How does 'mentality' effect tactical instructions- Maybe one for the Mods

[Mr U Rosler]

Been thinking about a new approach to tactics on FM, key to this would be the way that the different mentality's effect underlying team instructions.

For example, if you had a slow tempo, short passing, retain possession based tactic and you selected 'overload' how would this effect the way the team instructions worked? Overload encourages higher tempo and more direct football which conflicts with your team instructions.

Conversely, if you had high tempo, direct tactics and you select 'contain' which encourages patient ball retention what happens here, there are clear conflicts, who wins out??

If you wanted a 'core tactic' and then selected the appropriate mentality according to opponents and match situations would you be best off having that core tactic as neutral as possible so it reacted to the mentality setting without 'interference' ??

If this is the case you could almost 'do away' with team instructions, if you want short passing, low tempo and retain possession simply choose control/contain and it does it all for you automatically. If you want high tempo, direct select attacking/overload mentalities and the team instructions adjust accordingly.

I think even the defensive line can be set this way.

I thank you.

[Mr U Rosler]

In Fact.........

....... this could be a way to really simplify the tactics creator moving forward, to stop people setting up tactics with in built 'conflicts' get rid of team instructions, use the mentalities to set them automatically (maybe add a couple more) then fine tune with player instructions. A much cleaner model?

[Cleon]

I think you should read this as it basically explains everything you've just asked in detail;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/382854-The-Mentality-Ladder-A-Practical-Framework-for-Understanding-Fluidity-and-Duty

As its the roles/duties that matter the most as these are what get modified when you choose which mentality you use. So they never really conflict as this alters the roles/duties settings. The link above explains it.

[Cleon]

In Fact.........

....... this could be a way to really simplify the tactics creator moving forward, to stop people setting up tactics with in built 'conflicts' get rid of team instructions, use the mentalities to set them automatically (maybe add a couple more) then fine tune with player instructions. A much cleaner model?

This is what we have now.....

[Mr U Rosler]

I think you should read this as it basically explains everything you've just asked in detail;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/382854-The-Mentality-Ladder-A-Practical-Framework-for-Understanding-Fluidity-and-Duty

As its the roles/duties that matter the most as these are what get modified when you choose which mentality you use. So they never really conflict as this alters the roles/duties settings. The link above explains it.

Thanks for the steer.

I thought this was one individuals (brilliant) interpretation of the system, i didn't realise this was 'canon' from SI themselves (i dont think he was a mod then, could be wrong).

[Mr U Rosler]

This is what we have now.....

Strictly speaking we don't have it now as we still have team instructions.

[maztheplaya]

Team Instructions have a certain effect fixed effect, for example Shorter Passing modifies the passing lenght. While the Mentality and Fluidity (for some instructions) set the starting point.

Using a scale from -5 to 5 for the Passing Lenght(Range) as an example. Shorter Passing is a -2 to that scale. The Mentality just choose the starting point on the scale, overload will set the starting point at 5, so you end up with 3, which isnt exactly short passing, in the game, even though it says Shorter Passing is on.

This is a simplified example of how I perceive things to work. And its a combination of multiple layers of different instructions. Creative Freedom, Mentality, Forward Runs, etc.

A core tactic as you put where you change just the Mentality is possible but doesnt offer much flexibility. And only works if you dont have many Instructions on.

You have your core tactic on Standard for example, and you might switch to Counter against better opponents and Control against worse opponents. But it all depends on how you want to play in each of these situations, you will have to drop some of the Instructions.

On Standard you might have Lower Tempo and Retain Possession on, you might want to drop these when you switch to Counter because you need to get the quickly up the pitch.

[Cleon]

Strictly speaking we don't have it now as we still have team instructions.

You do. Nothing forces you and says you must use team instructions they are optional. The mentalities already set the settings automatically and adjust the roles/duties accordingly. TI's are just extremes that people can use should they wish to do something different that what's set.

The players role sets the settings, his duty then adapts them further and then the mentality you choose sets them to fit the mentality structure of what you've chosen.

[Mr U Rosler]

You do. Nothing forces you and says you must use team instructions they are optional. The mentalities already set the settings automatically and adjust the roles/duties accordingly. TI's are just extremes that people can use should they wish to do something different that what's set.

I'd never thought of TI's as extremes, thanks for clearing that up.

Time for a bit of a re-think........

[THOG]

If I'm understanding your OP correctly, this approach would be the opposite of how the current system works.

In the current system, each mentality represents a basic style of play and, with a few exceptions, the TIs modify those styles. For the most part, each More/Less TI adjusts a group of settings to approximately the same setting as the next higher/lower mentality while each "Much More/Much Less" TI takes approximately two steps away from your baseline setting.

For players, I think confusion stems from the mentality settings being a bit vague in what they're supposed to represent and how much you should adapt by changing mentality and how much you should adapt by just applying TIs to your base style. Either approach is valid, but the prior approach would suggest a more stylistically pragmatic manager who freely switches between different styles while the latter would better reflect a manager who likes to adapt the style while sticking close to his core principles. In any case, I think it's unlikely that SI will change direction and make TIs the primary settings. Rather, hopefully, it'll be made more clear that the TIs are relative adjustments from the mentality's baseline settings, and in the future, perhaps we'll see new hybrid mentalities to give players a bit more stylistic flexibility.

[Mr U Rosler]

If I'm understanding your OP correctly, this approach would be the opposite of how the current system works.

In the current system, each mentality represents a basic style of play and, with a few exceptions, the TIs modify those styles. For the most part, each More/Less TI adjusts a group of settings to approximately the same setting as the next higher/lower mentality while each "Much More/Much Less" TI takes approximately two steps away from your baseline setting.

For players, I think confusion stems from the mentality settings being a bit vague in what they're supposed to represent and how much you should adapt by changing mentality and how much you should adapt by just applying TIs to your base style. Either approach is valid, but the prior approach would suggest a more stylistically pragmatic manager who freely switches between different styles while the latter would better reflect a manager who likes to adapt the style while sticking close to his core principles. In any case, I think it's unlikely that SI will change direction and make TIs the primary settings. Rather, hopefully, it'll be made more clear that the TIs are relative adjustments from the mentality's baseline settings, and in the future, perhaps we'll see new hybrid mentalities to give players a bit more stylistic flexibility.

So we should 'mentality driven' in our approach to tactics, and simply use Ti's to 'tweak' to suit our tastes?

Its seems a lot of people are very focused on the TI's and the mentality is almost an afterthought. Which, it seems, is the wrong way round.

[THOG]

So we should 'mentality driven' in our approach to tactics, and simply use Ti's to 'tweak' to suit our tastes?

Its seems a lot of people are very focused on the TI's and the mentality is almost an afterthought. Which, it seems, is the wrong way round.

Yes, mentality and fluidity are the primary settings that establish the basic style of the tactic. The TIs should be thought of as secondary adjustments that give you a bit of flexibility within the basic framework (though a few, like Hassle and Play Out of Defence, adjust settings to the minimum/maximum possible).

[higgins]

Yes, mentality and fluidity are the primary settings that establish the basic style of the tactic. The TIs should be thought of as secondary adjustments that give you a bit of flexibility within the basic framework (though a few, like Hassle and Play Out of Defence, adjust settings to the minimum/maximum possible).

This is why I don't understand tactics using 8-10 team instructions at the same time, the outcome of this approach looks really random to me, I rarely employ more than 3-4 TI's, if needed.

[felley]

This is why I don't understand tactics using 8-10 team instructions at the same time, the outcome of this approach looks really random to me, I rarely employ more than 3-4 TI's, if needed.

I would go even further and say the best tactics i've created have only 0-2 TI's.

The roles and PI's are much more important for me. Getting a good combination of the roles within your mentality framework, whilst tweaking with PI's is the real nuts and bolts of creating a working tactic.

[thomit]

This is why I don't understand tactics using 8-10 team instructions at the same time, the outcome of this approach looks really random to me, I rarely employ more than 3-4 TI's, if needed.

The problem with some of the TI's is that they do more than one thing. If you use "shorter passing", for example, it does not only shorten passing, but also gives slower tempo and lesser width. So what if you don't want that? What if you just want to shorten passing? Then you have to use other TI's that compensates for that .... these may again do several things, and there you go ...

The whole thing is of course further confused with the player not knowing what the TI's actually do. It's not explained. Other than in these forums, if you find the right thread.

But what the combined results of these instructions are, you simply don't know. Other than by watching the matches. Then you have to try out different combinations of instructions until you (hopefully) arrive at something that plays more or less as you envisioned. Much time and frustration could be avoided if we had a better understanding of what the combined result of these instructions was beforehand.

I for one would be much happier if the TI's did just one thing, the thing it says on the tin. It gives me much more control. Me, I like to play football that is controlling the game, attacking, but with short, controlled passing, very high tempo, wide, with very determined and immediate pressing, with high levels of creative freedom for my more attacking players. So, Control/Attacking with Fluid fluidity, right? However, adding shorter passing is not short enough. So I use "Retain possession" instead. There, that's the passing length I want, perfect! Only ... my tempo is now way down, and my width is narrowed. Now what?

Just an example. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a plethora of TI's to achieve the combined result you want. Sometimes you arrive at them by chance, simply because there's no clue anywhere as to which ones cancel each other out, which ones adds to each other ... and so on. Those of us that remember what these settings did to each other (when we had the sliders as visual guides), have some clue. But simply not enough. I'm quite sure I could possibly leave a couple of my TI's out of the equation, because their combined results with some of the other ones means they are not really needed. But which ones? You have arrived at a tactic setup that works (somewhat) like you want, and now you are in the middle of the season ... begin messing up your tactics with the trial and error method again? I don't think so, I'll leave it as it is.

Give me:

Shorter passing. Much shorter passing. Shortest possible passing.

More direct passing. Much more direct passing. Directest possible passing.

None of these to do anything else but adjust passing. I'll take care of the other stuff myself, thank you very much.

[Johnny Ace]

This is where the sliders helped out. I know they're banished now & I fully know the reason why but they helped me see what different Mentalities, Fluidities & Instructions actually affected

[Str0aK]

The problem with some of the TI's is that they do more than one thing. If you use "shorter passing", for example, it does not only shorten passing, but also gives slower tempo and lesser width. So what if you don't want that? What if you just want to shorten passing? Then you have to use other TI's that compensates for that .... these may again do several things, and there you go ...

The whole thing is of course further confused with the player not knowing what the TI's actually do. It's not explained. Other than in these forums, if you find the right thread.

But what the combined results of these instructions are, you simply don't know. Other than by watching the matches. Then you have to try out different combinations of instructions until you (hopefully) arrive at something that plays more or less as you envisioned. Much time and frustration could be avoided if we had a better understanding of what the combined result of these instructions was beforehand.

I for one would be much happier if the TI's did just one thing, the thing it says on the tin. It gives me much more control. Me, I like to play football that is controlling the game, attacking, but with short, controlled passing, very high tempo, wide, with very determined and immediate pressing, with high levels of creative freedom for my more attacking players. So, Control/Attacking with Fluid fluidity, right? However, adding shorter passing is not short enough. So I use "Retain possession" instead. There, that's the passing length I want, perfect! Only ... my tempo is now way down, and my width is narrowed. Now what?

Just an example. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a plethora of TI's to achieve the combined result you want. Sometimes you arrive at them by chance, simply because there's no clue anywhere as to which ones cancel each other out, which ones adds to each other ... and so on. Those of us that remember what these settings did to each other (when we had the sliders as visual guides), have some clue. But simply not enough. I'm quite sure I could possibly leave a couple of my TI's out of the equation, because their combined results with some of the other ones means they are not really needed. But which ones? You have arrived at a tactic setup that works (somewhat) like you want, and now you are in the middle of the season ... begin messing up your tactics with the trial and error method again? I don't think so, I'll leave it as it is.

Give me:

Shorter passing. Much shorter passing. Shortest possible passing.

More direct passing. Much more direct passing. Directest possible passing.

None of these to do anything else but adjust passing. I'll take care of the other stuff myself, thank you very much.

I understand the point you're trying to make but to achieve shorter passing without messing with your tempo and width couldn't you just use the pass shorter PI on your players?

[Dr. Hook]

I understand the point you're trying to make but to achieve shorter passing without messing with your tempo and width couldn't you just use the pass shorter PI on your players?

You absolutely can, but it is a klunky pain in the arse to do so as Thomit pointed out. I would like the global settings to come back- doesn't have to be a return to sliders by any means (I am firmly in the 'good riddance' camp there ) but honestly if I want to just change passing without altering tempo, width, etc. I don't want to have to click through 11 players individually to achieve that.

[Johnny Ace]

See, I never realised instructing Shorter Passing actually affected Width & Tempo, I thought Retain Possession was the one that did that :confused:

[bababooey]

I get what people are saying about "shorter passing", and I agree we should have a way to do this without tweaking individual instructions, but wouldn't shorter passing require a little slower tempo and narrower width? I mean wouldn't that naturally be the result of a shorter passing approach? Or am I way off base here?

For instance, the same could be said about more direct passing. I mean, you may want to strictly see more direct passes without an increase in tempo, but in reality to play those direct balls wouldnt the team need to play a little quicker anyway?

Either way. The way I've learned to approach FM (through months of reading and listening to people on this board) is that the team instructions are tweaks. The mentality/fluidity are your baseline, and the roles/duties obviously are a major part as well. I break it down like a meal..

The Mentality/Fluidity = your main dish

The roles/duties = your side dishes

The team instructions = seasoning/extra seasoning

The player instructions = same as team instructions. further seasoning.

And the fun part about this system is that you can create endless styles. So I mean, my only complaint with the game is I don't like the descriptions of the mentalities.

[Torskus77]

In my experience, I think the roles and duties are the most important part. Yes they have to fit in with the mentality (less so fluidity) you can kind of get away with poor Fluidity and mentality selection for a while at least. Poor role selection leads to mega problems.

[thomit]

Arsenal: Short passing. You never really see a long ball with them. Quick breakthroughs when a good opportunity presents itself, sure, but 90% of the time they play short, short, short - at a very high tempo. The ball never stays for long with one player. Passing tempo is as high as any team you're likely to see. And that's what tempo is; how quick the ball is passed on. Slower tempo means that players are allowed more time dwelling on the ball, given time to think "what next?". Players with Arsenal and other teams like them are not given that time; players are supposed to know what to do with the ball next before they receive it. (Not always possible, but that is another discussion). And they keep it wide, to stretch the opposition defense. So Baba; short passing will require slower tempo and narrower width? Nope. There are plenty of teams that do the opposite. And indeed, it is what I want from my tactics and teams.

Now, I'm sure that SI pretty much agree with you, Baba, and that is exactly why they have incorporated slower tempo and narrower width into the "shorter passing" instruction. I'm saying; it's wrong. It's not only wrong; by doing that they have taken control away from me, forcing me to compensate with other instructions. I don't like that one bit. I want to be able to tell my players to pass it shorter, with one click, without that also meaning "play narrower" and "slow down".

If you couple high tempo with direct passing, you get another definition of tempo, namely how quick the ball moves up the field when in possession. This is not an accurate definition in my opinion, because it's just a result of the ball being passed quick, but direct. The underlying and defining mechanic is still passing tempo.

[Dr. Hook]

I get what people are saying about "shorter passing", and I agree we should have a way to do this without tweaking individual instructions, but wouldn't shorter passing require a little slower tempo and narrower width? I mean wouldn't that naturally be the result of a shorter passing approach? Or am I way off base here?

You have hit on why it is the way it is now. I find it a bit limiting in all honesty though I understand the thinking and sense behind it. It's the transition away from sliders and this sort of thing is probably necessary for the tactics module to become more intuitive and "organic." I

[thomit]

"Shorter passing" worked the same way before they got rid if the sliders ...

[Dr. Hook]

"Shorter passing" worked the same way before they got rid if the sliders ...

But I could still tweak it like I wanted in one shot, not have to set each individual player, which in effect gave me the choice I like: I set shorter passing, then click the tempo, width right where I wanted at the same time.

[THOG]

I think people make too much of the grouped adjustments from certain TIs. The changes aren't that great, and they're all relative to mentality. Control + Shorter Passing is still operating at a fairly high tempo. On top of that, the lower mentalities all have the counterattack mechanism to create quick shifts in tempo when appropriate.

I think there could be more diversity among the mentalities themselves, giving people more wiggle room with hybrid styles, but the TI adjustments don't represent massive changes in style of play.

[thomit]

Right. This is my main tactical setup at the moment. If anyone could tell me which of these settings could be done away with, or simplified, I would be much obliged.

This working very well for me at the moment, passing, runs and movement is close to where I want it, and I'm successful with it.

Control. Sometimes Attacking when needed.

Fluid.

Team Instructions: Retain Possession, Pass into space, Work ball into box. Sometimes Drill crosses, depends who I have up front.

Play wider, Roam from positions.

Hassle opponents, Stay on feet.

Higher tempo, Be more expressive. (That last one I'm continuously experimenting with, not clear what plays best yet.

So, from 8 to 10 TI's in play at any given time.

The formation is:

41311

SK/d'

WB/a - CD/d - CD/d - WB/a

HB

BBM - CM/a - BBM

AP/a (+roaming), sometimes Treq.

AF or TM/a (+ move into channels)

Is any of the TI's superfluous, can I ditch any and still have the same base passing directness, tempo and width? The same penetration, and runs? Space between def-mid-attack still good? No player left isolated? With still plenty of passing options/triangles for virtually every player? Defensive cover still solid and sensible? All this I have now, and I don't want to lose it.

Good luck, because I have tried, and failed.

[CamillePunk]

I would go even further and say the best tactics i've created have only 0-2 TI's.

The roles and PI's are much more important for me. Getting a good combination of the roles within your mentality framework, whilst tweaking with PI's is the real nuts and bolts of creating a working tactic.

+1. The Tricking the Wizard thread helped me realize how much was already set by mentality, and realize a lot of my TIs were redundant or contradictory. Now I pretty much only have "Work Ball Into Box" and "Drill Crosses" in my TIs and leave everything else to mentality/roles and the occasional PI. I will make tempo/width/line/passing style adjustments mid-match based on what is happening on the pitch. It has made FM a lot more enjoyable and helped me take my game to the next level.

[Str0aK]

+1. The Tricking the Wizard thread helped me realize how much was already set by mentality, and realize a lot of my TIs were redundant or contradictory. Now I pretty much only have "Work Ball Into Box" and "Drill Crosses" in my TIs and leave everything else to mentality/roles and the occasional PI. I will make tempo/width/line/passing style adjustments mid-match based on what is happening on the pitch. It has made FM a lot more enjoyable and helped me take my game to the next level.

Same. I start with Shorter Passing and Work Ball Into Box because that's how I like my teams to play. All other TI changes I make happen during the match according to what I'm seeing and what I want to do.

[higgins]

The problem with some of the TI's is that they do more than one thing. If you use "shorter passing", for example, it does not only shorten passing, but also gives slower tempo and lesser width. So what if you don't want that? What if you just want to shorten passing? Then you have to use other TI's that compensates for that .... these may again do several things, and there you go ...

The whole thing is of course further confused with the player not knowing what the TI's actually do. It's not explained. Other than in these forums, if you find the right thread.

But what the combined results of these instructions are, you simply don't know. Other than by watching the matches. Then you have to try out different combinations of instructions until you (hopefully) arrive at something that plays more or less as you envisioned. Much time and frustration could be avoided if we had a better understanding of what the combined result of these instructions was beforehand.

I for one would be much happier if the TI's did just one thing, the thing it says on the tin. It gives me much more control. Me, I like to play football that is controlling the game, attacking, but with short, controlled passing, very high tempo, wide, with very determined and immediate pressing, with high levels of creative freedom for my more attacking players. So, Control/Attacking with Fluid fluidity, right? However, adding shorter passing is not short enough. So I use "Retain possession" instead. There, that's the passing length I want, perfect! Only ... my tempo is now way down, and my width is narrowed. Now what?

Just an example. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a plethora of TI's to achieve the combined result you want. Sometimes you arrive at them by chance, simply because there's no clue anywhere as to which ones cancel each other out, which ones adds to each other ... and so on. Those of us that remember what these settings did to each other (when we had the sliders as visual guides), have some clue. But simply not enough. I'm quite sure I could possibly leave a couple of my TI's out of the equation, because their combined results with some of the other ones means they are not really needed. But which ones? You have arrived at a tactic setup that works (somewhat) like you want, and now you are in the middle of the season ... begin messing up your tactics with the trial and error method again? I don't think so, I'll leave it as it is.

Give me:

Shorter passing. Much shorter passing. Shortest possible passing.

More direct passing. Much more direct passing. Directest possible passing.

None of these to do anything else but adjust passing. I'll take care of the other stuff myself, thank you very much.

Far point bud, but the game is going in another direction, if every TI did just one thing we should too many of them, the chase for "realism" is provoking that, SI are trying to reduce exploits limiting the options we have, this is the last trend and I'm sure FM2015 will go even further in that sense.

If the developers think that shorter passing automatically means playing narrower and slower we have to cope with that, real football, of course, is a different thing, but we probably have to accept trade-offs like these in a computer game and use TI's wisely.

[RTHerringbone]

If the developers think that shorter passing automatically means playing narrower and slower we have to cope with that, real football, of course, is a different thing, but we probably have to accept trade-offs like these in a computer game and use TI's wisely.

For what it's worth, several of these TIs which influence multiple settings are challenged fairly regularly. Nothing is set in stone and so hopefully we can see sensible separation of things in future.

[higgins]

For what it's worth, several of these TIs which influence multiple settings are challenged fairly regularly. Nothing is set in stone and so hopefully we can see sensible separation of things in future.

It would be a right move.

[RTHerringbone]

The key thing is that SI have to be aware of a problem, or of alternative opinions, in order to assess whether or not they feel a change needs to be made.

Of course, SI dictate the flow of the general direction of the game, but their ME developers are by far and away the biggest critics of this side of the game. They are also very receptive to requests for change; as a FMC user, I can see clear outputs from the FMC wishlist thread in FMC14 - and I hope for the same again in November.

In order for a desire for change to "gain momentum", I'd suggest that people start threads which articulately appraise a TI, PI, or whatever it is that they want changed, and then detail a viable alternative. Other users can then chip in to agree / disagree / challenge and refine the premise and then the thread gains momentum.

As things stand, the forum just contains sporadic references to issues like these and there's limited likelihood that SI will ever see those posts. Forums can be full of crap, but the cream usually rises to the top and well reasoned arguments have greater likelihood of being seen, rather than occasional posts which get diluted amongst the dross.

[deserter]

The key thing is that SI have to be aware of a problem, or of alternative opinions, in order to assess whether or not they feel a change needs to be made.

Of course, SI dictate the flow of the general direction of the game, but their ME developers are by far and away the biggest critics of this side of the game. They are also very receptive to requests for change; as a FMC user, I can see clear outputs from the FMC wishlist thread in FMC14 - and I hope for the same again in November.

In order for a desire for change to "gain momentum", I'd suggest that people start threads which articulately appraise a TI, PI, or whatever it is that they want changed, and then detail a viable alternative. Other users can then chip in to agree / disagree / challenge and refine the premise and then the thread gains momentum.

As things stand, the forum just contains sporadic references to issues like these and there's limited likelihood that SI will ever see those posts. Forums can be full of crap, but the cream usually rises to the top and well reasoned arguments have greater likelihood of being seen, rather than occasional posts which get diluted amongst the dross.

I think it would be best to suggest any changes in the wishlist thread here: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/306914

This is a thread that SI monitors.

Posting in here is fine, but this is more for us to discuss with each other than anything else.

Far point bud, but the game is going in another direction, if every TI did just one thing we should too many of them, the chase for "realism" is provoking that, SI are trying to reduce exploits limiting the options we have, this is the last trend and I'm sure FM2015 will go even further in that sense.

If the developers think that shorter passing automatically means playing narrower and slower we have to cope with that, real football, of course, is a different thing, but we probably have to accept trade-offs like these in a computer game and use TI's wisely.

I think it would be useful if the base settings for each mentality were articulated in the same(ish) language that the TI's use. (The same for PI's.) That is, show us on top of TI's the base passing style that attacking, for example, uses. On top of possession section: something like "Defenders pass short, mid's normal, attackers direct." Shape: Wide and high. Defending: high pressure. Something like that, so that people don't keep on using play wider when they are already wide or hassling opponents when they are already pressing aggressively when they might not need to go to such extremes.

I'll admit, this fulfills the same purpose that showing sliders would, just differently articulated, maybe more in line with what we have now. Is there a need for that? For me, no. For a newcomer, possibly yes.

[RTHerringbone]

I think it would be best to suggest any changes in the wishlist thread here: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/306914

This is a thread that SI monitors.

Posting in here is fine, but this is more for us to discuss with each other than anything else.

I'm quite aware of that thread

My point was that if intelligent discussion can be captured in one thread here, then it can subsequently be linked into the Wishlist thread.

If we can generate enough strong and articulate feedback here, then it is easier to link that thread into the Wishlist one, rather than dominate that thread with a load of tactical discussion.

[higgins]

I think it would be useful if the base settings for each mentality were articulated in the same(ish) language that the TI's use. (The same for PI's.) That is, show us on top of TI's the base passing style that attacking, for example, uses. On top of possession section: something like "Defenders pass short, mid's normal, attackers direct." Shape: Wide and high. Defending: high pressure. Something like that, so that people don't keep on using play wider when they are already wide or hassling opponents when they are already pressing aggressively when they might not need to go to such extremes.

I'll admit, this fulfills the same purpose that showing sliders would, just differently articulated, maybe more in line with what we have now. Is there a need for that? For me, no. For a newcomer, possibly yes.

I'm not a newcomer but some kind of visual representation of the tactical asset being used is absolutely needed, some other things should be tweaked in the tactical interface, a quick example:

I'm using the team instruction "Use tighter marking", this is supposed to work for my team as a whole, right? Then I open the players instructions tab and here I could once again set almost every player to "mark tighter", this is really confusing cause this option should be not available here, you should only have the chance to deselect some of your players, if needed, from that particular instruction, not adding it once again.

[ianscousemac]

The problem with some of the TI's is that they do more than one thing. If you use "shorter passing", for example, it does not only shorten passing, but also gives slower tempo and lesser width. So what if you don't want that? What if you just want to shorten passing? Then you have to use other TI's that compensates for that .... these may again do several things, and there you go ...

The whole thing is of course further confused with the player not knowing what the TI's actually do. It's not explained. Other than in these forums, if you find the right thread.

But what the combined results of these instructions are, you simply don't know. Other than by watching the matches. Then you have to try out different combinations of instructions until you (hopefully) arrive at something that plays more or less as you envisioned. Much time and frustration could be avoided if we had a better understanding of what the combined result of these instructions was beforehand.

I for one would be much happier if the TI's did just one thing, the thing it says on the tin. It gives me much more control. Me, I like to play football that is controlling the game, attacking, but with short, controlled passing, very high tempo, wide, with very determined and immediate pressing, with high levels of creative freedom for my more attacking players. So, Control/Attacking with Fluid fluidity, right? However, adding shorter passing is not short enough. So I use "Retain possession" instead. There, that's the passing length I want, perfect! Only ... my tempo is now way down, and my width is narrowed. Now what?

Just an example. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a plethora of TI's to achieve the combined result you want. Sometimes you arrive at them by chance, simply because there's no clue anywhere as to which ones cancel each other out, which ones adds to each other ... and so on. Those of us that remember what these settings did to each other (when we had the sliders as visual guides), have some clue. But simply not enough. I'm quite sure I could possibly leave a couple of my TI's out of the equation, because their combined results with some of the other ones means they are not really needed. But which ones? You have arrived at a tactic setup that works (somewhat) like you want, and now you are in the middle of the season ... begin messing up your tactics with the trial and error method again? I don't think so, I'll leave it as it is.

Give me:

Shorter passing. Much shorter passing. Shortest possible passing.

More direct passing. Much more direct passing. Directest possible passing.

None of these to do anything else but adjust passing. I'll take care of the other stuff myself, thank you very much.

Like that idea:thup:

Using the current system if I want to play attacking Mentality with Very Short passing at a Fast Tempo, do I use TI Shorter passing, Retain possession and much higher tempo?