What I dream of as the next step in 3D match engine

[Tetsuro P12]

Don't know if it would be feasible, also I suppose it would require lot of work and testing. Still this is what I dream for as the final (r)evolution of the 3D match engine:

- No more mentalities, just a single base to start from. Easy to mantain and to balance (from developer's standpoint).

- Fewer team instructions (no more saying to all players "do low crosses" or "be more creative").

- No more hardcoded roles. No more 'box to box midfielder', etc. Let the player start from an (almost) blank sheet. (working) Premade tactics offered for the newbies.

- A lot more individual instructions. Also, Tempo, etc. can be related to individuals instead of 'whole team'.

You AMR cut inside and cross tight. You ML play wide and cross low. Individual box to box behavior instructions too, etc. That specific player will act exactly as you want it to instead of depending on a strict scripted role. You tell that specific ST that you want him to go back when defending, while another will pursue other duties.

- Defending, Supporting and Attacking attitudes stay in place. Player positioning: same.

More granularity, less scripted content. It would add a lot more options and would make very different tactics happens.

Wouldn't be it that good?

Anyway the match engine is better than in the past, new roles added more options, still don't think it will ever be balanced as it is coded now. Can always tinker on new systems other than patching old ones. Scripted content feels old.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Tetsuro P12

[Angus Osborne]

Which version was it where you could set every instruction for every player on individual sliders, and then set their precise position on the field depending on position and possession of the ball? It was a time-sucking exercise in futility for me. Personally I think the current version with mentalities, roles and duties is an enormous improvement

[Mitja]

Gave you thumbs up eventhough I only agree with first suggestion

Why no roles?

[rp1966]

On roles I sort of agree with you, but I have slightly different take on it.  I'd like to see role creation moved to the training module (seems more logical from a football perspective). 

So you would either chose a preset role or define your own based on the kind of free definition you are talking about and you'd then set players to train into that role.  As part of that training your coaches would feedback whether a player could actually learn the role (mentals) or was capable of performing that role as you've defined it (physical, technical) and you may need to alter the role definition to better suit the player,

When building the tactic, you'd choose player and roles they were capable of working with, in similar fashion to now. But whereas your squad player midfielder may only be able to see CM, BBM and BWM, you star man may have a custom role that no-one else in the team is capable of fulfilling which has been tailored specifically to him.

It would also mean that lower leagues with low attribute players would be shut out of certain roles and players with inappropriate physical attributes couldn't be trained into a role that, for example, requires them to run hard for large parts of the match.

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by rp1966

[rp1966]

11 minutes ago, Mitja said:

Gave you thumbs up eventhough I only agree with first suggestion

Why no roles?

I'm guessing he thinks PI's and roles are achieving largely the same outcome and one is redundant. Which is true really.  I started from that place, but rethought it - it's nice to have a 'preset' for a bundle of PIs and role sort of fulfills that.

Edited January 12, 2020 by rp1966

[Mitja]

6 minutes ago, rp1966 said:

I'm guessing he thinks PI's and roles are achieving largely the same outcome and one is redundant. Which is true really.  I started from that place, but rethought it - it's nice to have a 'preset' for a bundle of PIs and role sort of fulfills that.

I like your suggestion of linking roles to training. But they improved tactical aspect a lot including AI, this is the last thing I would change. Don't forget many roles have hidden instructons that can't be replicated. And they can be edited. There are so many roles I really see no need to have custom roles.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Mitja

[rp1966]

21 minutes ago, Mitja said:

I like your suggestion of linking roles to training. But they improved tactical aspect a lot including AI, this is the last thing I would change. Don't forget many roles have hidden instructons that can't be replicated.

That's kind of the point of moving it into training. Expose those instructions so that you have real freedom in what you can ask a player to do - the limit should be the player's abilities - not a series of presets. That's part of the reason games have started to all play out in such a predictable way - the fixed set of roles are very constricting on what the ME does.

One of the things that I've never liked about the way FM has evolved is it seems to have become over-focussed on representing football as it is played today (partly the fault of the stats-bunnies kicking up a stink every time things deviate from the last couple of seasons).   One of the reasons football has such great appeal is that there is incredible flexibility about how a team can be set up and what works, it just need a coach with the vision to see it - 'Inverting the Pyramid' shows exactly what that freedom means.  For that reason I want the game to allow total freedom on tactical creation - as I've said in other discussions for me the limitations on tactics are the imagination of the coach and the physical/technical ability of the players to execute those tactics - other than the laws of the game there really are no other limits.

I really wish SI would ignore the stats bunnies for few seasons and concentrate on making an engine that plays realistic looking football, rather than football constrained by the stats of the tactics that are in vogue now, and will have changed in a few season giving different statistical balance.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by rp1966

[Tetsuro P12]

1 hour ago, Angus Osborne said:

Which version was it where you could set every instruction for every player on individual sliders, and then set their precise position on the field depending on position and possession of the ball? It was a time-sucking exercise in futility for me. Personally I think the current version with mentalities, roles and duties is an enormous improvement

Don't know, I do not remember it. Was it FM or another game? Anyway you will have your premade tactics, that you can tailor it to better suit yourself if you like. Any system has its pros and cons, and any system is scripted to some extent. You can notice already that many roles share already many similarities, not much difference from one to another (so why you would need it?), the mentality attitude is often more important than the specific role and that would be preserved. Also, less (repeated) scripted content to mantain.

In the past the match engine wasn't evolved like now. Now it can be far better developed. More computational resources available, more developer's experience in programming.

58 minutes ago, Mitja said:

Gave you thumbs up eventhough I only agree with first suggestion

Why no roles?

You will set role by individual instructions, so no need for precise scripted roles. You can make that box to box midfielder more suited to your schemes instead of taking a generic one that will act as the developer had it in mind.

49 minutes ago, rp1966 said:

On roles I sort of agree with you, but I have slightly different take on it.  I'd like to see role creation moved to the training module (seems more logical from a football perspective).

That would be horrendous for those that leave training to staff (like myself). Why not just set instructions in the tactic panel? Then it will be up to the player to have confidence or have the right abilities to perform it well, instead you should train abilities. You can't do your way without angering a good chunk of the community, those who like to focus on other aspects of management. That's more about coaching than managing.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Tetsuro P12

[Angus Osborne]

29 minutes ago, Tetsuro P12 said:

Don't know, I do not remember it. Was it FM or another game?

For the record, it might have been CM4. A long time ago anyway

[Tetsuro P12]

8 hours ago, Angus Osborne said:

For the record, it might have been CM4. A long time ago anyway

Nope, it wasn't much different from now, just more instructions from set pieces, and less for normal play. Eventually at that time player instructions bothered you, while now they are normality. What if you can't change them? Easier game, but more limited, less varied. We can think at an even more varied environment for the next step. Eventually things evolve, not just by simplifying and derailing like Civilization did.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Tetsuro P12

[forameuss]

12 hours ago, Angus Osborne said:

Which version was it where you could set every instruction for every player on individual sliders, and then set their precise position on the field depending on position and possession of the ball? It was a time-sucking exercise in futility for me. Personally I think the current version with mentalities, roles and duties is an enormous improvement

You used to have a lot of "control" over stuff like that back when it was a commentary only game.  I would be amazed if those settings were giving the level of control they claimed to be though.

[pheelf]

- No more mentalities, just a single base to start from. Easy to maintain and to balance (from developer's standpoint).

In what way would it be easier to maintain and to balance? Consider also that the AI has to be capable of using the system. My concern with this would be that instead of simplifying things it would actually make them more complicated. More complication for the AI means slower processing times as instead of choosing between 7 mentalities it would in your system need to decide between all the different TIs.

- Fewer team instructions (no more saying to all players "do low crosses" or "be more creative").

Which instructions do you see as being unneeded and why?

- No more hardcoded roles. No more 'box to box midfielder', etc. Let the player start from an (almost) blank sheet. (working) pre-made tactics offered for the newbies.

For what benefit? There are blank sheet roles in the game as it stands anyway (wide midfielder, central midfielder, full back etc).

- A lot more individual instructions. Also, Tempo, etc. can be related to individuals instead of 'whole team'.

I agree to a certain extent although I wouldn't go as far as saying there should be a lot more. Again though, will the AI be able to use this effectively, if not then it just becomes another advantage for the human player to exploit.

- Defending, Supporting and Attacking attitudes stay in place. Player positioning: same.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Honestly, I don't see any of your suggestions as being an evolution of the ME. Stripping out all of the shortcuts which the AI uses (mentalities, roles and duties) and forcing players to decide on each individual setting for each individual player actually is a retrograde step in my view as it adds complication.

I agree with you that the current ME is coming towards the end of its life cycle though. There is only so much patching you can do to an old ME before you need to think about replacing it. The only problem being that coding a new ME is a long and complicated process.

Best Regards

[Tetsuro P12]

1 minute ago, pheelf said:

- No more mentalities, just a single base to start from. Easy to maintain and to balance (from developer's standpoint).

In what way would it be easier to maintain and to balance? Consider also that the AI has to be capable of using the system. My concern with this would be that instead of simplifying things it would actually make them more complicated. More complication for the AI means slower processing times as instead of choosing between 7 mentalities it would in your system need to decide between all the different TIs.

- Fewer team instructions (no more saying to all players "do low crosses" or "be more creative").

Which instructions do you see as being unneeded and why?

- No more hardcoded roles. No more 'box to box midfielder', etc. Let the player start from an (almost) blank sheet. (working) pre-made tactics offered for the newbies.

For what benefit? There are blank sheet roles in the game as it stands anyway (wide midfielder, central midfielder, full back etc).

- A lot more individual instructions. Also, Tempo, etc. can be related to individuals instead of 'whole team'.

I agree to a certain extent although I wouldn't go as far as saying there should be a lot more. Again though, will the AI be able to use this effectively, if not then it just becomes another advantage for the human player to exploit.

- Defending, Supporting and Attacking attitudes stay in place. Player positioning: same.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Honestly, I don't see any of your suggestions as being an evolution of the ME. Stripping out all of the shortcuts which the AI uses (mentalities, roles and duties) and forcing players to decide on each individual setting for each individual player actually is a retrograde step in my view as it adds complication.

I agree with you that the current ME is coming towards the end of its life cycle though. There is only so much patching you can do to an old ME before you need to think about replacing it. The only problem being that coding a new ME is a long and complicated process.

Best Regards

1. Because there aren't 49 more situations to test? Surely there could be a risk of exploitation, but AI tactics can always be tweaked. And the system is already exploited, anyway. For one you would have a basic balanced system that works, and by offloading play to player's instructions far more variety. Remember that developers can adjust tactics too and they surely download those famous exploiting user tactics and do test them. They will do it with the new system too. If a players cracks it it doesn't depend on the developer.

2. All unneeded, because with the new system everything will be offloaded to the individual players. Then developers can always think at team instructions, but not in the way that it is now. 'Everyone back when lost ball possession' can be saved for example, but not really needed when you can tell it to individual players.

3. Because you will have more control on them, instead of preloaded scripts. You tell him exactly what you want from him with detailed individual instructions, as you would do with a normal player.

4. A lot more is needed, otherwise you can't make this new system working since you will not have anymore hardcoded roles, at least not to that extent as now.

Not an evolution, a revolution. You can have fun with an all hardcoded and unbalanced (because of mentality and AI approach) system, but you can have it too with a completely different system. I know it would be a big job, certainly something that justify the big money people spends on the game year after year.

[pheelf]

1 hour ago, Tetsuro P12 said:

1. Because there aren't 49 more situations to test? Surely there could be a risk of exploitation, but AI tactics can always be tweaked. And the system is already exploited, anyway. For one you would have a basic balanced system that works, and by offloading play to player's instructions far more variety. Remember that developers can adjust tactics too and they surely download those famous exploiting user tactics and do test them. They will do it with the new system too. If a players cracks it it doesn't depend on the developer.

2. All unneeded, because with the new system everything will be offloaded to the individual players. Then developers can always think at team instructions, but not in the way that it is now. 'Everyone back when lost ball possession' can be saved for example, but not really needed when you can tell it to individual players.

3. Because you will have more control on them, instead of preloaded scripts. You tell him exactly what you want from him with detailed individual instructions, as you would do with a normal player.

4. A lot more is needed, otherwise you can't make this new system working since you will not have anymore hardcoded roles, at least not to that extent as now.

Not an evolution, a revolution. You can have fun with an all hardcoded and unbalanced (because of mentality and AI approach) system, but you can have it too with a completely different system. I know it would be a big job, certainly something that justify the big money people spends on the game year after year.

The problem is that while it may appear that you're simplifying things by removing the core aspects of tactics, actually you are making them far more complicated and as I said before increased complication for the AI means longer processing times.

In your revised system, the AI and human player would have to painstakingly select every single instruction for every single player which would make the game an absolute nightmare to navigate especially when making tactical changes during a game. If I wanted to say change my BBM (S) to a CM (S) in the current system I can do that with a couple of clicks, in your proposed system I would have to deselect every instruction I didn't want then select all the instructions I wanted which would be massively time consuming. 

Then again, my opinion doesn't really matter as I don't produce the game. Why don't you post your ideas in the feature request sub section and see what SI have to say about them?

Best Regards

[forameuss]

 

3 hours ago, Tetsuro P12 said:

1. Because there aren't 49 more situations to test? Surely there could be a risk of exploitation, but AI tactics can always be tweaked. And the system is already exploited, anyway. For one you would have a basic balanced system that works, and by offloading play to player's instructions far more variety. Remember that developers can adjust tactics too and they surely download those famous exploiting user tactics and do test them. They will do it with the new system too. If a players cracks it it doesn't depend on the developer.

 

You're right, there aren't 49.  There would now be infinite numbers.

@pheelf is 100% correct.  You're simplifying it for the user, but at the cost of essentially turning it into something that would be incredibly exploitable, and a horrid nightmare to maintain.

Edited January 13, 2020 by forameuss

[Tetsuro P12]

4 hours ago, pheelf said:

The problem is that while it may appear that you're simplifying things by removing the core aspects of tactics, actually you are making them far more complicated and as I said before increased complication for the AI means longer processing times.

In your revised system, the AI and human player would have to painstakingly select every single instruction for every single player which would make the game an absolute nightmare to navigate especially when making tactical changes during a game. If I wanted to say change my BBM (S) to a CM (S) in the current system I can do that with a couple of clicks, in your proposed system I would have to deselect every instruction I didn't want then select all the instructions I wanted which would be massively time consuming. 

Then again, my opinion doesn't really matter as I don't produce the game. Why don't you post your ideas in the feature request sub section and see what SI have to say about them?

Best Regards

I never said it wouldn't be more complicate on the player's level, if they take the route of heavily personalize tactics (even now they can have problems, that's not the point). Still it would have basic stuff (premade tactics) offered, as it is now.

I presume that AI will go with predetermined tactics, like maybe it does now, it's a system for benefitting the player, not the AI. Not to have a pratical advantage but to allow their personal schemes, that's it. And it isn't nothing really new, it's just that developers now can be more skilled and computers have enough computational power to make it working and engaging. I don't see the point on criticizing a system that would give you more freedom instead of (almost completely) scripted content.

You should know that even now roles have lot of code in common, we are talking about 5/6 individual instructions instead of the actual 2/3. Or do you like to remove actual 2/3 just to make it 'faster'?

You can always save your personalized role as a preset, that can be offered as an option. Point is to not get stuck to premade scripted roles.

2 hours ago, forameuss said:

You're right, there aren't 49.  There would now be infinite numbers.

@pheelf is 100% correct.  You're simplifying it for the user, but at the cost of essentially turning it into something that would be incredibly exploitable, and a horrid nightmare to maintain.

Nope, they offer a system balanced and working, the player can just tweaks it for their taste. Testing will be done with the stuff offered. If there will exploiting tactics they can just them.

The match engine is already exploitable, so you don't have that point. You will never have an unexploitable system, just a more scripted one or a more open one. I take that you would like more the scripted one, no problem with that. Taste is taste.

[forameuss]

14 hours ago, Tetsuro P12 said:

Nope, they offer a system balanced and working, the player can just tweaks it for their taste. Testing will be done with the stuff offered. If there will exploiting tactics they can just them.

The match engine is already exploitable, so you don't have that point. You will never have an unexploitable system, just a more scripted one or a more open one. I take that you would like more the scripted one, no problem with that. Taste is taste.

The haughty sign-off only really works when it isn't preceded by demonstrable nonsense, by the way.

If you really think that cutting down on templates will make things simpler for the developers, then there's not really much point in going on.  You're starting from wrong and riding the train straight down.