Neb

Great ideas!

I like them a lot! :thup:

retired_tonyrssll

I for one don't take any interest in this side of the game. I sort of leave it running on it's own. Occasionally, I'll give the lads a day off, but that's about the sum total of my training involvement. That's what Assistant Managers and Coaches are for!

retired_ledal139

Sort of but at the same time you won't perform as well you could if you use exactly the same tactic for every match. The key is getting the right balance, something which would be replicated with my suggested changes above. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Gotch... great suggestions (in both threads) btw. I just got a little nervous with tactics training like you describe for little things like packing the back at the end of a match or going all out for a result with an extra attacker in the last quarter hour.

retired_murphy0007

Man, some good ideas here.
I would add another one: individual training (probably your player development but you haven't talked about it)

The idea would be to allow players to train hard some particullar areas of training, aside normal schedule they are assigned to.

You could just have some option (lets say two for player) where you could tell him to improve set pieces, finishing, heading, etc.

Or you could just do it with the training slides. Right now, if you go to a player profile/training and change the slides, it will change all schedule slides, therefore affecting all other players in that schedule.

The idea would be that in this screen (player profile/training) if you, for instance, change david beckham set pieces slide (because you have choosed him to take set pieces)it will only change Beckham's slide.
Let's say this is something like working late, as many players, particulary in set pieces, do.

Same way, if you need a player to improve physical stats more dramatically, you would just raise his slide up, eventually getting some others down in order to keep a balanced training. Otherwise he would get very tired.

This addiction together with the ones you said would make a real enhancement to the training side of the game, as you would have influence in players development as well as team, etc.

I particulary love the idea of the team getting used to difrerent tactics. This would allow to play regarding your opponent, but obviously you have to train them. Eventually, if you want your team to learn many tactics you would have to gave uo on other aspectis, for example technical.
Obviously, as any team in real life, you won't be interested in learning 10 tactics, but eventually 2 or 3 maybe with some nuances like counter-attacking, deep defense or whatever.

very good post lloydy

Emm

LFC Lloydy. Great opening post but I have found that now is not the best time to post stuff like this. Unfortunately the forum is swamped with useless threads at the moment and the chances are this will be relegated to page 2 by the morning and lost forever.

100% for trying though. :thup:

treeNinja

Aragoa,

I haven't spoken about what I call the "player development" section because I felt it is something that has been well covered before. I have similar thoughts to yours though. Thanks for the comment.

Jimbokav,

I understand what you are saying but I to be perfectly honest I am sick of puting up with idiotic posts and I'm not going to let them stop me. I think now that the first patch is out and it has been a few months since release things will start to get better.

I may as well post now because if I wait till all the useless threads are gone then it won't be posted at all. I am willing to lead the campaign to get the forums back to na decent standard Thanks for the comment though.


Thanks to everyone else who has commented as well :thup:

Emm

Viva la revolution !!!

leftfoot

:thup: to the idea. I'll float an idea as to how it could be implemented within the current game and see what people think. This could potentially remove the need for an overhaul of the current match engine as Sean M alluded to.

First I'll outline how I assume the 'Positional Rating' system works e.g. Natural, Accomplished etc. as this will be the foundation for how it might work.

My theory on 'Positional Rating' is that the match engine inputs are modified based on how comfortable a player is in the position he is playing. I believe that mental attributes are reduced relative to a player's comfort in a particular position e.g. a 'Natural' DM with positioning attribute 20 has his positioning attribute reduced if played as a centre half where he is less than 'Natural' so he won't behave like a 'Natural' CB with positioning of 20.

So within the training module we could have a couple of drop down selectors similar to when selecting a player to train a new position. So we have:-

1. As you have already suggested a drop down menu from which you choose a tactic to train. This tactic could be selected from the archives much like in the tactic screen.

2. A secondary drop down menu which then lets you choose a position from the previously selected tactic for a player to train in.

3. A third drop down menu which determines in which 'Team Selection' a player is placed in training within said tactic. Thus by making the right selections a manager can select all of his first XI to train a new tactic together, all of his second XI to train a new tactic together, or any combination he chooses.

If this system is modelled on the current 'Train a New Position' system then it could probably be set up to create a measure of how comfortable a team is in a given tactic similarly to the "Accomplished, Natural, Competent,..." player positional rating. Also by removing the versatility factor which causes a players positional rating to drop, a team's comfort within a given tactic would be reduced if training had ceased rather than staying fixed as a high versatility player's positional rating can when he stops training in a new position. This would be identical to the star system you suggested above except I believe it would be implementable within the current game set up.

This could be aligned to how many matches the team plays a given tactic similarly to how FM 08 now measures how many matches a player plays in a given position. Thus a manager could play one tactic in the majority of matches thus maintaining the team's proficiency in said tactic, while at the same time focusing tactical training on a new formation. The game could also record team selections automatically, thus recording how often different players play together in competitive matches.

This could also be linked to what you mentioned above about player relationships and how well partnerships within a team work. So if two strikers had trained/played in the same tactic together sufficiently to reach the maximum proficiency then this would be reflected in how well they perform together within said tactic. Similarly for:-

1. CB-CB
2. ST-ST
3. CM-CM
4. LB-LW
5. RB-RW

etc., etc.

So essentially you could have a 'localised gelling effect' independent of the overall 'global team gelling effect' which exists currently.

Having re read all of that there are some crucial aspects that would have to be considered when implementing such a system. For example if a Premiership quality side faces a League 2 side. The Premiership manager selects a formation that the team has zero proficiency in and the League 2 manager selects his best formation which the team has been playing week in week out. So the Premiership tactic has a proficiency of 1/20 and the League 2 side has a proficiency of 20/20 in their respective tactics.

If the 'tactical proficiency effect' is too large this could result in a strange result occuring. Some may argue that this would be a fair reflection of a manager making a poor tactical decision (in this case the Premiership manager) but I don't believe that the 'Tactical Proficiency Effect' should be too significant to the point it creates a flip flop in quality of the two teams facing each other. It would be very difficult to get the balance just right, and the chances of it creating absurd results might be quite high.

A secondary issue with this system is the effect on processing times. If every single manager, AI or Human, was having to make these decisions re training on a daily basis I fear that it would cause a lot of PCs to grind to a halt. Whether or not it would be possible to refine this for AI controlled teams so it doesn't create a processing freeze I really couldn't say.

:thup: I hate the way currently you only discover if a bad relationship exists when it reaches it's boiling point. I had some thoughts on this similar to yours which I had been holding back on posting until the 'I hate SI/This game sucks' threads had calmed down. I might post them in a separate thread if you don't have any objections LFCLoydy. You can have a read of it and if you feel I am stealing your thunder I'll get a mod to lock it.

treeNinja

Interesting read isuckatfm, thanks for taking the time. With regards to your concerns over processing I also had them but tbh I am not sure what can be done. Of course SI knows more about how the game works so they would be in a better postion to work that out, it is more or less the same dilemna for any major new addition though.

I have no problem with you posting here or in a new thread, nor do I have the right to stop you. I look forward to seeing what you have to say.