Idea for FM 2010

[wrightinio]

Firstly, I wasn't sure whether to post this in here, the General Discussion forum, or the Tactics forum. I decided to post here since it is something I hope to gain feedback for from the general FM Community and it is also something that I think may appeal to the general FM'er too.

Now, onto the idea...

I really love FM and think SI have done a great job with the new patch, especially regarding the match engine. But I feel that the game is almost becoming too tactically reliant. If you aren't a person who likes to spend time tweaking the finer details of tactics or don't stumble across and fancy reading TT&F, then the general perception is the the game is very difficult to just "pick up and play". (I stress that this is a general perception after reading many threads on the forum and isn't supposed to apply to everyone.)

I feel that the tactics aspect could do with a bit of an overhaul. This isn't something I've only thought up because I'm angry at my current save or anything like that. I'm actually doing quite well with my AFC Telford side but I also think my idea would add to the realism of the game.

I think the sliders for Mentality, Creative Freedom, Passing and Closing Down need to go. A real manager would never tell a player to drop his Mentality down a couple of notches from 10 to 8 whilst increasing his Closing Down to 14 from 12 in order to give the opposition less time on the ball. It just wouldn't happen. I think the slightest tweak currently makes a difference and that in itself isn't realistic.

Now, I've seen some threads try to address the problem by suggesting tick boxes. Well IMO, in order for the tactics to become more realistic, there needs to be 5 options per 'tactical variable' and having tick boxes would just cluster up the current Player and Team Instructions and just wouldn't improve the interface.

So, my suggestion is to have drop-down menus with each of the following options attached to each tactical variable:

Mentality: Ultra Defensive, Defensive, Normal, Attacking and All-Out Attack

Creative Freedom: None, Little, Some, When Appropriate, A Lot

Passing: Simple, Short, Mixed, Direct, Long

Closing Down: Stand Off, Jockey, Fifty-Fifty, Often, Always

Now since there are 5 options per variable, each one could represent a number on the 'hidden slider system' employed by SI (providing this is a good enough idea ).

The first one of the 5 could be representative of 1 on the slider, the 2nd option could be 5 on the slider, the 3rd could be 10, the 4th could be 15 and the 5th could be 20. This may require some tweaking of the match engine but I honestly think it would make building tactics a little easier (and more realistic) and also appeal to the "pick up and play"ers that have left the game due to focus on intricate tactics.

Obviously the variable 'names' that would appear on the drop down menu may be better than the ones I have cone up with and hopefully if you guys like the idea you could come up with some better ones. I'd be interested to see what you have to say on the issue.

Cheers for reading

[anagain]

Firstly, I wasn't sure whether to post this in here, the General Discussion forum, or the Tactics forum. I decided to post here since it is something I hope to gain feedback for from the general FM Community and it is also something that I think may appeal to the general FM'er too.

Now, onto the idea...

I really love FM and think SI have done a great job with the new patch, especially regarding the match engine. But I feel that the game is almost becoming too tactically reliant. If you aren't a person who likes to spend time tweaking the finer details of tactics or don't stumble across and fancy reading TT&F, then the general perception is the the game is very difficult to just "pick up and play". (I stress that this is a general perception after reading many threads on the forum and isn't supposed to apply to everyone.)

I feel that the tactics aspect could do with a bit of an overhaul. This isn't something I've only thought up because I'm angry at my current save or anything like that. I'm actually doing quite well with my AFC Telford side but I also think my idea would add to the realism of the game.

I think the sliders for Mentality, Creative Freedom, Passing and Closing Down need to go. A real manager would never tell a player to drop his Mentality down a couple of notches from 10 to 8 whilst increasing his Closing Down to 14 from 12 in order to give the opposition less time on the ball. It just wouldn't happen. I think the slightest tweak currently makes a difference and that in itself isn't realistic.

Now, I've seen some threads try to address the problem by suggesting tick boxes. Well IMO, in order for the tactics to become more realistic, there needs to be 5 options per 'tactical variable' and having tick boxes would just cluster up the current Player and Team Instructions and just would improve the interface.

So, my suggestion is to have drop-down menus with each of the following options attached to each tactical variable:

Mentality: Ultra Defensive, Defensive, Normal, Attacking and All-Out Attack

Creative Freedom: None, Little, Some, When Appropriate, A Lot

Passing: Simple, Short, Mixed, Direct, Long

Closing Down: Stand Off, Jockey, Fifty-Fifty, Often, Always

Now since there are 5 options per variable, each one could represent a number on the 'hidden slider system' employed by SI (providing this is a good enough idea ).

The first one of the 5 could be representative of 1 on the slider, the 2nd option could be 5 on the slider, the 3rd could be 10, the 4th could be 15 and the 5th could be 20. This may require some tweaking of the match engine but I honestly think it would make building tactics a little easier (and more realistic) and also appeal to the "pick up and play"ers that have left the game due to focus on intricate tactics.

Obviously the variable 'names' that would appear on the drop down menu may be better than the ones I have cone up with and hopefully if you guys like the idea you could come up with some better ones. I'd be interested to see what you have to say on the issue.

Cheers for reading

So what you're saying is that you want to get rid of the current sliders and replace them with a smaller set of sliders? Sorry if I have gotten it wrong, but that is what you are saying from where I am sitting.

There's a couple of points I'd make:

1. Managers might not tell their players to so 2 steps lower in mentality or close down a bit less but FMs sliders is just a scale to put your commands to the match engine. There has to be some way of doing that, and the sliders is the current method.

2. I think small tactical changes do make a big difference in real life matches. How many times do a side switch wingers or move a midfielder into a more advanced position?

This has been discussed many, many times already and there's never been any general consensus that I have seen. There always ends up being the two camps; one that are happy with the sliders, and another that find it too challenging and unrealistic.

I personally feel that there has to be a way to put commands into the match engine, and a way that will be equally available to the player of the game. I think the sliders does that currently. Maybe it does need a change, but I don't think that simplifying the game, which is what you essentially have suggested, is the way to go.

Incidentally SI have come on these boards and said that they are prepared to listen to the people who say that the tactics side of FM is not simple to pick up. They have therefore said that they will look at ways to address that. I also believe that they have said that they will not let a readdressing of the tactics side of the game diminish the depth that the game currently has.

It's going to be a damn good system that does that. I don't believe changing things before some really great new idea springs up is the best for FM. I certainly don't want to see things simplified. That would just push me away from FM, as I believe the game still isn't really all that difficult now.

[MeLikeFM]

no i think he means a drop-down menu or something along those lines

[wrightinio]

So what you're saying is that you want to get rid of the current sliders and replace them with a smaller set of sliders? Sorry if I have gotten it wrong, but that is what you are saying from where I am sitting.

There's a couple of points I'd make:

1. Managers might not tell their players to so 2 steps lower in mentality or close down a bit less but FMs sliders is just a scale to put your commands to the match engine. There has to be some way of doing that, and the sliders is the current method.

2. I think small tactical changes do make a big difference in real life matches. How many times do a side switch wingers or move a midfielder into a more advanced position?

This has been discussed many, many times already and there's never been any general consensus that I have seen. There always ends up being the two camps; one that are happy with the sliders, and another that find it too challenging and unrealistic.

I personally feel that there has to be a way to put commands into the match engine, and a way that will be equally available to the player of the game. I think the sliders does that currently. Maybe it does need a change, but I don't think that simplifying the game, which is what you essentially have suggested, is the way to go.

Incidentally SI have come on these boards and said that they are prepared to listen to the people who say that the tactics side of FM is not simple to pick up. They have therefore said that they will look at ways to address that. I also believe that they have said that they will not let a readdressing of the tactics side of the game diminish the depth that the game currently has.

It's going to be a damn good system that does that. I don't believe changing things before some really great new idea springs up is the best for FM. I certainly don't want to see things simplified. That would just push me away from FM, as I believe the game still isn't really all that difficult now.

I suppose it would be like a smaller set of sliders in essence, but the options available would be more like 'commands' than the numbers they are currently.

I also 100% agree that positional changes do have a big influence on a game. But with regards to the smallest detail having a large impact, I was particularly talking about the slider system. Based on TT&F, my own tactical experiences and those I have read about from other members, it seems that changing the sliders by even one or two notches has quite an effect, when considered in the whole tactical framework. This is unrealistic as changing notches on a slider doesn't happen IRL, positional changes do.

[david22]

I agree

.......

[anagain]

This is unrealistic as changing notches on a slider doesn't happen IRL, positional changes do.

Yes, real managers don't use a slider, but that method is just a means to convey the player's chosen tactics over to the match engine.

Maybe I'm coming across as someone who doesn't want to see change, but that's not the truth. I'm all for change, but I don't think that essentially reducing the scale of the sliders is the way to make that change.

On a second read of your OP you do have some good ideas for the scales but I think it needs more than that. As to what that more is, well I don't know.

I think you'd have to agree with me that not reducing the games depth and difficulty is a must.

[anagain]

I agree

.......

Please say why you agree. The OP made a well thought out and well written post. Saying 'I agree' makes it look like you just want to boost your post count. Posts don't make prizes...not in this game.

[wrightinio]

Yes, real managers don't use a slider, but that method is just a means to convey the player's chosen tactics over to the match engine.

I do understand what you're saying, but surely that means that it's unrealistic since we, the players of the game, shouldn't have to go into more detail than real-life managers just to increase the difficulty and depth of the game. I thought the game was supposed to be about simulation and realism, whilst incorporating difficulty and depth as secondary aspects. IMO, the difficulty and depth aspects shouldn't overtake those of simulation and realism because then it loses its appeal as a football management game and becomes a fantasy game.

I think you'd have to agree with me that not reducing the games depth and difficulty is a must.

I would agree, but realism must come first IMO. And I think that can be done whilst still keeping the current difficulty levels. Perhaps by making other things such as Player Interactions, Press Conferences, Team Talks and Training have much more of an impact than they currently do. Thus by somewhat reducing the difficulty of creating and applying tactics, you still keep the difficulty of winning matches by making other aspects more important.

[Nebu]

There is a thread for this, read the stickies, thank you come again.

[wrightinio]

There is a thread for this, read the stickies, thank you come again.

I believe you are referring to the 'Wishlist' for FM 2010? That thread is to be used when you want to list ideas for future versions.

When the idea is about a specific topic (which it is) and there is only one idea which you want feedback on (which there is) then as far as I'm aware, you're allowed to open a new thread about it.

[Mezz Boms]

Thought id just say that there has been some brilliant posts in this thread. Both Wrightinio and Anagain, some really good arguements.

I think i currently sit on the fence at the moment. I dont 100% agree / disagree with either of you. Maybe the games tactics are a little to hard for people to grasp but others will take pride in making their own tactic that rips teams apart after spending days perfecting it. I agree that something has to be done but i dont think that making the tactics less detailed and more simple would be great benefit to anyone. I think that giving players their own individual tactics maybe a better way to do things. Instead of setting individual tactics for the position they should be set for the person and linked with other players which they are playing with in other positions on their team.

This seems hard to explain, i hate naming players and i dont think we are supposed to but i feel that this is the only way i can get my point across in a way that people may understand what i mean as i am not very good at explaining things.

Take Manchester United's central midfield for example, there are about 5 players all worthy of a starting place only two can play at once. Each player has different strengths and weaknesses and adapts their game depending on the partner they are playing with. When Scholes is partnered with a more offensive attacking player then he will sit back and spread the play all across the pitch and rarely going over halfway into the oppositions half (halfway between the oppositions box and the halfway line) with very few forward runs but when he is partnered with Hargreaves then he is a lot more offensive and is instructed to get forward more often and shoot from just outside the box. He could be linked with the wingers ie, play balls for them to run onto and get into a position for a return ball afterwards or he could be linked with the attackers ie to feet or to chest etc (i know that this is currently on the tactics screen but i personally dont think it makes much of a difference in the match engine.)

So in short depending on who is on the pitch with a certain player (my example being Scholes) then that should determine the tactics. My motton being play using the players strengths.

I apologise for suggesting a new idea and hijacking the thread but i feel that this is an alternative idea to the sliders. If i am on a different planet and what i said is stupid please feel free to point out the error of my ways

[wrightinio]

Thought id just say that there has been some brilliant posts in this thread. Both Wrightinio and Anagain, some really good arguements.

I think i currently sit on the fence at the moment. I dont 100% agree / disagree with either of you. Maybe the games tactics are a little to hard for people to grasp but others will take pride in making their own tactic that rips teams apart after spending days perfecting it. I agree that something has to be done but i dont think that making the tactics less detailed and more simple would be great benefit to anyone. I think that giving players their own individual tactics maybe a better way to do things. Instead of setting individual tactics for the position they should be set for the person and linked with other players which they are playing with in other positions on their team.

This seems hard to explain, i hate naming players and i dont think we are supposed to but i feel that this is the only way i can get my point across in a way that people may understand what i mean as i am not very good at explaining things.

Take Manchester United's central midfield for example, there are about 5 players all worthy of a starting place only two can play at once. Each player has different strengths and weaknesses and adapts their game depending on the partner they are playing with. When Scholes is partnered with a more offensive attacking player then he will sit back and spread the play all across the pitch and rarely going over halfway into the oppositions half (halfway between the oppositions box and the halfway line) with very few forward runs but when he is partnered with Hargreaves then he is a lot more offensive and is instructed to get forward more often and shoot from just outside the box. He could be linked with the wingers ie, play balls for them to run onto and get into a position for a return ball afterwards or he could be linked with the attackers ie to feet or to chest etc (i know that this is currently on the tactics screen but i personally dont think it makes much of a difference in the match engine.)

So in short depending on who is on the pitch with a certain player (my example being Scholes) then that should determine the tactics. My motton being play using the players strengths.

I apologise for suggesting a new idea and hijacking the thread but i feel that this is an alternative idea to the sliders. If i am on a different planet and what i said is stupid please feel free to point out the error of my ways

I like the way you're thinking and I'm glad your bringing new ideas to the thread. I just think that the possibility of linking players with one another opens up a whole new world of options which would only increase the difficulty and lack of realism even more IMO.

For example, having the option to "play the ball out wide" and "hold for a return pass" would mean lots of other options would need to be included. Just to counter those two options you would have to have "play through the middle" and "run forward after pass". I feel that these options would be too specific and would negate the effect of the mental attributes. Whereas with my idea, I feel that the impact of both technical and mental abilities would increase in the match engine.

And just to make a further point clear (although you may or may not have been referring to it in your post ) I don't want to reduce the difficulty of winning matches. Hopefully that could be maintained as long as Team Talks, Player Interactions, Press Conferences and Training are made more relevant than they currently are.

[muncherdave]

Yes, real managers don't use a slider, but that method is just a means to convey the player's chosen tactics over to the match engine.

Maybe I'm coming across as someone who doesn't want to see change, but that's not the truth. I'm all for change, but I don't think that essentially reducing the scale of the sliders is the way to make that change.

On a second read of your OP you do have some good ideas for the scales but I think it needs more than that. As to what that more is, well I don't know.

I think you'd have to agree with me that not reducing the games depth and difficulty is a must.

Exactly. And the suggestion that wrightinho made is how the game used to be anyway. I think something will replace the slider system, but I really don't think it will be taking a step back to the ways of CM. The reason there is so many notches on the slider is for precision purposes. There needs to be a way of the tactical interface being both precise and clear to the operator, and what I think will happen will be one of the graphical representational ideas over the last year or 2. Whether its drawing lines onto the pitch overview where your squad is lined-up as you make your slider tweaks or some other method completely not using the sliders but still having a graphical representation there to see just how far up the pitch you want your defensive line or when to start closing down etc.

That is how I see the future, and I think something definitely has to change. No manager would send his team out blindly in his first few games in charge and then wait till 10 mins in and say "right there! That's where I want you to be positioned/push up to". Sure, he might get annoyed that people aren't following his instructions and start spewing expletives and tell him to get over there, but that is mostly because he isn't doing as he was told before the game even started. The point being, I don't believe we should have to play full matches to start building new tactics from. Sure, this new tactical interface shouldn't give everything away and you should still have to resort to tweaks in a game situation, but a lot of people who play the game have trouble even laying down the groundwork for a tactic. They'll experiment and change things but then when things go wrong they still have no idea why. The reason these people are getting so passionate about not being able to win games and ranting on here is because while they truly love the game, it's at the stage now where the ME is getting too complex for them to work out how to actually win at the thing. 9.2 was especially hard for a lot of people I feel.

[Herm]

Never mind that. 8 more months to fm10!

[drunkpunk]

I've personally never seen much problem with the sliders. I've always thought of them as just a way to express say the mentality of a player/team.

I guess like for Attacking mentality for example, the middle of the attacking part is the average attacking mentality whilst say more towards normal is like telling your players in training "I want you to attack but not as much as usual" or for more attacking "I want you to go for it a bit more".

[kimoss_isc]

I have a suggestion for the next fm game

ppl r stressing over the fact that tactics are not consistent and they have to tweak it all the time. But others like to enjoy the beauty of real management by embracing those challenges. A solution to this is to issue a difficulty choice when creating a new game.

Easy could have no tactical inconsistencies. Regular should be a bit harder and should require more creativity. Hard should be the ultimate challenge.

That way you can please everyone.

[muncherdave]

That would require 3 different match engines kimoss isc, and they have enough trouble keeping one bug free

[La Furia Roja]

A real manager would never tell a player to drop his Mentality down a couple of notches from 10 to 8 whilst increasing his Closing Down to 14 from 12 in order to give the opposition less time on the ball. It just wouldn't happen. I think the slightest tweak currently makes a difference and that in itself isn't realistic.

i agree with alot of the post but not with the reasons why. I have especially selected this part as its one of the main points people make, that real managers dont use sliders, which is true, they talk to the players, obvously we cant do that so i think the sliders are great. I believe that the options you suggested were used in CM and i didnt like it as everything was too decisive, players eith sat back too deep, did nothing or charged forward. Great post and ideas, however, im happy with how things are, however, all very sensible well thought out poinst, one of the better posts as they usually are "I hate this game, its too hard, SI should be ashamed!" :thup:

[AB-forever]

I think the sliders for Mentality, Creative Freedom, Passing and Closing Down need to go. A real manager would never tell a player to drop his Mentality down a couple of notches from 10 to 8 whilst increasing his Closing Down to 14 from 12 in order to give the opposition less time on the ball. It just wouldn't happen. I think the slightest tweak currently makes a difference and that in itself isn't realistic.

TBH I don't see the problem with the sliders. The slightest tweak does make a difference and it should. If your fullback's mentality is one notch too attacking the opposition winger would get a lot of crosses in. Decrease his mentality by one notch and he does a much better job of stopping the winger.

BTW, the sliders don't have numbers in the game. The community started using numbers because that makes it much easier to explain in their guides. And IRL a manager would tell a player to stand deeper but close down a little more aggresively, which I think the sliders represent in a good way.

[GillsMan]

I keep changing my mind about sliders. On the one hand I often think how unrealistic they are, as I try to imagine Fergie telling Giggs to play 60% attacking mentality today. But then, on the other hand, I think that the sliders are a pretty good way of translating the instructions that IRL would give to their players, especially as many top flight managers do seem to micro manage their teams. Today, I'm of the opinion that sliders are a good thing.

[elsgouro]

Would a manager ever tell the team's coach "you'll train tactics and not free kicks, cause you've got 5 stars for the first but only three for the other"? Or would he tell a player "you're training to hard, reduce the indensity 2 notches"? It's just a representation of the ordres given, just like the tactic sliders. So the argument "A real manager would never tell a player to drop his Mentality down a couple of notches" etc. is completely flawed imo.

Since the current technology doesn't give us the chance to "shout" the directions to the screen and see them applied, we have to use sliders, drop down menus, tick boxes and so on. I can understand all the arguments about the improvement of the UI, if the sliders have to many possitions, if DD menus are better etc but not on the vehicle of "what a real manager would do", especially when we're talking about giving individual instructions as we're playing a pc game.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I don't agree with this idea. If you want sliders with less notches why not just pretend there are less notches already and ignore the extra ones? That way you would have exactly what you are suggesting, but wouldn't be inconveniencing people who want smaller changes to their tactics.

I think a lot of the complaints about the sliders having too many notches come from people who want to devise The Perfect Tactic, and can't decide if their mentality should be 13 or 14. This problem goes away if you're just happy to settle for a good tactic that works quite well, and accept that there may be ways of improving it that you haven't discovered.

[wrightinio]

Firstly, I'm glad people seem to be taking the idea seriously at least and are making some good points that I may have missed and taking an interest in the thread.

Although I would enjoy the change, it wouldn't just be for me. I've been playing FM/CM since 99/00 and have bought every incarnation of the game (excluding the versions of CM since the Eidos/SI split) so I like to think I'm an experienced player. Now if an experienced player would enjoy the change (granted it seems a lot of other experienced players wouldn't) then imagine what it could do for newer players. It might be a bit more "pick up and play friendly".

Also, what a lot of people seem to be missing is the fact that i'm not suggesting 'dumbing down' the game. I want to see other areas increased in their relevance thus maintaining the difficulty level of the current game. Tactics are an important aspect, but as I have already stated (apologies if it's getting boring) I believe that Press Conferences, Player Interaction, Training and Team Talks could all be improved upon and have a greater influence on match days in conjunction with the slightly easier method of creating tactics. Hopefully it could tie in together.

And in reference to a particular poster above, I agree that these used to kind of be options on CM. However, the game has moved forward now and my hope would be that with the coding system and match engine now (although I don't know a great deal about either) that the mental attributes would have more of an impact and players would make better decisions both based on the simpler tactics and their mental attributes.

By this I mean that the previous match engines on CM did show players either bombing forward all the time or staying back all the time. I believe that at this time tactics were too simple and they had too much of an effect on players. Whereas now I believe SI are getting the match engine to work more solidly with attributes and so the representation of a player on the pitch is much more accurate. With this development and moving forward, I think that perhaps simplifying the tactics a little could still work as it would give more room for mental attributes to show on the pitch yet I believe the current (or a tweaked) match engine could still cope an make the game both difficult, yet enjoyable and realistic.

[kimoss_isc]

why not making three match engines..sure it is difficult and takes more time but in the end it will be worth it..

you will never hear feedbacks like "This game sucks i hate it."

No game in the world is bug free. But it is up to SI to minimize it as much as possible.

Another idea that popped into my head was when Strikers are feeling low confidence. How about introducing an option which can help boost his confidence? Put it in player interaction for instance.

[Kert]

So what you're saying is that you want to get rid of the current sliders and replace them with a smaller set of sliders? Sorry if I have gotten it wrong, but that is what you are saying from where I am sitting.

There's a couple of points I'd make:

1. Managers might not tell their players to so 2 steps lower in mentality or close down a bit less but FMs sliders is just a scale to put your commands to the match engine. There has to be some way of doing that, and the sliders is the current method.

2. I think small tactical changes do make a big difference in real life matches. How many times do a side switch wingers or move a midfielder into a more advanced position?

This has been discussed many, many times already and there's never been any general consensus that I have seen. There always ends up being the two camps; one that are happy with the sliders, and another that find it too challenging and unrealistic.

I personally feel that there has to be a way to put commands into the match engine, and a way that will be equally available to the player of the game. I think the sliders does that currently. Maybe it does need a change, but I don't think that simplifying the game, which is what you essentially have suggested, is the way to go.

Incidentally SI have come on these boards and said that they are prepared to listen to the people who say that the tactics side of FM is not simple to pick up. They have therefore said that they will look at ways to address that. I also believe that they have said that they will not let a readdressing of the tactics side of the game diminish the depth that the game currently has.

It's going to be a damn good system that does that. I don't believe changing things before some really great new idea springs up is the best for FM. I certainly don't want to see things simplified. That would just push me away from FM, as I believe the game still isn't really all that difficult now.

You basically contradict yourself, you say you want realism but in what way is the slider system realistic?? The OP's system would be much more realistic because in real life no manager talks to his players in such tactical depth, he simply issues commands similair to those suggested by the OP. So there is no need for a slider system to implement instructions as you say, as the game is meant to reflect the job of a manager, so a command system would be more realistic and a fairer reflection upon real tactics.

Tell me in what way does the slider system reflect any part of a managers job? It simply doesnt, a manager like Redknapp would just say, 'oi Jenas, get bloody tighter to Scholes hes running the show for them, close him down and dont give him the time to pass.. got it son?' (close down always) or 'Luka, stay in position son your leaving too much space... we need to keep it tight down the left' (Little creative freedom).

The good thing about the slider system is it offers good variation, I would not like the game to be like Fifa Manager where you only have a few options to choose from and they really do limit you in terms of what you can do. I would be all for the sliders to be overhauled, as long as they can still provide variation... long term though the game does need to make a move away from sliders and more towards commands/instructions as would be the case in real life.

Perhaps do it in stages, i.e keep a few important sliders such as defensive line and mentality.

[The Vet]

I concur with OP. There are too many sliders - players are human, and dont need to be instructed exactly what to do(well some humans do *snickers*), and to me many of them don't really work too well.

I also think the actual attributes should have a more deciding factor. Great crossers should be great crossers, fast strikers should be fast. Defenders with high anticipation should anticipate situations. I know it would suck to play at lower leagues, since they have poor attributes, but that is why they play a more simplistic game.

At the end of the day, I think that FM should remember that it is a game, and therefore should be fun to play. I know that is subjective, but in general the more complex you make a game, the bigger the chance that more people will fail, and have a horrid time with their failures. As it seems FM has grown too complex in its search to cover as many real life variables.

[wrightinio]

I concur with OP. There are too many sliders - players are human, and dont need to be instructed exactly what to do(well some humans do *snickers*), and to me many of them don't really work too well.

I also think the actual attributes should have a more deciding factor. Great crossers should be great crossers, fast strikers should be fast. Defenders with high anticipation should anticipate situations. I know it would suck to play at lower leagues, since they have poor attributes, but that is why they play a more simplistic game.

At the end of the day, I think that FM should remember that it is a game, and therefore should be fun to play. I know that is subjective, but in general the more complex you make a game, the bigger the chance that more people will fail, and have a horrid time with their failures. As it seems FM has grown too complex in its search to cover as many real life variables.

This is basically my point, and I'm glad somebody else has picked up on it. Attributes should have more of an effect than the intricate tactical instructions. One notch on a slider can have a big impact on the match engine. This is what is unrealistic.

Managers will give commands to players and will expect them to carry out those commands to the best of their abilities using their relevant attributes. The commands will still have an effect, but ultimately it's down to the player on the pitch to carry them out. Once a player gets onto the pitch, there is little a manager can do and it is up to the players to win the match. (obviously I know that tactical changes can be made during a match, but once the team is picked, the formation and tactics are set, then it's pretty much up the players). This is a point often made by commentators on both Sky Sports and ITV.

I do believe the level of failiure is increasing and it will turn more players off to the game. The hardcore players will always buy FM, but the casuals may find it too difficult (in terms of creating detailed tactics). If other areas are improved and made more relevant I could really see the system working.

[Nomis07]

I concur with OP. There are too many sliders - players are human, and dont need to be instructed exactly what to do(well some humans do *snickers*), and to me many of them don't really work too well.

I also think the actual attributes should have a more deciding factor. Great crossers should be great crossers, fast strikers should be fast. Defenders with high anticipation should anticipate situations. I know it would suck to play at lower leagues, since they have poor attributes, but that is why they play a more simplistic game..

The second part of that already happens, it's just a matter of needing a good tactic for those abilities to click and work properly.

As for too many slider, i'm not a fan, but i'm not a fan of the "Ferguson wouldn't have to..." argument either. What you are saying is, you want players to play to your tactics, but you want them to have a mind of their own, in certain situations, this raises two questions;

1. How do you programme a character to have cognitive ability that, in certain situations, bypass the tactical system?

2. What fun is there in picking a formation and telling them to attack and defend? If we're going down the reality route, then we aren't going to have many other options.

As I said earlier, i'm no fan of the sliders, but i'm yet to see anyone come up with a better idea.

[wrightinio]

The second part of that already happens, it's just a matter of needing a good tactic for those abilities to click and work properly.

As for too many slider, i'm not a fan, but i'm not a fan of the "Ferguson wouldn't have to..." argument either. What you are saying is, you want players to play to your tactics, but you want them to have a mind of their own, in certain situations, this raises two questions;

1. How do you programme a character to have cognitive ability that, in certain situations, bypass the tactical system?

2. What fun is there in picking a formation and telling them to attack and defend? If we're going down the reality route, then we aren't going to have many other options.

As I said earlier, i'm no fan of the sliders, but i'm yet to see anyone come up with a better idea.

But surely players should play within a framework of tactics but express those tactics using their own abilities? If a manager was to choose the wrong tactics through not paying enough attention to attributes then that's their mistake. But usually managers create a framework that their players can play within.

I'm a Liverpool fan, but look at Ferguson. He sets his formation and tactics, picks his players and then expects his players to go out and play to their abilities. You don't often see him even barking orders from the touchline (unlike Benitez) ad he definitely doesn't tweak his tactical sliders.

Also, it would be much more than just "attack and defend". Hopefully my suggestion could be implemented in such a way so that different and fairly diverse tactics can still be created, rather than just having option A and option B.

I feel we're at a point now where there is so much depth to other parts of the game, that a tweak towards the simpler side of tactics could be more realistic, whilst also keeping the difficulty level through other areas in the game.

[iamjerome]

i fundamentally disagree with anyone saying the current slider system is a "pretty good" way of translating instructions to the players in the game - no, they WORK yes, but they are not a good or efficient system for it, if anything it offers TOO much "depth". most of which is artificial, there really isn't a 20 level scale in real life football that FM tries to recreate, and in any case, number scheme only adds to the confusion for players not already acclimatised to the system. oh, "mentality" is a poor name for what it actually represents in the game too.

it isn't the "sliders" itself there is an issue with, but how they are used. condensing my thoughts:

1/ fm shouldn't ever need a mixture of various sliders to give simple instructions (see: cutting in.)

2/ sliders shouldn't be named as ambiguously

3/ 20 points on a slider scale creates artificial depth for the wannabe-mourinho's and too much 'space' for those who would like to keep football simple.

4/ i genuinely believe a 10 (maybe 12) point scale with a better defined role for each slider (i have severe doubts that even half of FM's playerbase knows what CF, Mentality really represents)

5/ perhaps simplifying each slider (which would need the creation of more sliders, but there's nothing wrong with that) into allowing player-induced collation of several simple sliders to draw advanced plays rather than now where it takes playing with several ambiguous sliders to incite simple football moves.

[Nomis07]

I understand what your saying, and in theory it sounds good, but you haven't answered my first question, which is probably the most important.

Take the following as an example.

A defender with 20 anticipation and 20 concentration has been asked to play to a high defensive line, but not to use the offside trap. The opposition midfielder gets the ball and shapes to play a through ball to the striker. Your defenders high level of anticipation means that he can read the game and knows exactly what the midfielder is going to do, he has the chance to step forward and catch the striker offside. What element should determine his decision? His anticipation of what's going to happen or your choice not to play offside?

In theory anticipation should be the overiding factor, but at what point does that kick in?

If it is to become active, only at a certain point or situation, that would be incredibly hard to code, because we are asking the players to follow tactics sometimes and work things out for themselves at other times.

If it is to be the overiding factor at all times, there are no need for tactics.

Should attributes or tactics be the main focus of the "tactic"? It's catch 22, and AFAIC the current system is the best of a bad bunch.

[iamjerome]

logically, the scenario you describe would (should) come active at a higher than 60% CF, but i would figure it is unlikely that a defender will ever be given such a CF.

[Nomis07]

logically, the scenario you describe would (should) come active at a higher than 60% CF, but i would figure it is unlikely that a defender will ever be given such a CF.

At which point tactics would be overriding attributes, and the player isn't playing to their attributes Whatever way you look at it, tactics have to be the deciding factor, whilst attributes are the deciding factor in the outcome.

[Mitja]

But surely players should play within a framework of tactics but express those tactics using their own abilities? If a manager was to choose the wrong tactics through not paying enough attention to attributes then that's their mistake. But usually managers create a framework that their players can play within.

I'm a Liverpool fan, but look at Ferguson. He sets his formation and tactics, picks his players and then expects his players to go out and play to their abilities. You don't often see him even barking orders from the touchline (unlike Benitez) ad he definitely doesn't tweak his tactical sliders.

Also, it would be much more than just "attack and defend". Hopefully my suggestion could be implemented in such a way so that different and fairly diverse tactics can still be created, rather than just having option A and option B.

I feel we're at a point now where there is so much depth to other parts of the game, that a tweak towards the simpler side of tactics could be more realistic, whilst also keeping the difficulty level through other areas in the game.

you really think SAF hasn't got his tactical systems made in detailes? they look so nice and simple becouse every player knows exactly what's his role at any given time. that's a confidence you gain over years of practice in training sessions and matches in tactical system which are always improving. it's defenetly not all about tactics but they are as important as any other aspect in football. difference between SAF and Benitez is that Rafa is far more cautious and he doesn't allow his players too much freedom. he attacks with 4 or 5 players, SAF with 8 or 10.

[iamjerome]

At which point tactics would be overriding attributes, and the player isn't playing to their attributes Whatever way you look at it, tactics have to be the deciding factor, whilst attributes are the deciding factor in the outcome.

i think there is a confusion between instinct and attribute in your discussion. i don't see why tactics would overriden by attributes (maybe poor decisions, concentration but that's another matter)

anyway, these aren't my issues with the slider system but all that was described in earlier post.

[Nomis07]

i think there is a confusion between instinct and attribute in your discussion.

Sorry, but there is no instinct attribute, so that's a mute point and is delving into the cognitive argument I described earlier. But this discussion is with regard to wrightinio's points.

1/ fm shouldn't ever need a mixture of various sliders to give simple instructions (see: cutting in.)

2/ sliders shouldn't be named as ambiguously

3/ 20 points on a slider scale creates artificial depth for the wannabe-mourinho's and too much 'space' for those who would like to keep football simple.

4/ i genuinely believe a 10 (maybe 12) point scale with a better defined role for each slider (i have severe doubts that even half of FM's playerbase knows what CF, Mentality really represents)

5/ perhaps simplifying each slider (which would need the creation of more sliders, but there's nothing wrong with that) into allowing player-induced collation of several simple sliders to draw advanced plays rather than now where it takes playing with several ambiguous sliders to incite simple football moves.

As for your points, I actually agree with 2, 3, 4 and 5.

[iamjerome]

Sorry, but there is no instinct attribute, so that's a mute point and is delving into the cognitive argument I described earlier. But this discussion is with regard to wrightinio's points.

As for your points, I actually agree with 2, 3, 4 and 5.

by 'yours' i meant yours and wrightinio, not just yours there - sorry. and yes, there isn't an instinct attribute but there are "ppm"s which should probably be as far as that goes, as with an 'instinctive' first choice a player would make in a given (as in applicable) scenario would be to perform x PPM. disagree fully with the assertion that ferguson just 'lets' his players play to their abilities, more like he (and queiroz previously) constructed a system that lets them do that as mitja has put forward already.

[Nomis07]

by 'yours' i meant yours and wrightinio, not just yours there - sorry. and yes, there isn't an instinct attribute but there are "ppm"s which should probably be as far as that goes, as with an 'instinctive' first choice a player would make in a given (as in applicable) scenario would be to perform x PPM. disagree fully with the assertion that ferguson just 'lets' his players play to their abilities, more like he (and queiroz previously) constructed a system that lets them do that as mitja has put forward already.

Ah, so I think we're kinda agreeing (in a round about way) The tactics do need work, but gameplay based on attributes, rather than tactics, is a no, no.

[Mitja]

gameplay based on attributes, rather than tactics, is a no, no.

defenetly but then again it's stupid when a player's playing stupid just becouse you set him 'wrong' a couple of notches...

[iamjerome]

amusing i moaned about ambiguity in FM sliders and here i am "arguing" with someone i'm trying to agree with!

[Nomis07]

defenetly but then again it's stupid when a player's playing stupid just becouse you set him 'wrong' a couple of notches...

No doubt about that, but a happy medium would be very hard to come by.

[iamjerome]

defenetly but then again it's stupid when a player's playing stupid just becouse you set him 'wrong' a couple of notches...

agreed, again. but of course, this is because the 20 scale is too wide and the reliance on numbers to represent instructions coupled with so many sliders interlinked makes it rather hard to comprehend the relativity they should have with each other.

[Nomis07]

My major problem with the sliders, their ambiguity and the effect they have on strikers (in particular) is the tempo bar. If they insist on keeping a tempo bar, they have to include it in player instructions afaic. I might want my team to play with a high tempo, but not my striker

[Mitja]

No doubt about that, but a happy medium would be very hard to come by.

that's why (20 notches) slider system sucks. if there were simple exact instructions system we would know why things are happening for sure, in slider system you just can't be sure. was it this slider or maybe that, was it slider or just wrong notch, creative freedom maybe

[Mitja]

My major problem with the sliders, their ambiguity and the effect they have on strikers (in particular) is the tempo bar. If they insist on keeping a tempo bar, they have to include it in player instructions afaic. I might want my team to play with a high tempo, but not my striker

imo tempo is implemented ok compared to 20 notches of time wasting?!? what's that suposed to meen? same goes for creative freedom...

[wrightinio]

Just been reading, with interest, the points made by Nomis and iamjerome.

I realise that my original idea was never 100% correct, but it was supposed to provide a basis for discussion and be open to new ideas, which I'm pleased to say it clearly has been

With regards to the "attributes over tactics" discussion, I actually now agree with you that tactics should play a primary role, with attributes playing a secondary role. But I still believe that can be done with my system, just in a simplified way. However, attributes must still OCCASIONALLY have a primary role.

To use Nomis' example - when that player makes that split second decision, he more than likely won't have time to think about the managers instructions. It should be a decision based on instinct. Now although there is no 'instinct' attribute, I firmly believe that ALL attributes represent a players instinct. Now, with that belief in mind, it could be reasonable to assume that 'Attributes = instinct". If we use this in the example, as I have already given my opinion that instinct (attributes) should be favoured when making split second decisions, then attributes should override tactics and become the primary function in the split second decisions only.

Clearly I agree this may be difficult to code into the game, but I'm not paid to do that in fact, I'm not paid to do anything by SI, I'm just putting foward my ideas, as a fan of the game, which can hopefully improve the game in the future

[Nomis07]

imo tempo is implemented ok compared to 20 notches of time wasting?!? what's that suposed to meen? same goes for creative freedom...

Time wastign and creative freedom are ok, but poorly implemented. Tempo, on the other hand, has far too much bearing on other sliders and can turn a world class striker into a muppet. The introduction of player specific tempo would go some way towards dealing with this.

With regards to the "attributes over tactics" discussion, I actually now agree with you that tactics should play a primary role, with attributes playing a secondary role. But I still believe that can be done with my system, just in a simplified way. However, attributes must still OCCASIONALLY have a primary role.

I don't disagree, but the problem is when do we want that to kick in? How could the game decide when a player should play to tactics and when a player should play to attributes? Luckily for us, we don't programme the game

[wrightinio]

I don't disagree, but the problem is when do we want that to kick in? How could the game decide when a player should play to tactics and when a player should play to attributes? Luckily for us, we don't programme the game

Well how do they do that now? How do SI programme the game so that a player cuts inside one time, but goes outside the next? How does the engine decide when a player makes a mistake? Now obviously I don't know the answers to these questions, but SI have obviously got some some sort of system in place. If they can tweak it and make noticeable changes for the 9.0.3 patch then surely they could make changes for the new game?

And the player should play to the tactics at all times except when there is a split second decision to be made. This is when the attributes (instinct) should kick in.

Would be interesting to see what somebody from SI could tell us with regards to this discussion. Perhaps shed some light on the issue.

[Nomis07]

Well how do they do that now? How do SI programme the game so that a player cuts inside one time, but goes outside the next? How does the engine decide when a player makes a mistake?

Now that's a very good point, and not one I had actually considered. However, PPM's determine certain aspects of the things you mention and there is nothing available to govern the players propensity to follow tactics or attributes, unless there was an "instinct" attribute added.

And the player should play to the tactics at all times except when there is a split second decision to be made. This is when the attributes (instinct) should kick in.

That raises another problem though, what should be considered a split second decision etc AFAIC the players either play to tactics and that's that, or they play to attributes and that's that, mixing and matching based on certain split second events, is asking for trouble.

[Daley]

My major problem with the sliders, their ambiguity and the effect they have on strikers (in particular) is the tempo bar. If they insist on keeping a tempo bar, they have to include it in player instructions afaic. I might want my team to play with a high tempo, but not my striker

I totally agree with Nomis07 on this. I feel that there should be far less team instructions and much more options for individual instructions. By that I mean that the 'team' tactic can be the formation, d-line, tackling, counter attacking (yes or no), offside (yes or no) and that's about it (I am open to others being included as I may have forgotten some options). The rest of the tactics should be defined by the individual instructions for players in certain roles. If you look at wwfan's TT&F (which as usual is brilliant) the tactics are very much based on 'team instructions' rather than looking at your individual players strengths & weaknesses and tailoring the way they each play within the team unit.