts. I don't like that. I used the TC and even though I rarely adjusted sliders, they presented me with visual illustration of the roles' instructions before I see it all on the 3d/2d screen. Now these individual shouts look like "X+1, Y-1" instructions, without showing what "X" and "Y" are set to in the first place for each role. Why couldn't they just keep the sliders or replace them with some other form of visual representation on the tactics screen?

SI has also added some new player roles, but we can't tell what their instructions are or the difference in instructions from some other similar roles, because the in-game descriptions are too vague (as always). To give you an example, how can we see what is the difference between a Shadow Striker and Attacking Midfielder on Attack duty when there are no sliders or some other form to illustrate their different instructions. Another example is False Nine vs Deep-Lying Forward-support/ Complete Forward-support. How can I know what to adjust in their instructions if I don't know what their instructions are to begin with?

[ShirazS]

That is a fair point but you would hope that they have improved the description of each role to include more technical information in terms of what the general instructions are for that role. If not, then you would be relying solely on the short description + watching the game (which can cause players to perform differently based on PPM's, match situations etc.)

[däkkä]

That is a fair point but you would hope that they have improved the description of each role to include more technical information in terms of what the general instructions are for that role. If not, then you would be relying solely on the short description + watching the game (which can cause players to perform differently based on PPM's, match situations etc.)

Yeah, having to watch ME feedback to figure out what you've said in the TC is so backwards, and so slider era. We shouldn't have to be resorted to that. Neither should we trust imprecise ballpark descriptions. I am unsure as to how exact you can make a role description so its effortless to digest and comprehend. Bearing in mind it should make every way it differs from any other role explicitly clear, it might prove to be a painstakingly long essay. As a human to computer mediator the TC has a tough job but there is a balance to be found between amount of information and effort of digestion.

Don't you think the slider era verbal descriptions (rarely-mixed-often) as a concept had found the perfect balance between mathematical precision and ease of understanding?

Especially seeing how the curtain that's been pulled in front of our eyes is essentially just that and you just need to know a bit of algebra to figure out the values.

[RTHerringbone]

Yeah, having to watch ME feedback to figure out what you've said in the TC is so backwards, and so slider era. We shouldn't have to be resorted to that.

Am I reading this right? "I shouldn't have to watch the match to see if my players are playing how I've asked them to?"

Without doubt, if the descriptions are limited to the "detail" that we had in FM13, then there will be a big gap between what that description says, and what the intricacies of the Role are, but I'm baffled that you'd demonstrate a reluctance to watch a game to see how your instructions actually influence things - isn't that the whole point of the game?

[däkkä]

Am I reading this right? "I shouldn't have to watch the match to see if my players are playing how I've asked them to?"

Without doubt, if the descriptions are limited to the "detail" that we had in FM13, then there will be a big gap between what that description says, and what the intricacies of the Role are, but I'm baffled that you'd demonstrate a reluctance to watch a game to see how your instructions actually influence things - isn't that the whole point of the game?

No, you're quite not getting the point.

Of course you need to watch the play to check and assure your team is playing like you instructed them. What isn't desirable is having to watch the game to check if you understood your own instructions correctly.

[themadsheep2001]

I've read your posts That's why i responded, it makes no sense yonko. Because you are unlikely to get everything revealed to you before the demd is releases. Because the demo reveals everything ( for half a season). You might head more between now and release, you might not. But making any kind judgement is a short sighted. Especially when we wont have seen the release ME ( and that is more important than the roles, if that part isn't up to scratch, the roles arent much use)

The demo is there to make you stay in the game or not, if you choose to not play it fair enough, but thats on you, and not them.

[themadsheep2001]

No, you're quite not getting the point.

Of course you need to watch the play to check and assure your team is playing like you instructed them. What isn't desirable is having to watch the game to check if you understood your own instructions correctly.

I agree. Sliders are not the way, but you MUST have some kind of reference point. Especially when we know the various base strategies/philosophies have different base settings etc.

[yonko]

Am I reading this right? "I shouldn't have to watch the match to see if my players are playing how I've asked them to?"

Without doubt, if the descriptions are limited to the "detail" that we had in FM13, then there will be a big gap between what that description says, and what the intricacies of the Role are, but I'm baffled that you'd demonstrate a reluctance to watch a game to see how your instructions actually influence things - isn't that the whole point of the game?

I don't know about others, but ever since the TC was introduced into FM I personally selected player roles and duties based on the ability to see what the instructions for each role and duty are. Then I would watch how these instructions are played out by the ME through the 3d view of the match. Same goes for Team Instructions and then deciding what shouts to use if I want some instructions adjusted.

Now we are given the option to adjust individual instructions through individual shouts, but we don't know what these individual instructions are to begin with. I don't want to play the game that way.

I've read your posts That's why i responded, it makes no sense yonko. Because you are unlikely to get everything revealed to you before the demd is releases. Because the demo reveals everything ( for half a season). You might head more between now and release, you might not. But making any kind judgement is a short sighted. Especially when we wont have seen the release ME ( and that is more important than the roles, if that part isn't up to scratch, the roles arent much use)

The demo is there to make you stay in the game or not, if you choose to not play it fair enough, but thats on you, and not them.

You still don't get what I'm saying and it's obvious when you say that it doesn't make sense.

Simply put, I'm not going to try the demo because what SI have shown me so far about the new tactical elements doesn't appeal to me. It's just like not test driving a car because it doesn't appeal to me or like not getting it on with a woman because I'm not attracted to her........get it?

[themadsheep2001]

I don't know about others, but ever since the TC was introduced into FM I personally selected player roles and duties based on the ability to see what the instructions for each role and duty are. Then I would watch how these instructions are played out by the ME through the 3d view of the match. Same goes for Team Instructions and then deciding what shouts to use if I want some instructions adjusted.

Now we are given the option to adjust individual instructions through individual shouts, but we don't know what these individual instructions are to begin with. I don't want to play the game that way.

You still don't get what I'm saying and it's obvious when you say that it doesn't make sense.

Simply put, I'm not going to try the demo because what SI have shown me so far about the new tactical elements doesn't appeal to me. It's just like not test driving a car because it doesn't appeal to me or like not getting it on with a woman because I'm not attracted to her........get it?

I got it from the start, I just pointed it out that it doesn't make any sense for you to take such an approach, then demand that SI do more to entice you.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Simply put, I'm not going to try the demo because what SI have shown me so far about the new tactical elements doesn't appeal to me. It's just like not test driving a car because it doesn't appeal to me or like not getting it on with a woman because I'm not attracted to her........get it?

No offense, but why keep banging on about it though? You're not going to try the demo, fine (though your reasoning makes little sense to me) but that's entirely on you. The demo is the only real way to learn about all the new stuff in the game. If you don't want to take the time (about an hour would probably suffice) to try it and get all your answers that's your decision. You do spend quite a bit of time discussing the game that doesn't appeal to you though.

[yonko]

I got it from the start, I just pointed it out that it doesn't make any sense for you to take such an approach, then demand that SI do more to entice you.

If you really got it, then you wouldn't say it doesn't make sense. And it's the other way around - I've taken such approach precisely because SI hasn't enticed me.

No offense, but why keep banging on about it though? You're not going to try the demo, fine (though your reasoning makes little sense to me) but that's entirely on you. The demo is the only real way to learn about all the new stuff in the game. If you don't want to take the time (about an hour would probably suffice) to try it and get all your answers that's your decision. You do spend quite a bit of time discussing the game that doesn't appeal to you though.

Why keep banging about it? Because I want to, because this is a forum where I can share my opinions.....need more reasons?

Time? I have the time. That's not the problem at all. And why can't I (or anyone else) discuss what doesn't appeal to me? I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, I'm just expressing opinion and reasons for said opinion.

[SnUrF]

Limiting the player input makes it easier for the AI. Not to say it's bad nor good thing. But if I'd have to guess perhaps it might turn out to be a good thing, though I have my doubts (before the demo).

-SnUrF

[themadsheep2001]

If you really got it, then you wouldn't say it doesn't make sense. And it's the other way around - I've taken such approach precisely because SI hasn't enticed me.

Why keep banging about it? Because I want to, because this is a forum where I can share my opinions.....need more reasons?

Time? I have the time. That's not the problem at all. And why can't I (or anyone else) discuss what doesn't appeal to me? I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, I'm just expressing opinion and reasons for said opinion.

Wrong. I get it, but like Äktsjon Männ and others, I simply believe your reasoning is flawed. Its actually you who doesn't get it

[wwfan]

I think a lot of people are taking the wrong perspective on this. Yes, the user's options have been reduced by removing the sliders. However, the in-match dynamism has increased, good decision making has become more important, and the AI can draw on more concepts, becoming a lot stronger as a result.

A certain studio head honcho tweeted:

I've just been sacked as manager of Watford. Not sure who to blame. The media team? The match engine team? No. It was my tactics. #FM14

Maybe not so good if you want an easy time of it, but certainly exciting for those that want a challenge.I also don't get the need to look at slider settings to be sure you've set the right options. Sliders are tools. The TC provides concepts. If you can understand the concepts, you don't need access to the tools. Furthermore, as roles can be developed conceptually, the sliders might behave differently across different roles anyway. A playmaker might interpret roaming and TTB very differently than an inside forward. Looking at the sliders won't help you see that. Reading a description and watching the match will be far better indicators. As with all new Fm developments, I'd expect early versions to be a little rough, but in the future something quite wonderful should develop.

I recognise this translates to a certain loss of control which is perhaps anathema to many gamers. However, it is a necessary element of management and something that should push the game along to new heights of game play, fun and realism. The key realisation that people need to take on board is that the TC is not a limitation or a dumbing down, but something that relocates the core part of the game to the dynamic decisions a manager takes. That is a far better state of affairs than the core element being the micro tweaking of slider settings.

[tomtuck01]

People want realism, then when it comes and the sliders, (move two notches further up field Robin, there's a good chap), are removed they complain. Peculiar.

In real life if you tell your team, (or a particular player), to drop deeper, you don't get to look at a graph to see how deep they now are. Thank goodness FM has moved away from that nonsense notion.

[higgins]

People want realism, then when it comes and the sliders, (move two notches further up field Robin, there's a good chap), are removed they complain. Peculiar.

In real life if you tell your team, (or a particular player), to drop deeper, you don't get to look at a graph to see how deep they now are. Thank goodness FM has moved away from that nonsense notion.

This debate about realism is quite silly, isn't it?

Sliders or not the game is far from being realistic, maybe cause it's just a game....

By the way, I'm waiting for someone asking to remove the pause button during matches, cause real managers can't pause a match.

[Los_Culés]

By the way, I'm waiting for someone asking to remove the pause button during matches, cause real managers can't pause a match.

I do not like the fact that the FM is going to be "unified" and "simplified". First training, now the tactics......training should have stayed the same as in FM05 (with slight improvements like new training activities) and the sliders should also stay (to be able to modify the default TC settings).

[däkkä]

I also don't get the need to look at slider settings to be sure you've set the right options.

Sliders are tools. The TC provides concepts.

Sliders are a blacksmith's tools that he's used for years and knows how to use them.

TC concepts are a no-substance bullshitter's quasi-intellectual... well, concepts.

Should I shorten that point out so I can make a repeat-till-death mantra out of it? You know, as a response to yours.

If you can understand the concepts, you don't need access to the tools. Furthermore, as roles can be developed conceptually, the sliders might behave differently across different roles anyway. A playmaker might interpret roaming and TTB very differently than an inside forward. Looking at the sliders won't help you see that. Reading a description and watching the match will be far better indicators.

You know no one was asking the sliders to be the solution, but right now there's no solution.

Are you seriously suggesting you should watch the match to see what you said? Now, you've been marketing this change with realism. Tell me how many managers do that

Respected writers on this forum have already rubbished the TC descriptions, match strategy being a good example of that, and also assistant manager feedback.

What makes you so sure people want to trust those as they've provenly making bad judgments?

Trequartista is just a label, watch hours of ME footage to have a reliable opinion what the role actually does. Just like AVB. Concepts, mate.

[RTHerringbone]

It's ridiculous that people like me bang on about it not being a problem that sliders are going, without having played the demo.

It is ridiculous that others deride the new system and prattle on about how brilliant sliders are / were, without having played the demo.

The circular "discussion" is boring; the sliders are going, this is a fact.

You can embrace the change or find a new game. What are the pro-slider brigade going to do: sit, mope and continue to complain in the absence of having played the game, or start planning for how they'll adapt?

[themadsheep2001]

It's ridiculous that people like me bang on about it not being a problem that sliders are going, without having played the demo.

It is ridiculous that others deride the new system and prattle on about how brilliant sliders are / were, without having played the demo.

The circular "discussion" is boring; the sliders are going, this is a fact.

You can embrace the change or find a new game. What are the pro-slider brigade going to do: sit, mope and continue to complain in the absence of having played the game, or start planning for how they'll adapt?

Well said.

[Cleon]

I remember throwing my toys out of the pram when the TC was introduced and said I was quitting and refused to use it. I didn't quit but I didn't use the TC for 2 years out of sheer stubbornness. FM13 was the first time I actually stopped moping and embraced the TC. Now I wish I'd done it sooner rather than being an arse and just adapted to the new way. Sure I still have issues with the TC but the pro's certainly outweigh the cons for me compared to how I used to create tactics.

[RTHerringbone]

One thing I guarantee I'll do if I don't like the new system, is come back on this forum and give constructive feedback as to why I don't.

I'm no hypocrite, so if it doesn't work, I'll be one of the first to say so.

[wwfan]

Sliders are a blacksmith's tools that he's used for years and knows how to use them.

TC concepts are a no-substance bullshitter's quasi-intellectual... well, concepts.

Should I shorten that point out so I can make a repeat-till-death mantra out of it? You know, as a response to yours.

You know no one was asking the sliders to be the solution, but right now there's no solution.

Are you seriously suggesting you should watch the match to see what you said? Now, you've been marketing this change with realism. Tell me how many managers do that

Respected writers on this forum have already rubbished the TC descriptions, match strategy being a good example of that, and also assistant manager feedback.

What makes you so sure people want to trust those as they've provenly making bad judgments?

Trequartista is just a label, watch hours of ME footage to have a reliable opinion what the role actually does. Just like AVB. Concepts, mate.

I'm quite happy to take on board and respond to a logical argument. When you provide one, I will.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

I'm quite happy to take on board and respond to a logical argument. When you provide one, I will.

To get back on track.., I admit I am no fan of the sliders but couldn't they be kept as "read only" indicators just to indicate the intricacies of the roles? After all the roles are open to interpretation and misinterpretation until an official guide showing with chalkboard diagrams exactly what the roles "do" is available. WWFan your work kept me playing the game during FM2006 when I would otherwise have given up for good on the franchise but your and the other TTF gurus views are opinions, albeit very informed ones, and some TTF gurus offer conflicting or at least non-complimentary advice sometimes

[däkkä]

I'm quite happy to take on board and respond to a logical argument. When you provide one, I will.

Can you be done with the smugness?

There is already a reasonable unanswered question pending: Are you with a straight face suggesting there is no need for great attention to provide precise, comprehensive descriptions for TC roles? The TC has been very imprecise, misleading some would say with its descriptions in the past. Does the possible imprecision and inevitable inefficiency of having nothing but a verbal description not worry you? Be noted, it's not about slider vs. non-slider. It's about intelligibility between the player and the tactical interface regardless of its form.

If you offer watching ME footage as a resolution, you do realize that it's actually a step back from TC-slider coexistance. Before the introduction of the TC the ambiguity of the various sliders was a major frustration point for players. Who's to say the new role system isn't just as ambigious?

[Mintah]

The TC has been very imprecise, misleading some would say with its descriptions in the past.

The TC is occasionally unclear? Yes. "TC has been very imprecise, misleading"? Not in my experience. You need to provide some very specific examples to support such a strong contention.

[däkkä]

The TC is occasionally unclear? Yes. "TC has been very imprecise, misleading"? Not in my experience. You need to provide some very specific examples to support such a strong contention.

You say unclear, I say imprecise... I think most people would find 'Defend' strategy being used to attack a bit contradictory, and in general the relation between the written match strategy description and how it plays out in the ME. I'm sure some authorities have said something along the lines of "ignore the description" in these forums.

Having said that, I'm happy that you agreed with the rest of my post and feel the descriptions aren't sufficient. Otherwise you would've replied to the wider argument instead of a small detail, right...?

[Mintah]

You say unclear, I say imprecise... I think most people would find 'Defend' strategy being used to attack a bit contradictory, and in general the relation between the written match strategy description and how it plays out in the ME. I'm sure some authorities have said something along the lines of "ignore the description" in these forums.

Having said that, I'm happy that you agreed with the rest of my post and feel the descriptions aren't sufficient. Otherwise you would've replied to the wider argument instead of a small detail, right...?

Yes, I actually do share your grievances but I think we draw different conclusions or expectations from them. I greatly enjoy playing FM and have every intention of sinking hundreds of hours into FM14, despite whatever grievances I have with the TC and the ME. To me, the FM experience is so engrossing and irreplaceable that I find these grievances that you and I (and many others) share to be almost immaterial because they don't detract from the overall experience (i.e. Yes, I would like clearer descriptions of the different roles, but, a week or so into a career game, I have played around with enough roles that I know what most of them do). Long story short, I've been enjoying SI's games since CM days and they have engendered a level of trust with me that, sliders or no sliders, I have no fear that FM14 is not going to steal about 300 enjoyable hours of my life over the next year.

[wwfan]

Can you be done with the smugness?

There is already a reasonable unanswered question pending: Are you with a straight face suggesting there is no need for great attention to provide precise, comprehensive descriptions for TC roles? The TC has been very imprecise, misleading some would say with its descriptions in the past. Does the possible imprecision and inevitable inefficiency of having nothing but a verbal description not worry you? Be noted, it's not about slider vs. non-slider. It's about intelligibility between the player and the tactical interface regardless of its form.

If you offer watching ME footage as a resolution, you do realize that it's actually a step back from TC-slider coexistance. Before the introduction of the TC the ambiguity of the various sliders was a major frustration point for players. Who's to say the new role system isn't just as ambigious?

It would worry me if the language were very imprecise. I don't think it is.

It worries me more that the user expected every description to exactly capture every dimension of a tactical or strategic approach without being willing to watch the football to confirm or challenge their assumptions. What tends to happen is that certain forum users make huge claims regarding their subjective interpretation of a tactic, strategy or ME which then become forum mantra. For example, one user makes strong claims that the ME favours tall, strong players, or that counter only plays in a certain style, and users attach to them and regard them as truths. It also worries me that users expect players, whatever their attributers, character, role etc, to play in exactly the same way all the time.

The above types of expectation has come through the slider system, which pushes people into that type of absolutist thinking. The relative relationships of the TC prevent that and make it a far more flexible system than the sliders, even before all the dynamic options are considered. It makes the match experience far more of an ebb and flow, forces users into considering other elements of FM other than getting slider settings precisely right, and generally enriches the playing experience.

Although you have pointed to forum authorities making highly subjective, strong claims, the forum authorities that I believe are worth listening to have, to a man, consistently pointed to the TC producing different styles of play that suit different types of squad, and that users must work out what they are for themselves rather than think there is a one solution fix for any team in any division. Once that kind of thinking disseminates, and I believe it will as people become more and more comfortable with the TC, then the FM experience will be a better one, both in game and in online debate.

[dsch]

To get back on track.., I admit I am no fan of the sliders but couldn't they be kept as "read only" indicators just to indicate the intricacies of the roles? After all the roles are open to interpretation and misinterpretation until an official guide showing with chalkboard diagrams exactly what the roles "do" is available. WWFan your work kept me playing the game during FM2006 when I would otherwise have given up for good on the franchise but your and the other TTF gurus views are opinions, albeit very informed ones, and some TTF gurus offer conflicting or at least non-complimentary advice sometimes

This is about the only sensible post on this page. It's exactly what this post calls for:

We can all argue until we are out of breath on details (and this is an internet messageboard, what better place to do it! ), but if we were given just a stunningly useful and short description for each role as above I firmly believe it would greatly increase everyones awareness of what they are building into their tactics and help answer many questions/moans/rant etc here.

Just a simple list of roles and duty combinations. A short, precise description of what it would give you in comparison to other options.

Print that out, stick it next to your PC and I would be a very happy camper!

It's going to be extraordinarily difficult to come up with a short, verbal description of the concept of each role. Seems to be you'd either have to explain it in a few detailed paragraphs, or use a few keywords as shorthand. If it's the latter, the stickies on the tactics form are going to be exactly those detailed explanations of what each role does, except written by the forum gurus.

On the other hand, if you just display the slider settings, then people will want to change it. Maybe a DLC opportunity?

[dsch]

It would worry me if the language were very imprecise. I don't think it is.

Language is inherently imprecise (cf. linguistics since 1900).

[wwfan]

Language is inherently imprecise (cf. linguistics since 1900).

Hence the "very" qualifier.

[dsch]

Hence the "very" qualifier.

Fair enough. We've already seen some of the descriptions in the mouseovers on that one video. If that's all there is, then I'd say they're pushing towards 'very imprecise'. But maybe there are things we haven't seen.

[Loversleaper]

Similarly, I'm yet to see a convincing pro-Slider argument.

From the videos we've seen, we can tweak the "under the hood" components of player instructions that we could tweak with sliders.

Whilst the increments of change don't appear to be there, I fail to buy the idea that this is less "realistic" than sliders.

I feel like I'm repeating myself (I am), but if your interpretation of a Role differs to SI's interpretation, then just change it!

Ask the player to Push Higher Up, ask him to Mark Tightly, ask him to Play Wider, ask him to Pass Shorter.......

It's essentially the same game mechanics!, just without placebo-esque increments of change on an interface. How is this so hard to imagine?

I'm off to find a brick wall to bang my head against.

I personally think that there are missing elements that are not really taken into consideration. An argument for the pro-slider crowd would be that they still are the main tool in the game in terms of mechanics - so, all that has happpened in regards to the new ME is that this option has been taken away from the user.

You see, if we take some examples, if a user wants to build a technical/gelled squad that enables them to play short passing a la Wenger/Barca/Swansea then it was possible by setting the Passing slider on lowest (which in my calculation would be 1 on the slider). This kind of created a tiki-taka type of football with the right players and the right ammount of squad gelling/tactical familiarity. If we only have the option of "Pass Shorter" what exactly will that mean - that all teams will automatically play like Arsenal? The depth in that department will of course be minimalised to the three options - which will all be basically predetermined, even the shouts will have it's limitation if they too are predetermined.

If you look at the other settings, similar things will be basically the same. You see, the game is built up on certain values which are created by sliders - mainly Mentality (which is how the whole 'Strategy Theory' came into place). Now, this area is pretty crucial to understanding the game thoroughly - limiting this reality will make the game more in the hands of the game coders which could cause the following scenarios:

A: The game coders make the game too easy

B: The game coders make the game too hard

C: Something inbetween that will cause a lot more randomness

I am failing to see how using a 'role' is going to influence the whole Mentality aspect that is the dominating factor in the game - unless using a trequartista will win more games than a false nine would, which will mean we probably will catch on pretty quickly. Personally, I am not a fan of predetermined settings because that basically takes away the feeling that we actually are creating our own tactics...

[higgins]

I personally think that there are missing elements that are not really taken into consideration. An argument for the pro-slider crowd would be that they still are the main tool in the game in terms of mechanics - so, all that has happpened in regards to the new ME is that this option has been taken away from the user.

You see, if we take some examples, if a user wants to build a technical/gelled squad that enables them to play short passing a la Wenger/Barca/Swansea then it was possible by setting the Passing slider on lowest (which in my calculation would be 1 on the slider). This kind of created a tiki-taka type of football with the right players and the right ammount of squad gelling/tactical familiarity. If we only have the option of "Pass Shorter" what exactly will that mean - that all teams will automatically play like Arsenal? The depth in that department will of course be minimalised to the three options - which will all be basically predetermined, even the shouts will have it's limitation if they too are predetermined.

If you look at the other settings, similar things will be basically the same. You see, the game is built up on certain values which are created by sliders - mainly Mentality (which is how the whole 'Strategy Theory' came into place). Now, this area is pretty crucial to understanding the game thoroughly - limiting this reality will make the game more in the hands of the game coders which could cause the following scenarios:

A: The game coders make the game too easy

B: The game coders make the game too hard

C: Something inbetween that will cause a lot more randomness

I am failing to see how using a 'role' is going to influence the whole Mentality aspect that is the dominating factor in the game - unless using a trequartista will win more games than a false nine would, which will mean we probably will catch on pretty quickly. Personally, I am not a fan of predetermined settings because that basically takes away the feeling that we actually are creating our own tactics...

I need to agree with this, less options to build your own tactics basically mean more in-game micromanagent, something like "if AI does this, you should react doing this plus that, otherwise you lose"

Football Manager could become like playing chess with unknown rules.

[Loversleaper]

I need to agree with this, less options to build your own tactics basically mean more in-game micromanagent, something like "if AI does this, you should react doing this plus that, otherwise you lose"

Football Manager could become like playing chess with unknown rules.

Exactly my feeling as well, especially if we can't see the actual changes that are occuring (that the sliders offered) so that we had 'standing points' that we could relate to. Don't get me wrong, it is not all about the sliders as such - but it was a usefull tool to see actually what was going on in the game. If there are other options then I am all ears, but without some form of 'standingpoint' which moves to another 'standing point' could create a scenario where we might feel like we are fumbling around in the dark...

The Strategy Theory did create a form of 'rock, scissors, paper' kind of ideology, but it's a game so there has to be a mechanical side (like any other game) - I mean, we can't kid ourselves into thinking that the dots on the screen have developed minds of their own. The less tactical settings we have control over will no doubt put the game more into the hands of the game-coders...

[Mark.]

Exactly my feeling as well, especially if we can't see the actual changes that are occuring (that the sliders offered) so that we had 'standing points' that we could relate to. Don't get me wrong, it is not all about the sliders as such - but it was a usefull tool to see actually what was going on in the game. If there are other options then I am all ears, but without some form of 'standingpoint' which moves to another 'standing point' could create a scenario where we might feel like we are fumbling around in the dark...

The Strategy Theory did create a form of 'rock, scissors, paper' kind of ideology, but it's a game so there has to be a mechanical side (like any other game) - I mean, we can't kid ourselves into thinking that the dots on the screen have developed minds of their own. The less tactical settings we have control over will no doubt put the game more into the hands of the game-coders...

I can agree that the sliders did provide a useful tool to see actually what was going on in the game, especially with respect to what the roles are designed to do. It helped me select which role to use to carry out a "role" for my team. Now I think this all comes down to whether the role descriptions are going to be explained well enough as to whether the removal of the sliders will hurt how I play the game much.

One thing I think the removal of the sliders is meant to do, and which I think is a good thing, is to stop us thinking about things on their own too much. I will use the Tika Taka example. From my POV (and I don't claim to have that high a level of tactical knowledge) it is not only about short passing, it is also about making sure you will have the players getting into good spots to receive passes from each other, to be moving often so that those short passes are not just lateral but also incisive etc.

Now I don't know off the top of my head how I would ensure my team was doing this, but i'm guessing one of the reasons for the removal of the sliders is to encourage us to think about tactics in less of an isolated way.

Just my two cents.

[wwfan]

I'm glad my "forum users making huge assumptions" hasn't fallen on deaf ears.

[wwfan]

I can agree that the sliders did provide a useful tool to see actually what was going on in the game, especially with respect to what the roles are designed to do. It helped me select which role to use to carry out a "role" for my team. Now I think this all comes down to whether the role descriptions are going to be explained well enough as to whether the removal of the sliders will hurt how I play the game much.

One thing I think the removal of the sliders is meant to do, and which I think is a good thing, is to stop us thinking about things on their own too much. I will use the Tika Taka example. From my POV (and I don't claim to have that high a level of tactical knowledge) it is not only about short passing, it is also about making sure you will have the players getting into good spots to receive passes from each other, to be moving often so that those short passes are not just lateral but also incisive etc.

Now I don't know off the top of my head how I would ensure my team was doing this, but i'm guessing one of the reasons for the removal of the sliders is to encourage us to think about tactics in less of an isolated way. Just my two cents.

Great post.

[Loversleaper]

I can agree that the sliders did provide a useful tool to see actually what was going on in the game, especially with respect to what the roles are designed to do. It helped me select which role to use to carry out a "role" for my team. Now I think this all comes down to whether the role descriptions are going to be explained well enough as to whether the removal of the sliders will hurt how I play the game much.

One thing I think the removal of the sliders is meant to do, and which I think is a good thing, is to stop us thinking about things on their own too much. I will use the Tika Taka example. From my POV (and I don't claim to have that high a level of tactical knowledge) it is not only about short passing, it is also about making sure you will have the players getting into good spots to receive passes from each other, to be moving often so that those short passes are not just lateral but also incisive etc.

Now I don't know off the top of my head how I would ensure my team was doing this, but i'm guessing one of the reasons for the removal of the sliders is to encourage us to think about tactics in less of an isolated way.

Just my two cents.

I can see where you are comming from, but the situation of "the removal of sliders is to encourage us to think about tactics in a less of an isolated way" is exactly the opposite of what is happening without the user-control that the sliders did offer. Let me explain:

If you look at the Standard Strategy (for example), the Width setting will basically be on the middle of the bar. Using the shouts will only move that setting around 3 notches in either direction if we decide on "play more narrow" or "play more wide". In that sense it is kind of unrealistic that you won't be able to deviate from that reality - because irl you will be able to play even more narrow if the manager wishes to do so. Predetermined settings can and will only limit the options that one can have on the tactical scale - as higgins mentioned - we will become more reliant on a form of "Shout" formula that will unlock ways to win the game because all 'starting points' in the different strategies will be from the same 'base'. It is hard for me to see that type of football game will allow the gamer to create his own style of football - if he wishes it to be 7 or 8 on the passing slider - now it's just the way the predetermined settings are that we have to obey...

If we have to hit punch boxes to either do one predetermined setting or another - then we are no longer creating anything, but following a formula. You have to remember that the sliders have not been removed at all - they are just not 'available' to the user anymore...

[lennon67]

I hope I can still make a decent tactic without having to watch games. If this FM relies on watching the games more I think I might have to bail out, prefer just playing on commentary.

[dsch]

I'm glad my "forum users making huge assumptions" hasn't fallen on deaf ears.

The ones making huge assumptions are not the people expressing concern at a major change in the way the game is played, about which we have had very little information.

[deserter]

Limiting the player input makes it easier for the AI. Not to say it's bad nor good thing. But if I'd have to guess perhaps it might turn out to be a good thing, though I have my doubts (before the demo).

I'm to say it's definitely a good thing. Any tool that the human has in his command should be fully usable for the AI as well.

Furthermore, as roles can be developed conceptually, the sliders might behave differently across different roles anyway. A playmaker might interpret roaming and TTB very differently than an inside forward. Looking at the sliders won't help you see that.

That's what I was wondering earlier. Whether the freedom of hidden inner workings will lead to ME code that caters to single roles alone. So that the inside forward would have a different code set to winger, not only different attributes (slider-wise). It's interesting.

Are you seriously suggesting you should watch the match to see what you said? Now, you've been marketing this change with realism. Tell me how many managers do that

I should think that all managers do that. It's indeed necessary to ascertain that the player understood what you asked him to do. If he didn't it would be logical to give him further instructions like, you should shoot from range less and instead look for a killer pass.

Football Manager could become like playing chess with unknown rules.

Isn't real football like that? Then again there is some rather obvious rules and Allegri seems to disregard all of them! (Have you seen any Milan games this season?)

[wwfan]

The ones making huge assumptions are not the people expressing concern at a major change in the way the game is played, about which we have had very little information.

Yes, because we've never used the TC interface!

We seem to be having a lot of people who don't use the TC explaining its mechanisms and getting nearly everything about it wrong. They are perceiving it in slider or super-tactic terms, in which one setting can absolutely be determined as being better than another, rather than different. Whilst I have sympathy for people who want an absolutist (or gaming) approach, and can understand why they are concerned, it doesn't go as far as letting them make bad assumptions about the TC without pulling them up on it.

It is not a paper, scissors, stone methodology, although that can be one approach. No single role will be any better than any other, although a logical combination of roles is required for any tactic to work. You are not limited to certain widths and depths, although to change them you will have to make related changes to your strategic approach to a match. You'd don't have to be a reactive manager, although you can be if you want. It can create Tika Taka and long ball styles, although getting them to succeed will require more than just deciding on a passing setting. The TC does not employ pre-sets as everything can be altered by the user, albeit within a more limited framework than unrestricted slider access allows.

[Äktsjon Männ]

The less tactical settings we have control over will no doubt put the game more into the hands of the game-coders...

Which will not be a bad thing if it results in a better code. If having no sliders means that a poacher becomes much more clearly identifiable in the ME from, say, a defensive forward on attack duty then that's a good thing. If saying 'get forward more often' visibly gets your team forward much more aggressively then what you have is not decreased control but rather the opposite. That's what I want to see happen and what I hope is the end goal.

The reference point issue is valid though. The role descriptions need to be much more specific than they are at the moment. Less of the fancy football hipster talk and more concise descriptions please!

Also, I wonder if a custom role creator, working similarly to TC in that it allows to create a role that fits within the rest of the tactics like a preset role would, has not been considered and if not, why? Wouldn't it be a way to achieve perfect middle ground between those that want the TC as it is and those who want customisation for that personal touch that the TC kind of lacks?

[däkkä]

I should think that all managers do that. It's indeed necessary to ascertain that the player understood what you asked him to do. If he didn't it would be logical to give him further instructions like, you should shoot from range less and instead look for a killer pass.

I should think they do not. No manager first tells a player to do X pre-match (in the tactical interface) and then be curious what he himself said (through ME feedback). There's absolutely no argument. No manager does that. The player's interpretation of given instructions has nothing to do with this.

[higgins]

Yes, because we've never used the TC interface!

We seem to be having a lot of people who don't use the TC explaining its mechanisms and getting nearly everything about it wrong. They are perceiving it in slider or super-tactic terms, in which one setting can absolutely be determined as being better than another, rather than different. Whilst I have sympathy for people who want an absolutist (or gaming) approach, and can understand why they are concerned, it doesn't go as far as letting them make bad assumptions about the TC without pulling them up on it.

It is not a paper, scissors, stone methodology, although that can be one approach. No single role will be any better than any other, although a logical combination of roles is required for any tactic to work. You are not limited to certain widths and depths, although to change them you will have to make related changes to your strategic approach to a match. You'd don't have to be a reactive manager, although you can be if you want. It can create Tika Taka and long ball styles, although getting them to succeed will require more than just deciding on a passing setting. The TC does not employ pre-sets as everything can be altered by the user, albeit within a more limited framework than unrestricted slider access allows.

Of course you know things that we don't regarding FM 2014, anyway the lack of official documentation from SI always helped the growth of bizarre theories about the game, don't you think so?

Is there any chance things could change for FM2014?

[RTHerringbone]

I should think they do not. No manager first tells a player to do X pre-match (in the tactical interface) and then be curious what he himself said (through ME feedback). There's absolutely no argument. No manager does that. The player's interpretation of given instructions has nothing to do with this.

I think there must be things lost in translation somewhere along the lines here - player interpretation of instructions has everything to do with it.

We aren't looking to see what we instructed (we know that! We set it ourselves just before kick off!), we are looking to see if what we thought we had instructed is being enacted on the pitch.

Say I play with two wingers, I ask one to push higher up and stay wide, the other to be more conservative. I know I have instructed this, because I instructed it!

However, I can't be sure that the Player Instructions combined with the players attributes and PPMs is achieving what I intended unless I watch how that player now moves.

Then it is a case of a circle of tweaks - is he high enough? No. Can I make him go higher with a Player Instruction? If not, is another Role more appropriate? Maybe an Inside Forward. Does this work? Positionally yes, but he Cuts Inside. Can I get him to stop doing that? Yes, ask him to Stay Wide.

[Äktsjon Männ]

His point is that if you set someone as inside forward you must instantly know what it is exactly that an inside forward does. You shouldn't need to watch the match to see how many forward runs and into what area the player makes because it needs to be clear from the role description. Watching a match to see if a player is following a game plan = OK. Watching a match to make sense of instructions that you yourself have given = not OK.