If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
In previous threads (now lost in the data purge, sadly) we covered some of the biggest concerns, e.g., that it would make the game too easy, and I think we had valid counter-arguments to all of them.
For example, if the feedback covered multiple things and left you choices. For example:
"Thierry Henry's pace is causing our defense real problems. We might want to consider dropping to a deeper defensive line, bringing on a pacey defender to man-mark him, or utilizing the offsides trap."
Now its clear what your problem is, and you have some ideas how to get out of it .. but you don't have the "correct" solution "handed" to you.
Also, we could make the quality of the communication variable depending on your Assistant's Tactical expertise .. and maybe also on his skill in your native language.
In other words, an utterly crummy assistant might tell you "Thierry Henry's pace is causing us all sorts of problems," while a good one might tell you the possible solutions.
. . . .
The other thing I think we might need is instant feedback regarding our Team Talks.
I mean, as a manager, surely I should be able to see who looks fired up in the changing room?
It would help me make the connection between what I was thinking when I gave the team talk, to what the outcome was .. in other words, it would be a lot easier to learn from my mistakes.
That 3-0 halftime lead that turns to a 3-4 defeat - its almost invariably the result of a poor halftime team talk .. but I can't find out what was going on in my players' heads until after the match is over .. by which point I no longer keenly remember what I was thinking at halftime when I said whatever it was that I said.
In other words, an utterly crummy assistant might tell
Good idea but won't work. Far too difficult to implement so it'll either be implemented badly or not at all. There are simply too many variables for effective advice to be given. If it is implemented it'll be like everything else, repetitive, boring and unhelpful.
The scouting for next match feature is somewhat like this. The AM gives advice on how to play the next team. That's a bit like what you're suggesting but on a much simpler level.
Let's be honest, this scouting feature is useless. Who actually uses it? It's pretty much eye candy yet 1000 times simpler than what you are suggesting. If they can't get scouting to work right how can they get a sophisticated AM offering advice on thousands of different situations right?
In previous threads (now lost in the data purge, sadly) we covered some of the biggest concerns, e.g., that it would make the game too easy, and I think we had valid counter-arguments to all of them.
For example, if the feedback covered multiple things and left you choices. For example:
"Thierry Henry's pace is causing our defense real problems. We might want to consider dropping to a deeper defensive line, bringing on a pacey defender to man-mark him, or utilizing the offsides trap."
Now its clear what your problem is, and you have some ideas how to get out of it .. but you don't have the "correct" solution "handed" to you.
Also, we could make the quality of the communication variable depending on your Assistant's Tactical expertise .. and maybe also on his skill in your native language.
In other words, an utterly crummy assistant might tell you "Thierry Henry's pace is causing us all sorts of problems," while a good one might tell you the possible solutions.
. . . .
The other thing I think we might need is instant feedback regarding our Team Talks.
I mean, as a manager, surely I should be able to see who looks fired up in the changing room?
It would help me make the connection between what I was thinking when I gave the team talk, to what the outcome was .. in other words, it would be a lot easier to learn from my mistakes.
That 3-0 halftime lead that turns to a 3-4 defeat - its almost invariably the result of a poor halftime team talk .. but I can't find out what was going on in my players' heads until after the match is over .. by which point I no longer keenly remember what I was thinking at halftime when I said whatever it was that I said.
Extremely good post there Amaroq. If implemented properply that would certainly improve the game. However, I can see it become the new board/fan confidence feature (i.e. buggy)
Let's be honest, this scouting feature is useless. Who actually uses it? It's pretty much eye candy yet 1000 times simpler than what you are suggesting. If they can't get scouting to work right how can they get a sophisticated AM offering advice on thousands of different situations right?
I disagree. If you read around in the Tactics forum, you'll find a lot of users who pay great attention to the scouting report and base their tactical tweaking around it. If you're playing as a European Cup team, Man Utd, Everton, etc. you have more liberty to ignore these scouting reports: because your players are better and tactical/mental ability can make up for flaws in tactics. However, if you want to get results against Man Utd, Chelsea...you'd be much better off by reading the scouting report.
Cleon lost 1 game in the season as Sheff Utd newly-promoted, and that was because he had to go out and had no time to tweak. This was because he's studied the game and what the sliders, etc. do to affect the match. But few of us have done that, and instead we get the scouting reports to tell us how the AI will play so we can base our tactics around that.
Saying that, though, it isn't easy to get tactics right.
To be honest, one of the biggest reasons I have been put off 08 is because the whole tactical side of the game seems so random. Every save I have follows the same pattern: find a tactic that works, but come a new season it's 'cracked' and is ineffective. So I start the whole trial and error process again, usually getting frustrated to the point of quitting.
The other thing is the match engine seems so random. I concede just about every goal from a poor defensive clearance, a dodgy backpass, a misplaced ball in midfield or something to that extent. Very rarely am I taken apart by good football, and then down the other end I'll miss a tap in. So I think "well, I'm creating good chances and the opposition is just getting lucky", but the reality is there is a problem with my tactic because it is happening consistently. But from what I'm seeing on the screen it doesn't seem that way.
I agree that the ass man has a far more important role to play, especially with regards to tactical advice.
I also agree that AI managers are too similar. The best example is the way they all use 4-2-4 as an all-out attack tactic. They all make formation changes too frequently as well, and they all seem to decide how to set up by using the match odds, which makes the AI quite easy to read imo.
Very good suggestion :thup: I feel this will actually give our ass man the responsibility of actually doing what he is employed to do which is assist.
Schuey100 I actually read and take into consideration my scout reports on all teams, especially when I am manageing lower leagues, i find it extreamley usefull especially when i am up against a very good team. i always play with my tactics and base it around my scout reports.
forgot to mention that this will be an option players will be able to turn on or off in the manager settings section, so if people are finding it useless they can turn it off.
Linear Mode
