Approach to management

[landskill]

When I'm playing and using one formation I save 3 variation I can switch between to respond to game situations or opposition faced. These are usually a defensive/counter attacking version to use against stronger opposition teams or seeing out a game, an attacking set up and a patient version. I like the sets and the versatility it gives my side, but now I want to change my approach, to be more adaptable with several formations. If I had 3 saved formations how much of a negative impact would changing mentality within each one during a game have?

The other question is how do people adapt their approach? I know some just chance mentality, some just use shouts. Finding people's approaches would maybe help others that struggle to adapt, whatever method is used I see it as vital to success in the game, to stop those late goals going in, to break down those stubborn defences, to counter an oppositions setup.

From reading great threads from people with far more understanding than I its obvious there is more than one way to skin a cat, I think it might help people struggling to find their own way to see them in one place. I do realise it with be match and situation specific but people usually have a trend, please share yours and maybe help people see the different ways they could go.

[thomit]

With the 3 tactical setups we are allowed to "pre-train", I like to jam into them as many instructions that I'm likely to use (in matches) as possible, and try to allocate them between the 3 as intelligently as possible, so that whatever I choose during future matches, I know that my tactical familiarity won't take a big hit. For example; there will be a big difference in familarity between a tactical setup and the same tactical setup with just "hassle opponent" added. So at least 1 of my 3 tactical setups will include "hassle". If I think I will be using it, of course. Etc. I will try to have 3 tempos pre-trained, 3 widths and so on. If I'm likely to be using an instruction that I know will move these tactical familiairity bars, I will add it to at least 1 of my 3 tactical setups. The aim is of course to try to ensure that whatever instructions I add (or remove) during a match, the tactical familiarity will remain at 100%. Including formation(s), mentality and fluidity.

[bababooey]

With the 3 tactical setups we are allowed to "pre-train", I like to jam into them as many instructions that I'm likely to use (in matches) as possible, and try to allocate them between the 3 as intelligently as possible, so that whatever I choose during future matches, I know that my tactical familiarity won't take a big hit. For example; there will be a big difference in familarity between a tactical setup and the same tactical setup with just "hassle opponent" added. So at least 1 of my 3 tactical setups will include "hassle". If I think I will be using it, of course. Etc. I will try to have 3 tempos pre-trained, 3 widths and so on. If I'm likely to be using an instruction that I know will move these tactical familiairity bars, I will add it to at least 1 of my 3 tactical setups. The aim is of course to try to ensure that whatever instructions I add (or remove) during a match, the tactical familiarity will remain at 100%. Including formation(s), mentality and fluidity.

Exactly why I started playing FMC months ago. I found tactical familiarity to be completely ridiculous. And I wasn't sure at the time if my decision making was poor, if or players simply weren't accustomed to playing the current style.

[ZdlR]

Exactly why I started playing FMC months ago. I found tactical familiarity to be completely ridiculous. And I wasn't sure at the time if my decision making was poor, if or players simply weren't accustomed to playing the current style.

I don't think it's ridiculous. It's actually a realistic concept: it takes time for players to learn a tactic's intricacies and, during that learning period, the team will not correctly execute on the ideas of the tactic.

It is a poor game mechanic though, because it is such a shallow representation of real-life in comparison to most of the other parts of FM. Sure, under the hood, I'm sure there's a lot of machinations that coordinate to make it all work, but what the user sees and can interact with in order to affect the levels is very minimal.

You get to see:

• An overall familiarity level for each tactic. The familiarity levels are represented a continuous bar with four labelled segments: awkward, competent, accomplished, fluid. I assume this is an unweighted average of familiarity for each component of the tactic.
  
• A breakdown of familiarity levels for eight different areas of the tactic: formation (shape), mentality, passing style, creative freedom, closing down, marking, tempo, width.
  
• Probable evidence of less than 'fluid' familiarity in the various areas of a tactic during a match, represented by a degradation in quality of play for the aforementioned eight areas.
  

You can influence tactic familiarity in only two ways:

• Alter the amount of tactical match training: by increasing the training focus (up to 50%) for tactical match training, and/or increasing the number of matches that are played (which just serves to create even more tactical match training).
  
• Changing your tactic will negatively impact the relevant component familiarity levels. Changing mentality will lower the familiarity of mentality. Changing for formation will lower the familiarity of formation, etc.
  
• The speed of the tactic 'learning' is negatively impacted by adding more tactics to learn. Training 1 tactic is quicker than training 2, and both are quicker than training three.
  

That's it. It's a shallow representation of real-life. It's a realistic addition but there just aren't enough ways to tailor the tactic familiarity. There is pretty much one way to work with familiarity, as set out by Cleon: Set up ~10 friendlies in preseason, ramp up match training to 50%, set the focus to 'tactics' and do not (significantly) change your tactics. Any change that affects any of the eight component areas that make up familiarity will move the team away from what they have learnt and thus lower familiarity. Feels very 'arcade' and not at all how I am used to FM being designed. Having said that, I could expand this 'shallowness' argument to the whole training module since the sliders (which were in no way realistic, but were much more customizable).

It sounds like FM15 will introduce another way of altering the velocity of increase of tactic familiarity levels: being a 'tactics manager' (as opposed to a 'tracksuit manager'). I worry about this 'feature' though, because it sounds like the effectiveness of some in-game interactions will no longer be determined by your 'skill' in making the right decision (which is what management is: making decisions), but instead will be determined by some 'score' that you have for a certain area.

Indulge this analogy for a minute. Consider the difference between combat in a FPS and combat in a RPG. In the former, your accuracy is overwhelmingly determined by your aiming with the controller (either gamepad or mouse). Sure, there are other factors such as the inherent accuracy of the weapon (shotgun vs sniper rifle), but your skill at aiming is the primary factor. However, in an RPG, you don't even aim with the controller. You select an enemy to target and you elect to shoot at them. Your character's 'aiming skill', likely represented as a number or 'level', is the primary factory to determine accuracy (with the weapon accuracy still a secondary consideration). In an RPG, you 'level-up' through success over a period of time. The new 'manager type' selection feels a lot like FM moving into RPG territory - or at least exposing the RPG elements of the underlying game mechanics: making it explicit.

The RPG element of FM is already somewhat visible in the reactions of your players to team talks. Giving the exact same team talk to the same players under identical conditions yields different results depending on your reputation as a manager. If you are a Sunday league manager in a top division club (therefore your manager character's reputation is significantly less than that of your players), then you will see less positive reactions. If, however, you have a Guardiola/Mourinho/Ferguson level reputation, then the reaction to players is much more likely to be positive, irrespective of what you say. This is a number unconnected with your own personal skill at choosing the right motivating words dictating the error margin for a key game mechanic. Ergo, RPG.

A positive aspect of RPG game design is that it provides a customizable difficulty level in a realistic context. There are ex-pros who walk into top management jobs all the time. It is not because they have yet accomplished anything as a manager, it is due to a carry-over of their reputation as a player. It gives them a foothold at a higher level. Alternatively, it gives them more time to learn if they take a job significantly lower than their reputation: they are less likely to be sacked for a couple of poor results. Conversely, a lower-reputation manager given a job at the top level will be given much less margin for error. See Tim Sherwood or, as a more extreme example, Les Reed at Charlton.

[bababooey]

That's a great point you've made there.

I suppose where I'm coming from is, as someone who likes to tinker with tactics, it felt like I was being punished for making changes.

But then also, what about adjustments for each opponent? No manager in real life sends his team out there to play the exact same way EACH game. So, when playing the full game, if I had to make changes to my gameplan (even subtle ones) I felt I was being punished. If I need to play wider, but my team isn't trained to do so, I'm getting hit with this arbitrary thing. Why wouldn't they be able to just spread out more without being penalized? It seems backwards to me. I can understand if players aren't comfortable with the system as a whole, but one change shouldn't be a difference maker.

In other words... if I'm a few months in and the tactic is totally "fluid" (I hate this term btw) and then I come up against an opponent where I need to make some changes in match, for whatever reason, why should my player suddenly forget everything? I mean let's say I need to drop slightly deeper, play at a slower tempo, and tackle easier. Are those things that players at the top flight of world football incapable of doing without months of practice? Again, if the system as a whole changed that'd be one thing. But making adjustments shouldn't be penalized.

And then the other part of this is, shouldn't tactical familiarity be a larger issue for lower league players? I mean if players in the Barclays Premier League can't fully understand a slight change in tempo, width, or tackling, then something is seriously wrong, no?

[Bluenosebear]

I load 3 tactics usually different shapes but my base tactic pretty much stays the same all season and i only make slight changes during a game based on things like the weather, someone shooting too much or even the oppositions shape etc. I never use the OI's either, keeping thing as simple as possible with minor tweaks on a match per match basis seems to work for me.

[ZdlR]

If you changed d-line, tempo and tackling then that will affect two of the familiarity bars: let's say closing down and tempo, because a lower d-line also lowers closing down but tackling doesn't have dedicated familiarity. Note, though, that if you selected 'stand off' or 'hassle' then this affects closing down, not tacking, so that's a third familiarity component that would be affected. Remember that the familiarity sliders aren't binary 'I know this/I don't know this'. It's a continuous measure of familiarity. If you have 'hassle opponents' selected and decide, for this next game, you want to back off and so choose 'stand off opponents' instead, then it's quite possible that the familiarity bar for closing down will go from 100% 'fluid' (agreed that this is a terrible term) down to 0% 'awkward'. (To complicate matters, this will only happen if you have no other tactics with 'stand off opponents' trained to any degree.) That's a giant drop in familiarity to reflect a big difference in your tactical setup for closing down. Does this mean that your players are suddenly idiots that cannot defend? I would say no, that would make no sense. I think it would be sensible if a lack of familiarity gave your players a handicap on relevant attributes. It should also be regressive, so an absolute handicap of, say, 2 points for 'awkward closing down' on relevant attributes or closing down situations. This means that the impact for a player with 20 positioning is only a 10% handicap, yet the impact for a player with 10 positioning is a 20% handicap.

Regardless of speculative underlying implementation, your players should not become total idiots. It's all relative. If the tactical changes are only minor, then the impact to familiarity is only minor, and the impact to attributes would only be minor.

For the second question, I agree that there should be an attribute that serves as a 'tactical intelligence' index for players which determines how quickly they can adapt - if at all - to a new system. I'm not sure if one exists, so we're back in the speculation zone. I could ruminate that the component familiarity bars are actually an average of all of your player's individual familiarity with a certain level of closing down / marking / tempo / etc. This actually bears a bit of scrutiny because of the Assistant Manager's comments that 'Player X is used to closing down more often than he is beind asked to'. This hints that the player has a personal, individual familiarity level for closing down. It would then logically follow that one or more attributes could be used to determine the 'velocity' at which the player learns to adapt (oddly enough, there's an adaptability attribute, but I'm fairly sure that's only used to determine how well/easily a player settles in at a new club/country).

[Cougar2010]

People seem to get too hung up on familiarity IMO.

Each of the three options refer to a formation in my saves. I might have a 442, a 451 & say a 4132. Within those three formations I freely change mentality, roles, duties & instructions from match to match and during depending on what is happening on the pitch.

[EnigMattic1]

I only have 2 formations saved and, although my guys are completely familiar with both, I have only ever used one. It isn't that I don't like to tinker, I have just never had the need to switch. The problem I foresee with that is, despite being totally familiar with the formation, it hasn't been tested so it may be totally crap.