retired_mgavlick

I summarised the 'Parting Plea to SI' thread in GQ and the following isa summary of the response. I felt it important to post here as a lot of the maore sensible debate happens in T&TT. I'd be interested in hearing what people think.

Summary of GQ Thread

It seems FM players fall roughly into two camps. The first camp, one in which I firmly situate myself, is the camp that enjoys the challenge of tactical design. The second camp prefer the fantastical elements of a virtual world, prefering to build amazing sides for the favoured team, wanting the sheer quality of the player to outweigh tactical importance. SI seem to be heavily favouring the first type of player.


What Do We Want From FM?

Tactical Realists

A well thought out and realistic tactical module in which our tactical decisions (good or bad) make an obvious difference to result

Different ways of designing tactics that reflect the difference in real life approaches:

Systemic

Individualistic

Complex

Adaptive

Specific

All of these approaches work to some extent over an extended period of time and for tactical design enthusiasts, SI is doing a wonderful job.

A graded difficulty level, so once you have a good team and reputation, you must continue to adapt in order to outperform AI managers, thus maintaining long-term playability. Again, SI is giving tactical realists what they want.

The AI to punish illogical or inconsistent tactical choices.

No possibility of a 'Diabloesque' super-tactic.

Competitive transfer market so you can't guarantee getting top players and instead have to adapt your tactics for thos you do have.


Fantasists

Want to be able to buy top class players and win purely due to the quality of their squad.

Aren't interested in tactics and thus the tweaking they do often gets heavily punished as they don't really know what they are doing.

An increased level of feedback so they can make good tactical decisions when necessary.

A lack of re-ranking, tactical cracking (or whatever SI may call it) so long-term success happens without having to change things

Less of a perceived bias towards weaker sides (or defensive tactics)

The possibility of quickly taking a small club to European glory


LLaMas

To be left alone to play the game their own way, thank you very much.


Further Annoyances

Transfer bids rejected of equal or higher value than other teams.
Too much sensivity for injuries
Tactics (in game or in manual) are not clear enough
Away influence has been tweaked too high
Tactics are a little too important compared to stats (in 06 vice versa)
Media opinion asking about a serious foul you can't possibly judge
Too simple and repetitive media questions with basic and repetitive answers with predictable consequences, although I realise you have to start somewhere before it can get more complicated.
AI teams aren't often prepared to offer a high value for your players.
Chairmen selling players when the club is rich and a CL-contender
Merchant-feeders making clubs rich beyond a joke
AI ruining transfer periods with endless enquiries
Scouts being able to tell way too accurately how any 16 year old will turn out
Board interaction/intelligence 0 (stadium expansion/new stadium builds completely random)
Ending up with millions because your scouts can immediately spot the next generation of wonderkids (which you can get for nearly nothing) and 1-2 seasons later, the chairman will sell them for 15-30 million,


Repetitive Arguments/Differences in Opinion

Teams must change their tactics during a seaosn for home/away, small/big teams, although the formation stays the same

No they don't. Teams such as Arsenal, Man Utd, Bolton play exactly the same tactics every week.


Teams often get worked out after a season and will likely perform less well the second season in the top flight. FM simulates this via re-ranking (or whatever SI calls it)

This doesn't happen. In real life teams improve after the first season.


Teams (except for Rosenburg) don't often win the title every year. It is realistic to lose a title race

Yes, they do. Sir Alex wins most seasons and never changes tactics. He only doesn't win because Chelsea have all the money and/or he began to play the wrong formation. If that hadn't happened Man Utd would never lose the title


Conclusion

Somehow SI have to find a common ground that appeals to the fantasists and the realists. I would suggest the following:

Designing Tactics

A training match module. This could be simply implemented. The Manager could play the Assistant Manager in training pitch match ups, with players from either team swapping over as and when the Manager decided. He could instruct the Assistant Manager to use a specific formation and mindset, i.e:

4-4-2 Defensive
4-4-2 Counter Attack
4-4-2 Possession
4-4-2 Attacking
4-4-2 Gung Ho

He could then test various theories and ideas related to defeating or defending against such tactics on the training ground without having ever to restart the game. These matches could be terminated at any time (20 mins, half-time etc)


Assistant Manager Feedback

The Assistant MAnager should draw attention to statistical anomolies. These could relate to poor player performance stats (i.e. Our Target Man has only won one of his twelve headers) or general tactical advice (We seem to be losing the midfield battle). These things are already obvious to the tactically astute manager but not everybody notices them. This commentary could be available every time the manager accesses the ‘detailed tactics’ screen depending on the Assistant Manager’s ability to give such advice (Tactical Attribute 20, very often; Tactical Attribute 1, very rarely).


Explicit Tactical Instructions in Manual

The manual should explicitly explain a variety of tactical set-ups (Defensive, Counter-Attacking, Possession-Based, Attacking, Controlled Attack, Gung Ho Attack) that users could more easily use for tactical design. The above arguments could also be quashed by some explicit information about the difficulty in maintaining long-term success (i.e. once your reputation as increased it becomes more difficult to win as teams will simply try to stop you playing rather than play themselves).


If these were well-implemented then the Fantasists would receive more help while the Tactical Realists wouldn't feel let down by too much explicit 'play by numbers' information.

Any thoughts?

wwfan

retired_venomm

About the explicit tactical instrucitons - I'm not sure this is actually even needed. Extremely simple things could make so many areas of tactics far easier to understand for people who don't want to spend ages looking through long threads to realise why certain things aren't working.

A few examples:
Defensive Line - A physical line on the pitch that moves forward and backwards as you adjust your defensive line to show you where it actually is.

Passing Style - If you are doing individual passing for players, simple circles that increase/decrease in size as you change from short to long passing to give you a physical marker on the range of pass for that setting. So many tactics can be destroyed because pass range is set poorly in player instructions, giving you far more chance to give the ball away and not have a clue why if you are unsure about how this works.

I'm sure there are many other super simple things that could be introduced similar to this. I personally think the tactics as they are at the moment aren't too bad - once you get an understanding of it. Visual indicators would take alot of the suffering whilst trying to develop that understanding away. Many people have learned from trial and error, or rely on someone on a forum to come up with a huge in depth explination to help them. Giving the tactics sliders and actual visual representation on the formation pitch to show what you can expect from certain settings would make the game far more user friendly straight out of the box in my opinion.


Another thing that would be fantastic to have, would be to be able to set 2 variations within one formation. One for when you have the ball, and one for when you don't - I feel this would give the tactics so much more diversity and actually reduce the need to tinker as both an attacking and defensive scenario could be covered in the same tactic, yet still retaining the need to understand how your tactics are working - keeping the realists happy. This would be a great time for something like this to be introduced, specially now the match engine has evolved to a state where it is near impossible to create a super tactic that is totally unbeatable.

retired_noor81

wwfan, first thanks for bringing all this up to GQ. I had thought about summarizing the things we've been talking about lately in here, but you beat me to the punch and did it well.

Second, I think your classification of players between realists and fantasists is pretty much spot on, as those appear to be the two general mindsets.

What I personally think is that there is no reason in the world why both types of players cannot be satisfied at the same time. I don't think the enjoyment that we all get out of this game is a zero sum scenario. I just don't buy that to please one set of players, the other set must inevitably suffer. To answer your question, I don't think FM07 is fabulous or flawed, I simply think it's unbalanced.

I consider myself a little bit of both mindsets. I don't mind coming up with my own tactics, and I've done so often to various levels of success. I like to tinker, try things and experiment. At the same time, I find the fantasist approach to be fun, valid and viable as well.

In a nutshell, the problem I'm having with FM07 is that it satisfies neither because:

- While I like to experiment, and I accept failure and repetition as a necessary part of experimentation, I need to know why things failed. This is basic. If I don't know why something fails, I cannot correct it and try again to make it better. FM07 offers little feedback I can use to determine this.

- While I like sometimes to kick back and play more as a fantasist would, my enjoyment doesn't last long because in order to keep up with the game I'm forced to play more like a realist would. Which is very fine in itself, but not what I had set out do. And of course, once I start playing as a realist (because in FM07 it's the only viable long-term avenue of some success), soon enough I find myself against the problems of the realist and it's back to square one.

How to bring balance into this then? I think you suggested a lot of possible solutions in your own post.

The problem many realists/would-be realists/almost realists soon run into is, precisely, that tactical decisions do not make an obvious difference. This is, like many other things, a problem of feedback to the player.

Definitely, and this is the basis for most of the game's challenge overall. However, there's adaptation and adaptation. AI managers in FM07 learn too much and too fast, and the efforts of human managers are foiled too soon.

The AI must definitely get better and try to beat the human manager, that's a given. Without it, the challenge goes away. But there are ways and ways to do this, and like I mentioned in one of the other threads, it's just not realistic for world-class teams to suffer catastrophic losses of form as often as it happens in game, and as often as it happens against much inferior opposition. To keep with this, not only discourages the fantasist but also many realists as well, since many cannot enjoy their success enough.

Even the realists when they tweak, many have faced such unexplainable losses of form that they see all their work turn to nothing, for no good reason and against opponents which it should not have happened.

My suggestion to SI would be to ease it up and rein in the AI just a bit. While it's unrealistic to teams to go on ten-year winning streaks without having to adjust anything, it's also unrealistic for good teams to suffer losses of form after very good seasons for no reason at all. This is one of the main sources of the general imbalance. As it is now in game, stringing two or more successful seasons back to back requires a huge amount of work and seems to be the exception instead of the norm, when in reality teams manage to do this fine and teams maintaining their good form or status over multiple seasons happens often.

Agreed, this is necessary. But it's necessary to have this and for us to know why we're being punished and how. Otherwise we cannot learn.

To punish us as players and to not tell us why or how is just unfair, and bad design. This is another problem of feedback.

Agreed, since it's just unrealistic. I think one of the reasons for the lack of supertactics in FM07 is because the game seems to 'mandate' (so to speak) periodical losses of form in order to make sure no tactic can ever be overly successful. But the solution is not this, since it's ultimately counterproductive.

Again, it shouldn't be a zero sum rule: Just to curb unmitigated success, we shouldn't be forcing unavoidable failure. Another way must be found. This is a problem of balance.

Yes, that'd be grand, but I don't have much hope for it. Every year the game has included more and more options to the transfer side of things, but it has not made the thing necessarily better or gave the AI more sense.

As for the fantasists:

I think this is a point that's often overlooked or denigrated because of the common perception of "Ah, you just want to get world-class players and that's it. Easy mode".

So to combat that, we've gone to the other. Of making sure that teams with world-class players struggle at times as much as anyone else. Personally I wouldn't mind at all a return to a more player-emphasized system than a tactics-heavy one.

Player quality does make a huge difference in real life, and this difference is not evident at all sometimes in-game. You would reasonably expect for teams with more quality to generally perform better, and in real life this is often the case. However, this is not reflected at all in game.

When human managers struggle almost as much when managing AC Milan than when managing Sheffield Utd, the game has a problem. This is a problem of perception and balance.

That point is probably true. But what I would suggest is that players in general would be much more interested in the tactical side of things if it was made more accessible, if it gave more feedback, and if it made immediate sense, showing both failure and success in an obvious way.

Many people still find the tactical interface difficult or cumbersome to use, and many others are constantly discouraged because of being unable to translate what they want to their team via the tactics system. Again, mostly a problem of feedback.

Yup, I think I've mentioned that a couple of times

I wouldn't go as far as to want an absolute 'lack' of it, because that's mostly how AI teams adapt. But it definitely needs to be made either more sparse along a season, or just to ease its intensity, because instead of forcing people to adapt, it just discourages them due to lack of feedback.

All players see are their teams breaking down and playing poorly for no reason, sometimes all of a sudden, and we're not told why.

Re-ranking must be there as a system, to ensure that no team can enjoy several years of unchecked success back to back. However, re-ranking needs to be reined in and made tamer, because as it is now, in the majority of cases, it's just flat out forbidding most teams from achieving what in real life is perfectly possible.

A problem of balance first, feedback second.

That, or at the very least human managers need be (a) informed this is happening when it does and (b) be given clear tools with which to solve it. A problem of design.

As long as it makes sense and it's not done via supertactics, it's a perfectly possible scenario that should be allowed to happen.

Maybe it can happen in FM07, and I'm sure some players managed to do it, but the general feeling I'm getting is that it takes way more effort than players expect it to take. I'm willing to chalk this up as a problem of perception.

---

Thanks again for bringing this up, wwfan, and keep up the good work. :thup:

retired_kellyk

Generally the game isn't as complicated as many people have made it out to be. Personally speaking if you work within certain guiding principles then you'd be ok.

These are mine:

Law 1
The game is about numbers. Understand what attributes are required for the player positions in your formation, that's how you can make a formation effective.

Keep things simple as much as you can. A team should have base attributes, for me its pace. The higher up you go in divisions the more you can add on. If you want to be really ambitious then you should add decisions. If you want a high pressing tactic then you need determination and stamina.

There is no point copying someone elses setting without knowing what the attributes mean, cos at the end of the day, the game is all bout mathematics.

Law 2

When designing a tactic, make sure that the shape of the formation makes sense, defensively and offensively.

442 formations are simple and good. But they have one fundamental flaw. At any given time you may find yourself overpowered down the flanks by a fullfarrowed 442 or even a 343 or 235. The 2 DCs at the back are going to be stretched.

If you excessively arrow your formation, know what the mentality and how the arrows affect your formation.

Win the ball in midfield or lose the game

There are defensive zones you need to identify across the pitch, decide where these are going to be. You want the right players in those positions, they need to win the ball or you could give your defense too much work to do.

Several approaches can be taken here...this is where Defensive Lines and Width play a role. A higher DL effectively pushes your defensive zones up. So when you play a high DL, you need to remember that you could be caught at the back by pace. Winning the ball in midfield or giving the AI no choice but to punt becomes a strategy. Personally I hate playing with a low DL and if I do, I then consider my formation. With a low DL I will not play a low CD game.

You'd be amazed, how a simple tweak...to width/tempo and DL can have on your game. But you won't be able to exploit them if you don't have the midfield either holding position to deny passing changes or closing down heavily against defensive teams.

Having more than one route to goal

Don't stick 2 strikers up there and hope they bang in the goals. Have some variety, get DCs good at passing to ping balls. When played with a high DL it could have devastating results for the AI. Make one of your strikers run at defenders all the time and cross the dangerous balls from the flanks. Having more variety is good. More quality shots on goal is better than having tonnes of useless shots.

retired_lachina

Great thread wwfan.

I remember a post from someone saying that SI could release a video on what to tweak when something goes wrong in the game.

Or having the assistant manager giving more advice on what to do.

For example, you are Manutd and playing against Sheff Utd. Sheff Utd are playing deep and not willing to come out to attack. At halftime, you have 70% possession but the score is still 0-0.

Your assistant manager might come out and say, " play wider and at a faster tempo, or throw in a striker upfront for more firepower."

Different assistant managers can provide different advice. For example, a more defensive assistant manager wouldn't know what to do in this situation and would probably give wrong advice. While an attacking mentality assistant manager might give u the correct advice and even help you tweak it.

I'm not really a fantasist. I'm more of a tactical realist frustrated in knowing how to overcome the game.

retired_robinnya1

My problem is that i want my team to play in the style i wanted, but i have no clue to fit it into the tactics instruction. The team just play their own game regard how i set their instructions.

Too many clicks per instructions no idea what each click represents .

I dont like the set piece instruction where i have no control, the match engine decides it. i put 5 man to stay back for attk set piece to protect 1-0 lead but it only allow both fullbacks stay behind.

retired_Gary Rodgers

Wonderful thread! I just hope SI are looking.

Are you guys happy with the transfer system? In LLM i find it really hard to sell my average players even for 0 pounds! i think the clubs lower by a division should be more 'desperate' to get their hands on your players(at cut down rates).

retired_B-Scott

A good and considered post as always :thup:

It would be to SI's benefit to discuss some of the more considered points raised or they will start to lose customers, the writing is very clearly on the wall.

retired_larson_luck

Great thread as always wwfan.

I think the idea of the training match module would be a fantastic addition to the game, as the current training section is pretty basic. This will be especially helpful for those managers having problems understanding where there tactics are failing, they can just spend more time out on the training pitch (like a real life manager would).

retired_stephking

Cool, now can we see your formula?