Is it time to rethink the Tactics Creator?

[ceefax the cat]

The tactics creator genuinely seems designed to make the game seem like an impenetrable black box at times. Select 'Extremely direct' passing and watch as your passing options for fullbacks, midfielders and strikers disappear to be replaced by the single choice: "shorter passing". The one thing you have specifically asked your team not to do, with no option to change it.

What the TC means, of course, is 'shorter passing in the context of extremely direct passing' which makes almost no sense. If 8 outfield players are described as passing it 'shorter' then that's not 'extremely direct passing' is it? You'll also find your NCB's hardwired to 'more direct' passing. More direct than 'extremely direct' is that?

"Alright lads, we're going to play a VERY ATTACKING style of football, only much slower and with much less closing down, lots of timewasting and a very deep defensive line, and shorter passing for almost all of you, not forgetting of course that we will as a team be playing extremely directly." This is how the TC asks you to formulate your instructions.

I don't think anybody would ever describe a team's tactics in that way and if you heard those instructions as a player you'd simply get changed and make your way to the car park, so why is the Tactics Creator doing it? As often as not, it's preventing users from being able to think clearly about their tactics, rather than making it simpler.

Edited November 11, 2023 by ceefax the cat

[kingjericho]

That's an interesting point of view. I don't believe the basis of the TC will change soon. Getting rid of fluidity as an option was a good start, though. Nowadays you can still use a Defensive mentality and then have 8 or 9 attacking duties which hardly makes any sense. Maybe the player duties should dictate the team's overall mentality?

[Cloud9]

3 hours ago, ceefax the cat said:

The tactics creator genuinely seems designed to make the game seem like an impenetrable black box at times. Select 'Extremely direct' passing and watch as your passing options for fullbacks, midfielders and strikers disappear to be replaced by the single choice: "shorter passing". The one thing you have specifically asked your team not to do, with no option to change it.

What the TC means, of course, is 'shorter passing in the context of extremely direct passing' which makes almost no sense. If 8 outfield players are described as passing it 'shorter' then that's not 'extremely direct passing' is it? You'll also find your NCB's hardwired to 'more direct' passing. More direct than 'extremely direct' is that?

"Alright lads, we're going to play a VERY ATTACKING style of football, only much slower and with much less closing down, lots of timewasting and a very deep defensive line, and shorter passing for almost all of you, not forgetting of course that we will as a team be playing extremely directly." This is how the TC asks you to formulate your instructions.

I don't think anybody would ever describe a team's tactics in that way and if you heard those instructions as a player you'd simply get changed and make your way to the car park, so why is the Tactics Creator doing it? As often as not, it's preventing users from being able to think clearly about their tactics, rather than making it simpler.

My understanding is that lack of transparency is an intentional choice by SI. That can be frustrating, particularly because it makes the learning curve a bit steep when you're starting out. 

I think a pretty core concept is that player Instructions (PIs) take priority over team instructions (Tis), and both of those just impact a players tendency to do something or not. A NCB will not take risks and he will play direct, so he will boot the ball up the pitch when it comes into his possession. If you select "pass it shorter" on a CM(s) for example while your TIs are "very direct" he will lay the ball to other players more capable of executing a direct pass. NCB is one of the few roles in the game I'd recommend you avoid for that reason. 

I would read through some of the stickied threads at the top of the forum if you're feeling lost and try to get a feel for how roles, particularly in pairings, work w/each other on the pitch. Watching matches in full is also helpful in learning the game. 

Edited November 11, 2023 by Cloud9

[ElJuanvito]

hace 2 horas, kingjericho dijo:

That's an interesting point of view. I don't believe the basis of the TC will change soon. Getting rid of fluidity as an option was a good start, though. Nowadays you can still use a Defensive mentality and then have 8 or 9 attacking duties which hardly makes any sense. Maybe the player duties should dictate the team's overall mentality?

Mentality is one of my small bug bears. Risk is probably a better description of what it does.

Edited November 12, 2023 by ElJuanvito

[ceefax the cat]

5 hours ago, kingjericho said:

That's an interesting point of view. I don't believe the basis of the TC will change soon. Getting rid of fluidity as an option was a good start, though. Nowadays you can still use a Defensive mentality and then have 8 or 9 attacking duties which hardly makes any sense. Maybe the player duties should dictate the team's overall mentality?

Yes. Mentality should purely be a function of other instructions. Positions/roles should pretty much be a function of attributes.

Edited November 12, 2023 by ceefax the cat

[ceefax the cat]

On 11/11/2023 at 16:42, Cloud9 said:

My understanding is that lack of transparency is an intentional choice by SI. That can be frustrating, particularly because it makes the learning curve a bit steep when you're starting out. 

I think a pretty core concept is that player Instructions (PIs) take priority over team instructions (Tis), and both of those just impact a players tendency to do something or not. A NCB will not take risks and he will play direct, so he will boot the ball up the pitch when it comes into his possession. If you select "pass it shorter" on a CM(s) for example while your TIs are "very direct" he will lay the ball to other players more capable of executing a direct pass. NCB is one of the few roles in the game I'd recommend you avoid for that reason. 

I would read through some of the stickied threads at the top of the forum if you're feeling lost and try to get a feel for how roles, particularly in pairings, work w/each other on the pitch. Watching matches in full is also helpful in learning the game. 

I'm not feeling lost as such.... been playing a long time... I just think the interface when it comes to tactics is pointlessly opaque and needs to be ditched.

Edited November 12, 2023 by ceefax the cat

[Wavelberry]

Especiallty now we're at a point where the 'mentality' is mostly just using positive as the optimum to base all your tactics around. Using very defensive/defensive now is just sub-optimal so what is the point of them existing. I am so sad they got rid of it working last year after the Christmas patch.

[lied90]

14 hours ago, ceefax the cat said:

The tactics creator genuinely seems designed to make the game seem like an impenetrable black box at times. Select 'Extremely direct' passing and watch as your passing options for fullbacks, midfielders and strikers disappear to be replaced by the single choice: "shorter passing". The one thing you have specifically asked your team not to do, with no option to change it.

What the TC means, of course, is 'shorter passing in the context of extremely direct passing' which makes almost no sense. If 8 outfield players are described as passing it 'shorter' then that's not 'extremely direct passing' is it? You'll also find your NCB's hardwired to 'more direct' passing. More direct than 'extremely direct' is that?

"Alright lads, we're going to play a VERY ATTACKING style of football, only much slower and with much less closing down, lots of timewasting and a very deep defensive line, and shorter passing for almost all of you, not forgetting of course that we will as a team be playing extremely directly." This is how the TC asks you to formulate your instructions.

I don't think anybody would ever describe a team's tactics in that way and if you heard those instructions as a player you'd simply get changed and make your way to the car park, so why is the Tactics Creator doing it? As often as not, it's preventing users from being able to think clearly about their tactics, rather than making it simpler.

100% agree. Those of us who have played for a long time are able to make sense of it, but it's horribly confusing for new or casual players.

It would be much better if things like width, passing etc was always adjustable in one set spectrum.

[bosque]

I think the biggest problem is that new players (and not so new) have to come to the forums and do a deep dive to find out about certain instructions behaviour. You might find hints in the game tooltips but a lot of times is quite ambiguous. Like for example the "work ball into box" instruction reduces long shots AND crosses. The game only tells you that the team will be more patient in the final third. Maybe being ambiguous is the idea because football is.

[vrig]

2 hours ago, bosque said:

I think the biggest problem is that new players (and not so new) have to come to the forums and do a deep dive to find out about certain instructions behaviour. You might find hints in the game tooltips but a lot of times is quite ambiguous. Like for example the "work ball into box" instruction reduces long shots AND crosses. The game only tells you that the team will be more patient in the final third. Maybe being ambiguous is the idea because football is.

I get the general point about ambiguity, but surely that one doesn't take much figuring out? The 'final third' section has 3 options, one is shooting on sight, another early crosses, and then WBIB. Is it not fairly obvious that if you tell the team to focus on doing one of those 3 things, the team is less likely to do the other 2 as often?

[bosque]

21 minutes ago, vrig said:

I get the general point about ambiguity, but surely that one doesn't take much figuring out? The 'final third' section has 3 options, one is shooting on sight, another early crosses, and then WBIB. Is it not fairly obvious that if you tell the team to focus on doing one of those 3 things, the team is less likely to do the other 2 as often?

Yes, it turns red the other 2 options but it doesn't tell you about that. Maybe the idea is that the user has to figure that out. But from a UX point of view it's not very user-friendly.

I personally have a struggle with passing directness and tempo. Not sure how they combine or work at all. 

Edited November 12, 2023 by bosque

[SimonHoddle]

7 hours ago, bosque said:

I think the biggest problem is that new players (and not so new) have to come to the forums and do a deep dive to find out about certain instructions behaviour. You might find hints in the game tooltips but a lot of times is quite ambiguous. Like for example the "work ball into box" instruction reduces long shots AND crosses. The game only tells you that the team will be more patient in the final third. Maybe being ambiguous is the idea because football is.

Haha. Don’t let them off the hook like that! Football is a simple game which is why it’s beautiful! FM is not football, it’s a game based on football but (very importantly) it has its own rules and dynamics , which change every year.

SI should provide developers notes. How they’ve seen the ME behave as it evolves. Instead we’re routinely left guessing and I cry every year as my catenaccio defence seems to concede 50 shots and 4 goals by passes played over the top of my supposedly deep DL.

The ambiguity helps them excuse the games faults. I don’t criticise SI for not creating the perfect replica of football but openness about the ME would be very welcome.

[ceefax the cat]

It would be so helpful to ditch 'mentality' for a start, and then just have instructions with explanations and visual aids that simply, literally do what they say they are doing, rather than the car crash of describing tempo as 'slightly slower than a standard team, assuming a very attacking mentality, assuming more direct passing', for example. Absolutely nobody would ever describe a football team that way.

 

[Aoyao]

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Aoyao

[ceefax the cat]

On 12/11/2023 at 02:26, Wavelberry said:

Especiallty now we're at a point where the 'mentality' is mostly just using positive as the optimum to base all your tactics around. Using very defensive/defensive now is just sub-optimal so what is the point of them existing. I am so sad they got rid of it working last year after the Christmas patch.

I most often use 'defensive' as a way to address the problem of players constantly hitting daft Hollywood passes to nowhere and losing possession. I'm more likely to use it if I'm actually trying to dominate the game and do what most would describe as 'attacking'. I most often use 'attacking' to encourage players to try low percentage passes / runs from the back, as an underdog, doing what most would describe as 'defending'.