The problem with FM

[dandebo]

Hey,

So this is my take on why each year more and more players of FM say the game is broken, and never want to play it again.

SI are simulating the world of football. The most frustrating game in the world. Anyone who watches football, knows that many games are stupidly one sided.

With one team dominating possession and shots, and yet still loosing the game by 2 or 3 goals. Nothing in football is guaranteed, you can have the best team in the world beaten by a rubbish team. From a lucky goal, or just a greater will to win.

This is what also makes it the greatest game, no one ever knows what will happen.

If you play the same game again again in FM and note down the result, you will see that the outcome can differ massively. That's the randomness of football. With tactics and better players you can try and give your team greater advantage, but its still not a guaranteed win.

And that's the problem SI have, as they simulate the game more accurately every year. It becomes less and less fun to play for a lot of people. You can be the best FM player in the world, but you can still be beaten by the random element of the game.

That's my opinion anyway, bit of a ramble.

[function11]

Football is not randomness. It is hardwork and dedication.

If you do that, you may lose one game or two, but certainly you'll get what you want. Just like any other sport, just like any other thing in life.

[sporadicsmiles]

That is not true - there is a large element of randomness in any game. The most obvious is when you stick your leg out to block a ball and instead you deflect it past the 'keeper for a goal. Things like this are inherently down to chance.

I guess the whole topic depends on how you define 'fun'. I admit that when you lose or draw a game that you know you should have won it is really frustrating. But equally if I was winning every single game comfortably every season I would likely end up bored. Realism can only ever be a good thing. I think it is important to remember that this is only a game. If I am getting frustrated or angry I turn it off and do something else until I want to play it again.

[forameuss]

That is not true - there is a large element of randomness in any game. The most obvious is when you stick your leg out to block a ball and instead you deflect it past the 'keeper for a goal. Things like this are inherently down to chance.

Not really. That's like saying if you walk out into the middle of the road blindfolded, it's random whether you get hit by a car or not. If someone sticks out their leg, like in your example, there is no random element. The ball is going to travel the way it's going to travel. Don't confuse someone not positioning themselves correctly because they haven't judged the flight of the ball with randomness. I think the word you're looking for is unpredictable, not random.

[Svenc]

It's a matter of definition. I read about a study in which it was tried to be assessed how many goals in the WC 2006 had a random element to them. I don't remember the exact number but it was high, as the study considered almost all the goals coming from long range to be influenced by random elements too (most prominently you might remember

). Whilst that was in-line with the many claims of the unusual and unpredictable aerodynamics of the then new World Cup ball (which is a trend, isn't it), of course if you draw the lines this loose, at one point everything becomes random or at least influenced by randomness.

Otherwise, the OP lined it out quite nicely. There's a reason why there is barely any other team sports in which people pray to a "Fussballgott", a higher entity, to make it grant its blessing to their favourite team. Even players' celebrations often carry religious undertones if they don't outright revel in such. The Hand Of God? Only in football. Professionals beating amateurs? In this numbers only in football. People flocking the stands to even watch these mismatchups? You guessed it. This is all connected to the way football is being played in, as contrary to Handball or Basketball, which are played with the hands, it is much more difficult to control a ball with your feet. It is most of all connected naturally to the very low scoring nature of the sports. It could be argued that good team management is about relying on chance as little as possible, but about lessening the influence of random elements as much as can. When teams just push men into the opponent's penalty area and blast hollywood balls into their general direction, they usually only do such late in a match, as it is a game of almost purely chance. In the few remaining minutes they have to get a goal they need, they rather rely on that rather than nothing at all. But only then, typically.

In FM traditionally there were many ways to totally abuse the AI who say would never push enough men forward when you were defending with 7 players or means to trick an ME into looking dumb by exploiting marking issues, which at one point meant that drawing snazzy little forward arrows from your AMC in between your two forwards meant goals galore on your end. But as such possibilities are being reduced, which frankly don't exist in the real sports, and the human player is less likely to simply run circles around the game, so does naturally increase the amount of chance and random element.

For everyone who's all hot blooded about individual losses, it must be said that, in FM usually also (unless you're screwing up), things over the course of a league season anyway, may level out. Which might bring no consolation after your team just went out of the World Cup quarters on penos again, but there you go.

[tomtuck01]

I'd actually say that you see more and more people saying the game is broken is because there are more people signing up to the forums. At the same time there are more signing up who don't say such things.

[vlobben]

I find it interesting that people now say "FM14 is broken, 13 was better". A year back they said "FM13 is broken, 12 was better", two years back... yeah, you see how history repeats itself

[Jimbokav1971]

I'd actually say that you see more and more people saying the game is broken is because there are more people signing up to the forums. At the same time there are more signing up who don't say such things.

I think that's a good point.

You have to remember that these forums are nowhere near as well populated as they used to be. Is the person who shouts loudest or longest right?

It's clear that there are issues with the game, but to my mind we have developed a culture within FM players whereby they just expect to rock up, download a tactic, press continue for a bit, buy some good players for cheap prices, have a guess at some team-talks, (if they can be bothered), and win a couple of trophies.

While I am sure that there are still very good tactics available to download, the way that these tactics is designed is that they seem specific to "an instant". What I mean is that the most downloaded and highest rated tactic, (Let's call is Diablo14), willl have been created with a very specific set of parameters in mind. The creator will probably have had a very clear idea about which team he would be playing with, in what sort of style he wanted to play, and was very well aware of the players at his disposal and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Now this could be the best tactic in the World. He might never ever ever ever lose. But if Diablo14 was created with Barca in mind, and I am actually managing Stoke or West Ham, (and before you think I am taking things to extreme's, no I'm not. An extreme would be comparing Barca to Dartford, Braintree or Wrexham), then there are obviously going to be issues.

Now before anyone thinks that I'm getting on my high horse about people downloading tactics, that's not it at all. The issue is that whoever created this Diablo14 will understand it and how it works. As a result, when things maybe don't go so well and he comes up against an AI manager who has a tactic and a plan that is causes him problems, then he is at least able to have a little think, work out what is going wrong, maybe even come up with a couple of possible alternatives, and give one or two of them a go in the home of still winning the match.

Now compare that to little Joey Bloggs who has downloaded the tactic and is playing as Braintree. For a start they don't have players at a technical level that will allow them to play the brand of football that Diablo14 requires. Secondly, it completely ignores the specific strengths and abilities that this group of players have, (so far from improving them as a group, it will actually make them perform worse). Thirdly, even if you were to somehow transport the whole Barca team en masse to the Amlin stadium, (home of Braintree), then it would be unlikely that Diablo14 would make the most of their skills because it is currently a quagmire and just about impossible to play passing football on it.

There are loads of other reasons far less severe than those I have just described. It could be that an influential playmaker is injured, fatigued or simply out of form for some reason. Diablo14 might have been fine before but now needs tweaking. The problem with any "tweaking" is that unless you understand how and wgy it works, (even at the most basic level), then how are you going to tweak it?

I am yet to see one of these rants post a large quantity of info and not have their performances significantly improved by just tinkering with the basic tactical set-up, (that's even without looking at players particularly). Again and again we see them simply refuse to change their tactic because the tactic used to make them win and now doesn't. As such, it's always the ME that is broken rather than anything else.

Now I repeat I am not saying that there are no issues, and indeed there are some very experienced and astute players of the FM series who are frustrated beyond belief, but even they can say that there is more that people can do to help themselves. (They just feel like the game is at 80% control and the 20% lack of control is spoiling it for them).

Long time users of this forum, (and the old one), will appreciate that people saying "the ME cheats" is not a new occurrance. They even used to do so louder, and in greater numbers. The reason that there seems such a proliferation of them at the moment is that this forum is so much quieter than it used to be.

[SweatyBob]

That is not true - there is a large element of randomness in any game. The most obvious is when you stick your leg out to block a ball and instead you deflect it past the 'keeper for a goal. Things like this are inherently down to chance.

Possibly - but a hard working and talented team with a tactically astute manager will minimise the occurrences of opposition players hitting shots into a crowded box so I wouldn't say there is a large degree of randomness. Chance comes into play in some situations but the better teams and players will, on average, weigh those odds largely in their favour.

How many times did you hear of Man Utd always getting the rub of the green when they were dominating the English game? They always won penalties and never seemed to concede them. Was that chance or dodgy refereeing? I'd argue it was nothing other than weight of numbers - they spent more time with the ball in their oppositions box than the opposition did with the ball in Man Utd's box - hence luck, chance or random events always seemed to go their way.

The same with goals in "Fergietime". Teams would realise they're in with a chance of a point or 3 against Man Utd and try and defend their lead inviting pressure for the last 10 minutes of a game. It wasn't chance or randomness that Utd eventually equalised or won late on.

[Svenc]

Possibly - but a hard working and talented team with a tactically astute manager will minimise the occurrences of opposition players hitting shots into a crowded box so I wouldn't say there is a large degree of randomness. Chance comes into play in some situations but the better teams and players will, on average, weigh those odds largely in their favour.

This is all over the course of a (league) season or a series of matches. Average league positions taken throughout many seasons are even more telling of a side's quality (or lack thereof). Whilst a league season can also be influenced by things only partly under your control (injuries, long-term sickness) usually things level out. Taking your penalty example, occasionally penalties crown a side the winner completely against the play beforehand, but taken over a longer spell it is the dominating side getting awarded more penalties than those being pushed back, which is natural, as penalties are awarded deep into enemy territory. Thus it is typically stronger sides dominating games that are getting awarded more of them. Going from penalties to matches, nobody would really hold their breath over the outcome of what would happen would Barca tomorrow compete in the Scottish PL. Should Celtic meet Barcelonan in a CL knock-out tie, though, that is another thing. This is an important distinction to make: There are leagues, long spells of being unbeaten from vastly superior teams, and all of that.

It is the individual match, knock-out tie and sometimes even tournament (Greece 2004, Denmark 1992, Wimbledon's FA Cup in 1988) in which anything can happen. Here David truly has that one shot to triumph over Goliath. Sometimes literally that one shot, such as when the only decent attack or one lucky deflected shot all game sealed the winner despite the losing side outright hammering the lucky winners all through. You don't have this in any other team sports. And this is a big reason of why football is the most popular sports in the world. It is arguably also the reason why people even bother to still show up when Palace face Chelsea, as despite the many calls for balanced teams, it is the many replays of a David facing a Goliath in a sports in which David indeed can triumph that never ever gets old. It is also the reason of scorn and anger that for some has partially crept into FM. Not for there deliberately being more of a random element than there had been before. Rather by gradually eliminating means that made the human come out on top of the AI before many a match had even been kicked off. The human player is not meant to be a Goliath invincible.

That is the difference, ultimately. And (often) the cause of anger, ragequit, myths about superkeeper and (partly) highly dubious "30 reloads and I still can't win" threads. If you aren't a vastly inferior team, you will always have a chance of winning a match. That doesn't at all mean that you will always do such, though, even if you were "dominating".

[brawla123]

I think FM11 was the last best game. FM14 is the most interesting because of the challenge it brings. You can no longer sign a bunch of players and get instant results. You have to actually manage your team on and off the pitch like never before. Of course there's a few problems mainly with the match engine but I will definitely say that FM14 makes you think on your toes more and demands more from the manager.

[Rookie FM]

The best Game for me had be FM 2010 because I really enjoy so much and I trying to get achievement(I am on 70% at the moment) up to 100% if I can then it would be good time for me to move on new FM Game weather it is FM 2015 or FM 2016

[markantony]

Hey,

So this is my take on why each year more and more players of FM say the game is broken, and never want to play it again.

SI are simulating the world of football. The most frustrating game in the world. Anyone who watches football, knows that many games are stupidly one sided.

With one team dominating possession and shots, and yet still loosing the game by 2 or 3 goals. Nothing in football is guaranteed, you can have the best team in the world beaten by a rubbish team. From a lucky goal, or just a greater will to win.

This is what also makes it the greatest game, no one ever knows what will happen.

If you play the same game again again in FM and note down the result, you will see that the outcome can differ massively. That's the randomness of football. With tactics and better players you can try and give your team greater advantage, but its still not a guaranteed win.

And that's the problem SI have, as they simulate the game more accurately every year. It becomes less and less fun to play for a lot of people. You can be the best FM player in the world, but you can still be beaten by the random element of the game.

That's my opinion anyway, bit of a ramble.

I think it is because the game has become less fun to play and more like a second job. The amount of effort you need to put into this game is ridiculous compared to earlier versions and this means that flaws in the ME such as keepers just kicking the ball to the opposition striker for him to tap it into the empty net magnify people's frustration.

[tieio]

I think it is because the game has become less fun to play and more like a second job. The amount of effort you need to put into this game is ridiculous compared to earlier versions and this means that flaws in the ME such as keepers just kicking the ball to the opposition striker for him to tap it into the empty net magnify people's frustration.

Very good point here. This is a less of a game to many people and more of a chore at times. Again, it depends what you find fun. I love micromanaging games like these but I know it is a niche thing and I am confident if FM keeps going this direction the user base will shrink.

[brawla123]

I think it is because the game has become less fun to play and more like a second job. The amount of effort you need to put into this game is ridiculous compared to earlier versions and this means that flaws in the ME such as keepers just kicking the ball to the opposition striker for him to tap it into the empty net magnify people's frustration.

Good point!

[Overmars]

Overachieving used to be much easier. I'm still wrestling with FM13, but I just can't enjoy it the same way I did with FM11 and earlier. This is keeping me from bothering with purchasing FM14.

[brawla123]

Overachieving used to be much easier. I'm still wrestling with FM13, but I just can't enjoy it the same way I did with FM11 and earlier. This is keeping me from bothering with purchasing FM14.

I recently went back to FM11 and found it too easy. I think you should purchase this one once the new patch is available.

[Cougar2010]

Overachieving used to be much easier. I'm still wrestling with FM13, but I just can't enjoy it the same way I did with FM11 and earlier. This is keeping me from bothering with purchasing FM14.

So you only enjoy the game when you can easily win?

Some people actually enjoy the challenge and don't want the game to be easy where you just press the spacebar every five minutes. FM tends to be the sort of game where you get more from it the more effort you put into it.

The direction might not be for everyone particularly those gamers who just want to ROFLstomp over other teams and claim to be the best manager that ever lived but many users are happy with the direction FM is taking and want a game where winning a cup or league feels like an achievement.

[Svenc]

Well, FM 2011 arguably in particular was a pretty special case. The thing was that due to morale being a bit overpowered it was comparably easy to go on endless winning streaks. The opposite applied for many relegation fodder. You had frequently teams that never stood up for a fight as they couldn't due to their universally low morale having such an impact.

When FM 2012 was released, which in terms of match day experience was a gap year (the ME was in parts being rewritten for FM 2013), it was quickly pointed out that the balancing of the morale made the game too easy by a lot of regulars. Thus in a subsequent patch it was all toned down, no longer it was possible to retain "superb" morale across all squad (and vice versa for "abysmal"). That immediately made for a very different experience as highish levels of morale presumably provide large boosts to key attributes.

About the level of difficulty, currently whilst browsing I'm running a game in the background in which I applied to the Chelski job, set them up to a very attacking and direct 4-2-4, didn't bring in anyone new, I holiday in between matches, let the assistant do all the talking and quick pick players, never sub tired players (only the injured as the game wouldn't proceed), never do anything in-match, and if it weren't for a more recent slump in results I'd still sit atop the PL table (the CL group stages was won, despite the intriguing losses against Celtic, and so was the European Super Cup against Bayern).

(The following match whilst I was typing was a 2-1 win against United, who are top of the table with 3 points ahead)

True this is Chelsea. But I often wonder if people might either be disappointed or surprised how well you can do if you simply don't overcomplicate right from the start, let alone the latter seasons where you can have better players than the AI as its squad building isn't all THAT great, and its scouting not either. Surely the only way you could have done less is not even starting the game?

edit: Stoke next, 3-0. Won 13, drawn 4, lost 3. A whopping 51 goals scored from 20 matches, which means we're the top scoring side by far (the 2nd best are Tottenham with 37, lying 4th, that is trailing 6 points behind). Gotta watch some Championship footie now. :-)

[SweatyBob]

A lot of valid points but I think the one thing that irritates people the most is that after so many full-price releases and so many patches there always seems to be glaring errors - FM14's match display (not engine I'm being careful to say) shows baffling, inexplicable runs of play again and again (both the players and AI teams) and after all this time and money I don't think it's unreasonable that people are somewhat angry.

There seems to be a pattern of a bugged initial release, a series of patches correcting some flaws, exacerbating others and creating new ones, finally a fairly decent finished product sometime in March/April the following year and then the cycle starts again with the new release.

And the main challenge in FM as far as I can see is actually understanding what things actually mean - the game in itself is very vague in explaining how your instructions affect players and their positioning in given situations. Personally I'd prefer to go back to the flip/flop positioning on the tactics screen. Yes, it did get Diabloed, but for me it's comfortably the easiest way to tell players where you want them to be and what you want them to be doing - and I imagine it's much closer to the way that RL managers present information and instruction to their players.

[brawla123]

I think morale was always overpowered it just got harder and harder to maintain a high morale within the squad. A player gets injured for a big game and his morale goes from very good to very poor. Long after the big game is played and his morale is still poor, logic?

A lot of valid points but I think the one thing that irritates people the most is that after so many full-price releases and so many patches there always seems to be glaring errors - FM14's match display (not engine I'm being careful to say) shows baffling, inexplicable runs of play again and again (both the players and AI teams) and after all this time and money I don't think it's unreasonable that people are somewhat angry.

There seems to be a pattern of a bugged initial release, a series of patches correcting some flaws, exacerbating others and creating new ones, finally a fairly decent finished product sometime in March/April the following year and then the cycle starts again with the new release.

And the main challenge in FM as far as I can see is actually understanding what things actually mean - the game in itself is very vague in explaining how your instructions affect players and their positioning in given situations. Personally I'd prefer to go back to the flip/flop positioning on the tactics screen. Yes, it did get Diabloed, but for me it's comfortably the easiest way to tell players where you want them to be and what you want them to be doing - and I imagine it's much closer to the way that RL managers present information and instruction to their players.

I thought the whole point of them releasing a BETA instead of a demo was to prevent problems but nothing major seems to have been benefited from this. I like the challenge of the whole tactics and instructions part of the game because once you finally do understand them, it's very rewarding.

[SweatyBob]

It is very rewarding but it should not be so difficult for someone who isn't au fait with the FM tactical system to come in and communicate footballing ideas.

You could take the best managers and tacticians in real life and plonk them down in front of FM and I'm of the opinion that a significant number of them would struggle to implement their particular styles and ideas into the game.

[brawla123]

It is very rewarding but it should not be so difficult for someone who isn't au fait with the FM tactical system to come in and communicate footballing ideas.

You could take the best managers and tacticians in real life and plonk them down in front of FM and I'm of the opinion that a significant number of them would struggle to implement their particular styles and ideas into the game.

Yeah, very true lol

[Cougar2010]

It is very rewarding but it should not be so difficult for someone who isn't au fait with the FM tactical system to come in and communicate footballing ideas.

You could take the best managers and tacticians in real life and plonk them down in front of FM and I'm of the opinion that a significant number of them would struggle to implement their particular styles and ideas into the game.

I disagree.

Those that have a sound knowledge of football are the ones that seem to be coping just fine its the ones that "think" they know about football that are struggling.

[forameuss]

I disagree.

Those that have a sound knowledge of football are the ones that seem to be coping just fine its the ones that "think" they know about football that are struggling.

You forgot about the group who don't have a good knowledge of football, but just accept it *raises hand*

[tieio]

I disagree.

Those that have a sound knowledge of football are the ones that seem to be coping just fine its the ones that "think" they know about football that are struggling.

What an elitist answer. So you are saying that if you know football then you will know FM? Well, it is such a shame that players and coaches on a National team don't know football... This video game does not follow football logic often at all.

[Cougar2010]

What an elitist answer. So you are saying that if you know football then you will know FM? Well, it is such a shame that players and coaches on a National team don't know football... This video game does not follow football logic often at all.

I'm saying those have have a reasonable understanding of football logic don't seem to have an issue creating reasonably decent tactics and achieving a relative amount of success.

The group that has been the most vocal on the forums, this year more than any other, are those that have created poorly thought out tactics and have been punished in terms of results. Some have adapted by asking questions and reading various advice while others are still insisting they are doing nothing wrong and that the game is broke.

[tieio]

EDIT - NM, forget I said anything. You are obviously right. This game is easy and people are just stupid or something.

[HUNT3R]

It is not hard at all to put together a reasonable tactic that would work pretty well "irl" and fails badly in FM.

Do you have an example of this?

[tieio]

EDIT - NM, forget I said anything. I don't see any point in proving things to people who can't do anything anyway, the relevant information has been passed to those who can do something about it.

[HUNT3R]

Do I really need to get you examples? There are plenty of them all around the forums. I've seen it, we've tested it and I am confident in saying it as a fact because of the number of people we test these things with so I do not feel any need to prove it to you. It has been passed along to those who have the ability to do something about it, that is enough for me.

You made a claim that wasn't supported by any evidence. I don't visit tactic forums etc. so I have no idea where to find this. I am interested to see what a tactic looks like that'll work IRL, but not FM.

[tieio]

You made a claim that wasn't supported by any evidence. I don't visit tactic forums etc. so I have no idea where to find this. I am interested to see what a tactic looks like that'll work IRL, but not FM.

That is it though, I do not need to give you any evidence, we have given our results to those who can do something about it. Just forget it, I am dropping this now before it gets ridiculous. Just dismiss anything I have said as not true and go on with your day.

[Vetinari]

You made a claim that wasn't supported by any evidence. I don't visit tactic forums etc. so I have no idea where to find this. I am interested to see what a tactic looks like that'll work IRL, but not FM.

Perhaps not evidence as such, but maybe proof that the way the tactics work at the moment doesn't work as intuitively as perhaps it should.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/377489-Creating-A-Tactic-Design-Create-and-Maintain

Under "Setting the base shape" Cleon notes: " I went for a bog standard 4-1-4-1 because I feel this is more versatile than a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3. I can make the 4-1-4-1 turn into those formations quite easily while in the game with the use of roles/duties."

On the base of it that sounds fair enough. But if he should be able to make a 4-1-4-1 into either of those shapes, doesn't it follow that you should in theory be able to make the other 2 into a 4-1-4-1? But this simply isn't the case with all formations, read any thread on the basic 4-2-3-1 (without DMs) and you'll notice that it's much much harder to get a good version of that formation working. And yet plenty of teams make a 4-2-3-1 work without what you would call a true DM (Arsenal this season for example, this afternoon excepted of course!). I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you want, but in the above example, the reason people go for formations like 4-2-3-1 is because of player's preferred positions. Playing a nice solid 4-1-4-1 sounds great, but if you have a bunch of attacking midfielders the game says they are playing out of position, even if you can get the formation to effectively be a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 as Cleon says.

[Vetinari]

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but what the game says gives you a solid set of guidelines, which you can ignore and still be successful, to some degree. If a player has the right attributes then he can still successfully execute in certain scenarios, and one thing that Cleon also says he does is to often retrain his players to suit the new positions he wants them in.

Oh absolutely, and that is something I myself do on occasion. But I just think it's an issue that creates unnecessary confusion for a lot of people unfortunately. I think a lot of what is difficult for people is that a basic footballing shape is something they understand. But getting it to work as it does in real life is very difficult because it requires not just the formation but also the combination of roles, duties and fluidity. I don't think the current Tactics screen shows enough how all these combine. People just see the formation looking nice and pretty, add some roles, duties, and instructions that sound like they make sense and fire away.

[themadsheep2001]

Oh absolutely, and that is something I myself do on occasion. But I just think it's an issue that creates unnecessary confusion for a lot of people unfortunately. I think a lot of what is difficult for people is that a basic footballing shape is something they understand. But getting it to work as it does in real life is very difficult because it requires not just the formation but also the combination of roles, duties and fluidity. I don't think the current Tactics screen shows enough how all these combine. People just see the formation looking nice and pretty, add some roles, duties, and instructions that sound like they make sense and fire away.

This is something I've touched on with Cleon, well actually, more than touched on. I think it's a fundamental next step in FM. We can implement so much tactical variation in FM, but information for the concepts involved in the game, and they type of display needed isn't there. The game has taken the right steps in moving away from the sliders, but more work is needed. For example, seeing the actual rough positioning your players would take up on the pitch with your instructions, or see the attacking shape it would create, would help players understand a lot more what they are doing. At some point I will put my thoughts down on a detailed piece.

That said, FM is a game of depth and it will always require people to put time in, be willing to accept they might not know it all, or that what they know is wrong, and be willing to lose. So I think both users and the game itself can do more.

[Vetinari]

This is something I've touched on with Cleon, well actually, more than touched on. I think it's a fundamental next step in FM. We can implement so much tactical variation in FM, but information for the concepts involved in the game, and they type of display needed isn't there. The game has taken the right steps in moving away from the sliders, but more work is needed. For example, seeing the actual rough positioning your players would take up on the pitch with your instructions, or see the attacking shape it would create, would help players understand a lot more what they are doing. At some point I will put my thoughts down on a detailed piece.

That said, FM is a game of depth and it will always require people to put time in, be willing to accept they might not know it all, or that what they know is wrong, and be willing to lose. So I think both users and the game itself can do more.

The problem with removing the sliders for me, is that they provided a nice visual representation. The issue with all the instructions is that even knowing what they all do isn't enough if you also don't know how they interact with your mentality and fluidity. It's now too easy to go from one extreme to the other without finding any middle ground, at least with sliders you would eventually find a nice compromise.

That was another point I was going to make. You can see well enough how your team will look on average with the positions you give them. It just doesn't actually tell you what sort of attacking or defending shape you're going to get. The worst one for me is the defensive line. I find myself constantly asking whether I'm pushing up the right amount, because all players position themselves differently, and what counts as higher defensive line in one match can actually be anywhere up to about 5 metres closer to the midfield than another match.

[Svenc]

That was another point I was going to make. You can see well enough how your team will look on average with the positions you give them. It just doesn't actually tell you what sort of attacking or defending shape you're going to get. The worst one for me is the defensive line. I find myself constantly asking whether I'm pushing up the right amount, because all players position themselves differently, and what counts as higher defensive line in one match can actually be anywhere up to about 5 metres closer to the midfield than another match.

Your basic formation = roughly your defensive/without ball shape/formation. What then comes off of it when attacking (with ball formation) is largely determined by roles and duties. It mostly is that simple. There's some overlaps with fluidity and mentality and all of that, but the fundamentals are set by the roles and duties and the basic formation. This, the shape, will never look any hugely different unless you changes roles and duties. If you hover the mouse cursor over the description, it ideally should be telling enough if a player would hold his (defensive/default) position or move up or cut inside or whatever. Again, if people just followed wwfan's guide and his point on roles and duties exactly to the letter until they understand the reasoning before breaking those "rules" and guidances, I couldn't possibly see them struggling this much.

In the above save I didn't even bother to look and obsess in detail about the shape of Chelski, I just put four men all up front and let the FB bomb forward asap. A holding player in midfield like a CM(D) is always a sensible idea too, unless you deliberately want to expose yourself and your defense and commit forward, losing an outlet of shielding your defense and one such of ball retention in deep areas (which at one point you might want actually to do for whatever reason, but that is breaking the "rules" and advice that need be roughly understood before breaking them). Naturally, with such a formation, half the team consisting of forwards, it doesn't make sense to keep the ball deep or defend, thus an attacking mentality that is more inclined to move the ball forward as well as very direct passing instructions sounded reasonably enough. Shockingly (not really), you can do well without mirroring the highly attractive and much talked about passing statistics of Barca, Bayern or Arsenal. This is no masterclass in tactics, I'm not even a good player and have never been, but it was enough to be able to click through the save whilst browsing, never do anything myself thereafter and still compete for silverware. Good runs of form may have contributed to that, but eventually, anyone would be able to do so. Naturally with lesser sides this might prove more difficult, though it is advisable to adjust your own expectations accordingly to squad quality, that is realistic target rather than fantasy.

As for the defensive line, there was someone who thought the slider would micro-tweak its position to the nth degree, and he was wrong. In parts that was because it interacted dynamically with match play, in parts this was because it also interacted with the mentality (likely of the lowest mentality defender, though I don't know.) I think there is little gain in seeing that slider positioned in any of its 293487239487 notches. Personally in terms of d-lining I think all the options you have now are more than enough. I'm personally even inclined to argue that five per mentality (standard/deeper/much deeper/push up/push much higher up) is almost borderlining on overkill, tbh. :-) Which also ties in with your uncertainty of what to actually pick of each of those. Some of this applies to other instructions as well.

Whilst some feedback is lacking, and with fluidity in particular SI have always touched on something very abstract and hard to grasp, the truth is that if you had never played FM with any of the sliders and came new to FM 2014 you likely wouldn't complicate this so much, at least not in this way. You might still report lack of feedback. But this would look very different feedback indeed. Go route one, look for overlaps, push higher up, pass into space, it likely won't get any more straight forward than that. It certainly has never been this straight forward. Though it would be a cool thing if somehow there were more visual cues on the tactics screen or a separate ME tutorial that would roughly visualize the implications of each instruction, absolutely. :-)

[HUNT3R]

Under "Setting the base shape" Cleon notes: " I went for a bog standard 4-1-4-1 because I feel this is more versatile than a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3. I can make the 4-1-4-1 turn into those formations quite easily while in the game with the use of roles/duties."

On the base of it that sounds fair enough. But if he should be able to make a 4-1-4-1 into either of those shapes, doesn't it follow that you should in theory be able to make the other 2 into a 4-1-4-1? But this simply isn't the case with all formations, read any thread on the basic 4-2-3-1 (without DMs) and you'll notice that it's much much harder to get a good version of that formation working. And yet plenty of teams make a 4-2-3-1 work without what you would call a true DM (Arsenal this season for example, this afternoon excepted of course!). I'm not saying it's impossible to do what you want, but in the above example, the reason people go for formations like 4-2-3-1 is because of player's preferred positions. Playing a nice solid 4-1-4-1 sounds great, but if you have a bunch of attacking midfielders the game says they are playing out of position, even if you can get the formation to effectively be a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 as Cleon says.

As Svenc says, the formation you set is the defensive one. The role/duties control your attacking shape. Bearing this in mind, it's easy to set a 4-1-4-1 to act like a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3. It just means that the wingers will defend deeper. They're still all realistic formations that would work IRL. I was more interested in this bold claim that there are realistic formations/tactics that works IRL but doesn't in FM, but as you can see, the guy who said this deleted his posts and withdrew as soon as I wanted to see an example.

[Vetinari]

In theory yes, but the roles/instructions you can give your team just make it all a bit misleading. For instance somebody could put two Ball-Winning Midfielders in the DM strata and assume that they are basically playing with two DMs, but they are both going to move up and aggressively try to win the ball back when you aren't in possession. It should be obvious from the name, but people just see the formation and think, yes they will sit back and protect the defence when in reality the shape is going to disrupted a lot of the time.

It isn't explicitly made clear in the game how formations will/should look in practice, hence why many people plump for a 4-2-3-1 when in fact 4-1-4-1 is going to provide them with what they are looking for. It's just frustrating that as someone who used to love playing around with my tactics, I now feel like it's a chore. I'm quite happy with how things are actually going in my save, but I don't find the tactic side of things enjoyable any more. I can get a tactic spot on one game, and then maybe make a mistake in the next one and be 2-0 down after 10 minutes and suddenly feel like I have no idea what I'm doing again. But it's not that I don't understand the roles/mentality/fluidity. In my case I just have poor decision making and it seems you aren't allowed to make mistakes in Football Manager any more.

I guess my problem is that I feel like I can have got things spot on and then after I'm 2-0 down I'll realise I've forgotten to take into account the weather for that game, or that I've accidentally left my Central Midfielder with an instruction that works against weaker opponents but causes huge problems against a certain formation. I know they are silly little mistakes, but there are almost too many variables nowadays and it doesn't always feel like they are prioritised in the right order.

[Fabio2013]

I think the game should be difficult, but with a sense of logic. The problem is that the instructions may be given to the individual player are too few. There should be many more instructions so you can make the team play any way you want. If I wanted to tell my Offensive Wing, when the opponent has the ball, run back to retrieve balls, but not to go beyond midfield ... is impossible. This is the limit of the game.