retired_janellewood86

More to the point, can I add that "20 people" do not put threads on here saying basically what Chand has said. They moan, usually incorrectly, and offer nothing else.

retired_noor81

Exactly. I don't mind changing tactics. Or tweaking. How fun is that? We (maybe not 'we' here in this discussion, but the player base at large) have collectively been so beautifully spoiled by the Nakanos and the Diablos and all other super tactics in the past that we aim for that now. I mean, credit to them. Their tactics worked, and worked amazingly. Full marks there.

And full marks to SI for having at least the desire to make it impossible to stick to one tactic, without variation, and still expect success. That's realistic.

That's our problem right there, right now. The game has changed. We can no longer use one tactic and expect successful runs of 10 or 15 years of management as in the past. The game forces you to change, and adapt your tactics but... doesn't help you do it. In the sense that, your average player (not the tactical geniuses, and I mean this well) does not have the tools to change it. It's not that they don't want to adapt, they either don't know how to -because they can't pinpoint at what's failing-, or they do not have the tools or the information to do so -hence my idea of a useful Asst. Manager that would point out problem areas for the player.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the main motives for abandoning the wibble/wobble screens long ago was to put an end to that huge granularity that tactics had. To stop being able to tell players on which two square inches of the pitch to be at all times, which was considered (correctly) unrealistic. A more natural approach was needed, and we ended up with this slider system.

I don't think the slider system is bad, conceptually, but I do think it's still too granular, and the problem that we attempted to solve by eliminating the wb/wob screens has not gone away. That granularity is still there. Instead of telling a player "I want you to stand 59.5 meters from our goal line when the ball is in square A3", we're now telling him "I want you to look for attacking options 65% of the time. Not 60% and not 70%. 65%". Same dung, different smell.

To further compound the problem, it's been shown that even minor variations on some sliders can throw tactics... I won't say in complete disarray, but would make them perform badly. It really doesn't matter in real life if Messi runs forward 50% of the time or 60% of the time, yet it seems to matter here. That's just an example.

I think we need to rethink the slider system, because if the intent was to do away with the granularity of the wb/wob screens, well it has failed. The granularity is still there in each slider. That's what I meant by 'Complication'. You don't need a slider with 20 different settings, or however many, if 17 of them are not going to work for that position but (a) the game doesn't suggest which and (b) most players can't even identify that as their tactical problem. What's the point, then? The system does not work.

If we're going to keep a slider system (and looks like we will), we either reduce its granularity so we have five or so options that not only all matter, but when they fail they fail creating such a calamity that it's impossible for players to miss it as a problem area... or we empower the footballers again, and reduce the importance of the sliders.

This should be about football, in the end, nto so much about math (although I'll be the first to admit that it does help). If you know football, then it's easy to pinpoint problems if the game responds that way. It's easy for your average player to see and realize that his whole right channel couldn't mark or stop anyone the whole game because he had played creative and attacking FB and MR instead of markers and tacklers. It's not easy to start digging and see what combination of sliders for tackling, mentality, pressing, farrows, barrows, creative freedom, etc... would have worked.

I say let's return a bit to that. Empower the footballers and reduce the importance of instructions. So for the next match I know that I have to put someone with good marking and tackling there, or the same will happen, instead of digging in the tactic and moving this slider to 11 and that other one to 9 or whathaveyou. That's a bit silly. If my MR couldn't stop anyone in the last game, he's not gonna start getting impassable in the next one just because I tell him "Commit to tackles 55% of the time instead of 50%, and press 70% of the time instead of 65%. That should do it". We're aiming for realism, but who manages like that? We're supposed to be managers, not micromanagers.

retired_silvialeb

Disagree. The game only needs one setting.

Realistic.

retired_janellewood86

Now, you see andsafc, this is what I would term a whinger.

retired_sharonverm

Chand—amazing. You have said what I have been trying to see for years. Hats off to you!!!

I couldn't agree more that the game has simply become micromanagement. I always try to explain the flaws of the tactical system by using the example of overlapping full-backs:

As simple as it should be to have your full back's overlapping your wingers, it's not so crystal clear. I have heard many theories stating that your width needs to be all the way wide, they must have attacking mentalities, and they must be on forward runs. Well, do they need forward arrows or not? Some of you may know how to do it accurately, but that's not the point here. Why should there be a doubt as to how to implement such a simple instruction? Why so many slider variables to perform such a basic task of the 4-4-2? Why not simpy have a box that you can tick such as "overlap wingers"? And that brings me to my idea as to how I would love to see the next game. Why not have position context boxes that we can simply click on, and let the program take care of the rest? Another example: it's not so easy to have a midfielder sit in front of the back 4 a la Pirlo and ping passes all day using a flat 4-4-2. Yes, I have an 'idea' as to how to implement it, but once again, why should I have a doubt? Why not have a midfield context box that says something like "sit in front of back 4 and spray ball to wingers"? This way, we don't have to worry about hitting the 'golden' spots on the rather ambiguous slider system that affects too many other variables of your tactics too. The slider system could still be there to a certain degree, but could change automatically when we select these individual position context boxes. At least we would have some idea as to what it means. Imagine the control: You could tell Rooney to "play in the hole" as a second striker instead of pondering over his mentality, his backward arrow, his free role selection etc. See how simple this would be? This would allow player ability be the most important aspect in applying your tactics yet would still require a degree of tactical knowledge. For example, you wouldn't tell Sissoko to sit in front of the back 4 and spray it because he's the worst passer I've ever seen . You wouldn't tell Michael Owen to "sit in the hole" simply because he's a better striker playing on the defender's shoulder.

As for the slider system I think we could keep it but limit the degrees of the scale drastically. Take closing down in real life. You either do or you don't. Or you do when the opposition reaches a certain point on the pitch. How on earth can there be 20 degrees of closing down? I don't get it. There could be specific options such as "back off", "all out pressing", "press from half-way line".

The game is still quality, but I agree with Chand completely that we are left in the dark a lot due to a lack of feedback. I recently took Swansea to the Premiership in 2 seasons with a very average team and to be honest, I don't really know why. All I know is that I won a lot of games, but I couldn't tell you what was so effective about my tactic. Then, with West Ham in another game, I had a super team but barely managed to survive relegation. Why didn't I finish in the top six? I have no bloody idea. As soon as feedback and simple tactical instructions are implemented by SI, only then will the game reach true legendary status.

retired_humbleman

the game is clearly too hard. SI need some way of helping the gamer out.

retired_skullking1971

But did Chand not just do a polished version of this? Ok so yes he did explain himself properly rather than just moan, but because someone shouts out a moan whether it be from lack of ingelligence or born out of frustration, or if it is thoughout (like Chand), it's still the same picture.
Look to try and simplfy it - it means people are struggling with the game and don't know why. Yes it doesn't do anyone any good or help by saying "This game is crap".
Do SI want to remain with the "realism' path or do they want to sell the game to the masses? Because if it's the latter they need to make it a level playing field.

retired_wh0isj3ss3

Not signed. That will kill the fan's creativity AND the interest for the game. I think 90% of the addiction is because its so hard.

retired_acivin

I don't think this is a petition..just a general discussion!
And tbf, if you don't mind me saying this: You yourself are tring ot 'break the system' and not play footbal per se (with your schizo...system). So pardon me when I say that the objectives of this game have changed substantially since the last year. And even though I enjoy the game completely, I have been in discussions where this game is deemed to difficult for the average user.

retired_noor81

But I'm not moaning, really. My posts are not complaints. I like the game because it's the only one of its kind (the only one worth a damn, at least). That doesn't mean it doesn't frustrate the hell out of me and other players.

The reason for my frustration is not that it's 'too hard', or that I can't get Albacete to win every European competition for ten years straight without changing my tactic. I like it when games throw bricks at me and force me to rethink my approaches, try different things, etc. The reason for my frustration is that this game doesn't give me good tools to do it and keeps me in the dark as a player most of the time.

Like the example given above. Something conceptually simple like having someone above the back four spraying balls. Suppose that, for right or for wrong, I determine that the problem with my tactic is that I don't have something like that, and I wish to try implementing it. As it is now I have to put up with a mess of sliders and badly-described options (counter-attack, anyone?), and try different settings and eight million combinations of the precise instructions until 'it happens'. Not until 'I get it done', but until 'it happens'.

The game gives me no tools to implement solutions. Simple solutions or complicated ones, it doesn't matter. Players may be dumb, but they're not stupid. They may know what to do, but have no way of knowing how to do it with the current system. Instead of telling my FB's "Don't come out so much", I have to fiddle with at least two or three sliders so granular that whatever change I make is not even reflected visually sometimes. Instead of telling my AMC "Play in the hole and distribute from there", I have to again fiddle with his mentality, type of passing (why on earth should I be telling an AMC type of player in the hole how to pass, for crying out loud?), etc.

Players may know, sometimes, what to do and they might want to try simple solutions. But most of the time either they don't know how to, because of all the sliders that affect/don't affect anything, or simply because whatever changes they make are not enough/too much/not reflected in-game.

That's what needs to improve. And if you guys think a system that leaves player in the dark is 'challenging' well, no. I disagree. That's an annoying system, not a challenging one. A challenging system forces players to think and get better. An annoying system keeps players in the dark until they strike lucky with the options by the grace of god.