FIFA 11/12/13 Manager Mode Suggestions Thread

[Placebo]

Agreed.

 

[romagnoli]

Would be a good idea for trials. For anyone else you may as well just load up exhibition mode.

 

[Nick Cave]

I would only agree with that for players who are free agents. If you could bring an unattached player in for a trial, that makes some sense. Being able to trial players from other teams doesn't.

Yes, this would be a nice touch...

 

[mfmaxpower]

I would only agree with that for players who are free agents. If you could bring an unattached player in for a trial, that makes some sense. Being able to trial players from other teams doesn't.

I'm assuming you're saying it doesn't make sense because that doesn't happen in real life?

I get that argument but I still disagree. I want a realistic football sim but there are times when it makes sense for realism to take a backseat, like the lack of handballs in the game.

When it comes to MM, the resources the game provides you to scout new players is UNrealistically limited - in real life teams have vast scouting networks, and scouts are regularly checking-out talent in person.

So, yeah, maybe it's not realistic for teams to have tryouts with players currently under contract, but the addition of such a feature in FIFA, I would suggest, would actually compensate for the inherent limitations of the video game.

As someone mentioned, you do have the option of checking out these players in an exhibition match. I've done that, but when you are scouting multiple players at multiple positions, that can take forever. By incorporating some type of tryout feature within MM, the whole process will be more efficient and fun.

 

[mfmaxpower]

Would be a good idea for trials. For anyone else you may as well just load up exhibition mode.

Oh, and two other reasons this can be a pain:

1) The player is not at his original team, so it's even more of a process checking him out in an exhibition game; and

2) They are computer-generated players and do not exist in exhibition mode!!

(On the topic of computer-generated players, a tryout feature would be especially helpful when it comes to scouted players.)

 

[Placebo]

We're not saying it's a bad idea, there's just so many other things in MM that need fixing/adding before something that IMO is a quite minor "would be nice to have" feature

 

[mfmaxpower]

We're not saying it's a bad idea, there's just so many other things in MM that need fixing/adding before something that IMO is a quite minor "would be nice to have" feature

Minor?! How dare you sir, calling my grand idea quite minor!!

Just kidding. I was only trying to add an idea to the thread that hadn't been mentioned. I'd also like to believe that the things that need fixing will be fixed this year, so we can jump ahead to brainstorming new additions for the future. Obviously it's too late for our ideas to make an impact this year.

Another "would be nice to have" feature is for computer-generated players to be given last names that are in the audio database, so the announcers can refer to them by name.

 

[Placebo]

Another "would be nice to have" feature is for computer-generated players to be given last names that are in the audio database, so the announcers can refer to them by name.

Absolutely also that they get proper 2d heads, I refuse to buy any player with a silhouette for a head!

 

[mfmaxpower]

Yeah that drives me crazy too! I wonder how hard it is for them to add things like this - they seem so simple but these little details can go along way.

 

[jcvf90]

I did not play MM in FIFA 10 seeing how bug ridden it seemed to be, I was scared a lot effort would just go down the drain, so do your academy players or youth players seem to come more from your country? (i.e. Barca's youth system will mostly have Spanish players, not entirely, but mostly)

 

[Nick Cave]

I did not play MM in FIFA 10 seeing how bug ridden it seemed to be, I was scared a lot effort would just go down the drain, so do your academy players or youth players seem to come more from your country? (i.e. Barca's youth system will mostly have Spanish players, not entirely, but mostly)

Sadly you don't have academy or youth players coming through your club, you have to find them in the Transfer system or hope your Scout finds one...

 

[nerf]

That would be a great addition. Even if it was something simple, without necessarily having to go down the whole youth squad system whole hog. Perhaps each summer the game could generate, say, three 16/17 yr old academy graduates (of your club's nationality), and you get the chance to offer a pro contract to the ones of your choosing.

Maybe you don't like the look of any of them and decide to preserve those wages for an experienced player later on. Maybe you pick one, maybe you snap up all three. Maybe one of them is of a relatively high ability but therefore requests higher wages, which you can't afford at the time. Maybe you only have enough room under your wage budget for two of the three, and have to decide which one you're going to refuse.

Then of course the ones you do sign would need to get playing time in order to develop.

 

[mfmaxpower]

That would be a great addition. Even if it was something simple, without necessarily having to go down the whole youth squad system whole hog. Perhaps each summer the game could generate, say, three 16/17 yr old academy graduates (of your club's nationality), and you get the chance to offer a pro contract to the ones of your choosing.

Maybe you don't like the look of any of them and decide to preserve those wages for an experienced player later on. Maybe you pick one, maybe you snap up all three. Maybe one of them is of a relatively high ability but therefore requests higher wages, which you can't afford at the time. Maybe you only have enough room under your wage budget for two of the three, and have to decide which one you're going to refuse.

Then of course the ones you do sign would need to get playing time in order to develop.

Really like this idea. But are we talking about then getting rid of the scouting feature?

The way scouting is done is totally unrealistic, but I must say I do enjoy it every time I see that message saying your scout has found someone of interest. But if I can duplicate Barca's youth academy, I'd be fine with that, ha!

 

[Nick Cave]

Really like this idea. But are we talking about then getting rid of the scouting feature?

The way scouting is done is totally unrealistic, but I must say I do enjoy it every time I see that message saying your scout has found someone of interest. But if I can duplicate Barca's youth academy, I'd be fine with that, ha!

No the scout is still there but this like most of the features in FIFA needs a lot of refining...

 

[nerf]

I never use the scouting feature, personally. Like you say, it's totally unrealistic. I don't like the fact that the players are fake. They don't cost a transfer fee either, do they? All seems a bit 'cheap' to me, in more ways than one.

The problem is that we already have a fairly powerful search tool for searching existing players, so a Scout who searches non-fake players would have to bring something additional to the table. I'd be reluctant to snatch the search tool away, it would feel forced.

So I think the purpose of the Scout should simply be as a simplified way of finding yourself a good player in a particular role. For those gamers who don't want to devote time to trawling through search results and comparing pages and pages of players, which can be a ball-ache. Basically: "I've decided I need a new centre-back, just recommend me some good ones that I can afford". The game knows what key attributes make a good centre-back, so the Scout can produce a shortlist of recommendations and save you the bother.

So you would say: find me a [POSITION] from [NATION/CONTINENT] within my transfer budget, filtered by [RECOMMENDATION].

A certain number of days later (now the Career Mode is per day, correct?) you would be emailed a scouting report. Each player on the list would have (and be sorted by) a ranking based on the scout's recommendation, similar to how the Football Manager scouts give star ratings. Depending on your search criteria, it might only return 5-star recommendations, or 3-star and above, or all, etc.

Perhaps in addition to an overall recommendation rating, the report could also list each player's strongest relevant attribute. So if you knew you wanted a pacey centre-back, you could quickly scan the most highly-recommended players in the list for the one that has 'Sprint Speed' in that 'best attribute' column, or 'Jumping' if you wanted someone good in the air. Again, it would be all about saving you the bother of comparing players in detail if you don't want to.

 

[TikTikTikTikTik]

I never use the scouting feature, personally. Like you say, it's totally unrealistic. I don't like the fact that the players are fake. They don't cost a transfer fee either, do they? All seems a bit 'cheap' to me, in more ways than one.

You do pay transfer fee's. I think the "scouts" in your suggestion is slightly different, but also a good idea. I guess it's a simplified results page based on a few criteria in the regular search pages. Usefull and worthwhile addition.

So you would have a 1st team Scout and an Academy Scout. 1st team is what you suggest, below a possible way do improve the youth scout in the game.

One of the problems at the moment is that you only get to see one at a time and you don't know whether it's the last one of the trip. You just have to accept or decline the player. I think it would be better to send a scout and then have a list of 3 / 5 / 10 players (depending on the trip budget (short/medium/long)).

For the youth scout you could give all 3 / 5 / 10 a trial ala a PES-esque challenge training session. A short/longpassing, running/dribbling, shooting/crossing, tackling/heading and possesion (with teammates) challenge and see who you like with a potential development chart from the youth coach after the challenges.

I think that would be a nice "break" from the season that you aren't constantly playing matches and maybe 4-6 times a season/year (every 2-3 months) you get to do these challenges with youth players. It would be possible to have maybe a squad training during the summer to see who you want to step up for the coming season (with an option to push him back in the jan transfer window) and who needs another season in the youths. And with a limit that they can be no older then 18, after that they get released or go pro. It could be an interesting option that you have a player you know isn't good enough but you play him in the lesser matches during the season to try and offload him the next summer to make some extra money.

I think something along those lines would add a great deal to the youth/club development without having the create a whole academy aspect in the CM.

 

[nerf]

Changing the subject slightly, and expanding on a topic I touched upon earlier in the thread...

Edit Formation

At present, the Edit Formation screen gives you four settings per position:

Player Base Position (where you move the dot around on the pitch)
Player Role (where you set the role, e.g. RCB, LW, CF etc)
Player Work Rate (where you set their forward run frequency and defensive diligence)
Player Positioning (the white arrows instructing them to move to new positions on attack/defence)

I think that only Role should remain, the rest should be scrapped so we have just two settings:
Player Role (e.g. RCB, LW, CF etc)
Playing Style (Set as an Attacking, Balanced or Defensive style)

I don't think that shifting the base position is necessary. There's already a large enough number of roles to cover all areas of the pitch, it seems completely pointless to nudge your winger a couple of notches further forward or to the left. FM gets by perfectly fine with stock starting positions. A winger operates where wingers operate, a fullback plays where a fullback plays. Their tendencies with regards to exploiting that zone should be down to the individual's attributes and their role in the team. The concept of re-positioning him a few yards here or there doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

As I suggested before, I think the Player Work Rate instruction should be scrapped because of its influence on the new individual work-rate attributes. Defensive effort should be purely down to the individual's attributes, not modified by team instructions. Attacking inclination, on the other hand, can be reigned in or set free, but again not literally determined by team instructions.

Playing Style would be a better way of defining a player's job:
* Attacking would give the player the freedom to make forward runs in accordance with his individual attacking work-rate attribute. It makes him generally choose a more advanced position on the field, and allows him to leave his position and drift into space elsewhere when it is a good idea to do so (wingers cutting inside, forwards drifting wide, etc).
* Balanced is 'normal' default behaviour.
* Defensive would instruct the player to concentrate on holding his position. His natural attacking inclination is restricted to stop forward runs. His primary concern is to hold the team's shape and be in his position if the team loses possession. It doesn't tell him to work harder defensively (his individual attribute decides that), but he is likely to be behind the ball and in a deeper defensive position to start with.

As a case study, let's say you've got Maicon in your team. He will presumably already have a strong attacking work-rate attribute, so his default inclination is to get forward up the right flank. If you want him to continue to do that, you'll put him at RWB with either a Balanced or Attacking style. Let's say that you then want to protect a lead, and no longer want him rampaging as far forward. You switch him to an RB with Defensive style. Now his attacking intent is restricted and he can help you hold your shape better.

To me, this makes far more sense than having the team-wide 'Positioning: Organised/Free-Form' option in Custom Tactics, which sets one rule for the entire team. Each position should have its own style/freedom set individually.

This would also tie in very nicely with the discussion on Dynamic Team AI. When trailing and needing a goal, the CPU could assign a few more of its players to an Attacking style setting to try and chase an equaliser. When leading late in the game, the CPU could assign all of its defenders and midfielders to a Defensive style and hold shape.

 

[Nick Cave]

I think the only thing that needs adding to that Nerf is some way of dictating the width a player should play, i.e. making sure your winger stays wide and your midfield stays central..

As we know some players have a tendency to drift and if you are playing a player slightly outside his comfort zone you need be able to dictate that somehow..

Maybe by being able to adjust the green zone box for that position on the screen as it shows up now, you could expand or narrow it...

 

[TikTikTikTikTik]

Don't agree with the player position argument. I have found that nudging my AM a couple of yrds back or forward has actually changed the location of where he finds space. Too far back and he stands to close to the DM leaving the strikers isolated, too far forward and he's standing between them making one of the strikers run back to get possesion. Again nullifying his threat. Playing with Italy in the WC game I am using Aquilani as the AM. He has some great passing in him when he has a little bit of space.

Although it's not a critism of your suggestion, I guess it's more how much effect it has in the game now.

I think for the system to work in it's simplified manner you would need to have more player stats/tendencies. For example Robben would have to have an attribute that whenever possible he goes inside on his left foot. I don't think the game has the AI at a level where they can do that yet. That's why you now need the running arrows. Same goes for players hugging the touchline, aim an arrow 45d outward and he will do it.

I think for managermode you should be able to override a players normal "confortzone" and force him to position himself based on tactical decisions to combat the opposition. For example Kuyt runs inside a lot and isn't a touchline winger, however if I play Manu I would want him to stay out there at all times to keep Evra from having too much space to attack.

Same for workrates, against certain teams I would want my wingers to defend more whilst keeping their position when attacking, but editing their role would change that, or not be what I want. Setting them to a general "defensive" role would stifle them when attacking.

If anything I would get rid of the "roles" unless they really change how a player moves/plays. To me it always seems as though it's just to give them a name for the position you want them to play. But maybe there is more hidden away...?

I would edit it to have the following;

Playersettings:
Player base position - As it is but without the locking that happens now
Attacking Duties - With a primary (positioning and movement) and a secondary slot (crossing/shooting frequencies).
Defensive Duties - (With a primary (positioning, movement and man marking) and a secondary slot (agression/pressure frequencies).

Teamsettings:
Custom tactics/formations linked to the "mentality" bar.

You would be creating 5 formations and tactics (both at player and team level) and they would be linked to the mentality bar. In each level you can set the rate, ala custom tactics, that a team or player performs the assigned roles. Im not sure if the above would be the correct criteria per slot but something along those lines would be good imo.
Ofcourse their own personalty+ manipulates the settings, however If I instruct Berbatov to hassle the defenders in possesion more he should do it but the result of that could be quicker fatigue. Or if Kuyt gets no defensive duties he should stay fitter for the match.

I think things like workrate shouldn't be a fixed aspect of a player. However using him differently should alter how effective he is, make a player like Berbatov defend means he gets tired quicker, gives more fouls away (poor tackling stats) and the tiredness means he is less accurate/effective when attacking.

That would add another level to the tactical game, should I use player X for duty Y when he might be more effective using him for duty X but that changes the tactics for the team.

 

[nerf]

Don't agree with the player position argument. I have found that nudging my AM a couple of yrds back or forward has actually changed the location of where he finds space. Too far back and he stands to close to the DM leaving the strikers isolated, too far forward and he's standing between them making one of the strikers run back to get possesion. Again nullifying his threat. Playing with Italy in the WC game I am using Aquilani as the AM. He has some great passing in him when he has a little bit of space.

Although it's not a critism of your suggestion, I guess it's more how much effect it has in the game now.

Ideally the AI player should be intelligent enough, based on his attributes, to find the space within his zone. My hope is that EA are making that the focus of their AI - intelligent positioning in attacking and defending phases - because it's the area most lacking.

Also, in my suggestion, an Attacking style would make him position himself higher up and a Defending style the opposite, so you could use that to adjust him. If you want Aquilani to drop deeper into midfield to find space away from the opposing DM, give him a Balanced or Defensive style and he'd adopt deeper positions and make fewer forward runs into congested areas.

I think for the system to work in it's simplified manner you would need to have more player stats/tendencies. For example Robben would have to have an attribute that whenever possible he goes inside on his left foot. I don't think the game has the AI at a level where they can do that yet. That's why you now need the running arrows. Same goes for players hugging the touchline, aim an arrow 45d outward and he will do it.

The Attacking style would allow a player to leave his position and cut infield like that, but yes, first we need foot preference in the game and then we need to it affect which direction the player prefers to dribble in. And I would hope such a Trait exists - if not it should! But, of course, we're not allowed to know what attributes do or even that Traits exist...

I think for managermode you should be able to override a players normal "confortzone" and force him to position himself based on tactical decisions to combat the opposition. For example Kuyt runs inside a lot and isn't a touchline winger, however if I play Manu I would want him to stay out there at all times to keep Evra from having too much space to attack.

Same for workrates, against certain teams I would want my wingers to defend more whilst keeping their position when attacking, but editing their role would change that, or not be what I want. Setting them to a general "defensive" role would stifle them when attacking.

In the Kuyt example, surely a Balanced style would enable him to play his normal game but his naturally high defensive work-rate attribute would make him track Evra? (also you could play him as an RAM to bring him inside). It sounds like you're saying you want your wingers to both attack to the maximum and defend to the maximum. In that case, you'd need a player with high attack/defence work-rate attributes in a Balanced style. Otherwise you're expecting any old winger to be able to do both jobs at the same time without compromise, which to me seems an unrealistic expectation.

Personally I'd prefer a more defined risk/reward system, where you're forced to make a choice rather than have your cake and eat it. That was my main reason for wanting a straight choice of Attacking/Balanced/Defensive style rather than separate settings for Attack and separate settings for Defence. You're then tailoring your player's attributes and your formation settings to each other, rather than getting anyone to do everything.

If anything I would get rid of the "roles" unless they really change how a player moves/plays. To me it always seems as though it's just to give them a name for the position you want them to play. But maybe there is more hidden away...?

I suspect it does affect how they play, but I can only guess. Probably the main purpose of the roles is so that the AI 'coach' knows who to select there, based on the squad member's preferred positions.

I would edit it to have the following;

Playersettings:
Player base position - As it is but without the locking that happens now
Attacking Duties - With a primary (positioning and movement) and a secondary slot (crossing/shooting frequencies).
Defensive Duties - (With a primary (positioning, movement and man marking) and a secondary slot (agression/pressure frequencies).

I'm sure that would be great, but clearly we're coming at this from opposite directions. Your suggestion massively complicates the system, whereas I was going for something simplified.

Additionally, I think Man Marking is surely something that is an opponent-by-opponent setting, not something to be set within the formation as default. Things like crossing, shooting, aggression and pressure also overlap on the team-wide Custom Tactics.

I think things like workrate shouldn't be a fixed aspect of a player. However using him differently should alter how effective he is, make a player like Berbatov defend means he gets tired quicker, gives more fouls away (poor tackling stats) and the tiredness means he is less accurate/effective when attacking.

To get the most out of player personality, in my opinion defensive work-rate should be a fixed aspect of a player. Otherwise they start to blend together and players merely behave as a function of the formation they are assigned, rather than the individuals they should be. You can reign in or release natural attacking tendencies, but as for defensive work-rate, Berbatov is never really going to buy in to a hard work ethic, is he...

 

[EatonTJ]

Nerf, I like your concept you are espousing... with the new emphasis on individual personality, different players should play the same "position" in a different manner. Players shouldn't all follow tactical instructions equally. Sounds great to me, it really forces you to think about personnel decisions in the transfer market and forces you to adapt tactically to your players on hand... two things that make managing a team more challenging and interesting.

However, I also agree with a lot of what TikX5 is saying... namely that I don't want instruction options taken away from me as the human managing a bunch of AI idiots. I do a lot of tinkering with formations in the FIFA games and it makes a really large difference moving players a few ticks in any direction. Plus, the attacking/defending arrows (combined with workrate modifiers) are key to getting your players to "understand" where it is you want them to go with and without the ball.

I don't want to lose any ability to "talk" to my AI players in manager mode.

I'm also pretty certain (although I can't point you to a link) that "workrate" means two completely different things in terms of formation settings and player stats. I can't recall the difference off the top of my head, but maybe I can search and find it for you. Regardless, I do agree that players like Tevez and Rooney should play differently than Zlatan and Berbatov in regards to effort. I would like to see those differences play out in the game.

However, I really don't want to lose any ability to customize tactics and formations. What I would like to see is better instructions on how they work and how they relate to one another. I agree that there is a lot of confusion right now as to what each instruction does and how it actually effects players on the field. I worry that EA can never fully explain how they all relate because they don't want to give away how the AI gameplay system wants to rival game developers.

But, good suggestions from both of you.

 

[nerf]

Yes, I understand what you are both saying about not wishing to have less specific control over some heretofore simple AI. I suppose in my simplified system I'm making an assumption that those instructions will be interpreted more intelligently than the AI has exhibited in the past.

I hope that EA work on improving the positional awareness, appreciation of the distances and spaces between themselves and each other, because I think it would lift the whole AI to a new level.

I do a lot of tinkering with formations in the FIFA games and it makes a really large difference moving players a few ticks in any direction.

It can, my problem with it is that I don't think it should. It doesn't relate at all to real-life instructions, and it seems like such a forced way to get the player in question to operate in the way you desire. Being able to say 'push a little higher' or 'drop deeper' (i.e. Attacking style or Defensive style) should be sufficient, and would be much more realistic than manually dragging a dot around. Again, it might require the AI to be better able to interpet the space around it in the capacity of that particular role.

I'm also pretty certain (although I can't point you to a link) that "workrate" means two completely different things in terms of formation settings and player stats. I can't recall the difference off the top of my head, but maybe I can search and find it for you.

That would be interesting to know.

My understanding of attacking work-rate (the formation setting) is basically 'frequency of forward runs', and it seems pretty clear that that's the case. Defensive work-rate is a little less clear, I've always taken it to mean how hard they work getting back behind the ball and tracking runners. Those two sound like what work-rate attributes will probably be, but I'd be curious to find out. God forbid that EA would bother to communicate these mechanics to the people that they write them for

Overall my preference is that the formation instructions should modify natural player personality as little as possible. I think player individuality is the most important thing in this game mode in any sports title, so to see that expressed on the pitch as much as possible would be ideal.

 

[EatonTJ]

Yes, I understand what you are both saying about not wishing to have less specific control over some heretofore simple AI. I suppose in my simplified system I'm making an assumption that those instructions will be interpreted more intelligently than the AI has exhibited in the past.

I hope that EA work on improving the positional awareness, appreciation of the distances and spaces between themselves and each other, because I think it would lift the whole AI to a new level.


It can, my problem with it is that I don't think it should. It doesn't relate at all to real-life instructions, and it seems like such a forced way to get the player in question to operate in the way you desire. Being able to say 'push a little higher' or 'drop deeper' (i.e. Attacking style or Defensive style) should be sufficient, and would be much more realistic than manually dragging a dot around. Again, it might require the AI to be better able to interpet the space around it in the capacity of that particular role.


That would be interesting to know.

My understanding of attacking work-rate (the formation setting) is basically 'frequency of forward runs', and it seems pretty clear that that's the case. Defensive work-rate is a little less clear, I've always taken it to mean how hard they work getting back behind the ball and tracking runners. Those two sound like what work-rate attributes will probably be, but I'd be curious to find out. God forbid that EA would bother to communicate these mechanics to the people that they write them for

Overall my preference is that the formation instructions should modify natural player personality as little as possible. I think player individuality is the most important thing in this game mode in any sports title, so to see that expressed on the pitch as much as possible would be ideal.

I agree with your overall goal of having players express more of their personality as it relates to following tactical instruction... but how does your view incorporate the real-life learned discipline forced upon players by managers like Mourinho and Benitez?

I think everyone agrees that Mourinho got many flair/creative players to bend to his will and follow his tactics (J.Cole, S. Eto, etc.) even though many of his players have voiced their displeasure. Same with Benitez and many of his players.

How would your proposed system handle this situation? Would players that refuse to conform to coaches rules request transfers (Like Benayoun, Reira, or Balotelli?)... would their form drop when played out-of-position or given instructions they otherwise didn't like?

Actually, after typing that, maybe that is the solution. Maybe EA can make a system allowing players to instruct players to play against type (require Berbatov to chase in defense) however this comes at the cost of form and a lessening of ability stats? That seems a somewhat real world correlation that can be expressed in simple video game terms...

... and while it certainly doesn't address all of your concerns re: complexity/ambiguity of tactical/formation instructions, it might address some of your personality "penalites" as it applies to said instructions.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Nick Cave]

I agree with your overall goal of having players express more of their personality as it relates to following tactical instruction... but how does your view incorporate the real-life learned discipline forced upon players by managers like Mourinho and Benitez?

I think everyone agrees that Mourinho got many flair/creative players to bend to his will and follow his tactics (J.Cole, S. Eto, etc.) even though many of his players have voiced their displeasure. Same with Benitez and many of his players.

How would your proposed system handle this situation? Would players that refuse to conform to coaches rules request transfers (Like Benayoun, Reira, or Balotelli?)... would their form drop when played out-of-position or given instructions they otherwise didn't like?

Actually, after typing that, maybe that is the solution. Maybe EA can make a system allowing players to instruct players to play against type (require Berbatov to chase in defense) however this comes at the cost of form and a lessening of ability stats? That seems a somewhat real world correlation that can be expressed in simple video game terms...

... and while it certainly doesn't address all of your concerns re: complexity/ambiguity of tactical/formation instructions, it might address some of your personality "penalites" as it applies to said instructions.

Just some thoughts.

Maybe the higher your manager rating the better these type of players would respond to your authority...

 

[EatonTJ]

Maybe the higher your manager rating the better these type of players would respond to your authority...

Even better. Seems pretty doable, and would be an actual "feature" that involves managing. I like it.

 

[TikTikTikTikTik]

I guess that's the difference in perspective between Nerf's and my own suggestions. We both want the same result in the end, however I'm basing my suggestion that the individual AI won't have been developed enough for 12 or 13 and that we would still need to have so many settings to get players to do the job you want them to. I think I posted that using players "out-of-position" or in the wrong roles (Berba) would decrease their stats and, as suggested above, their overal form in the following matches with the end result being transfer requests. I think that would be really good.

Ofcourse a simpeler version could be that player traits override your own tactical instructions (with the traits hidden) and that you have a trial and error and learn the player personality that way. But being a Liverpool fan I'm obviously from the school of thought that players should conform to manager instructions and that negative instructions make them play worse / decreases their form / abilities instead of them just ignoring the instructions.

Was thinking the same as you Nick with regard to manager rating relating to how much you can bend the players without their form dropping. It's a good idea, however the problem I have is that before you have a high enough rating (after 3 or 4 season of succes with Liverpool I was still only a 1,5* manager) means that most of the original squad will already be gone/retired by the time your rating is sufficient. But I still do like the idea, maybe it should be related to your season goals and winning percentage. More of a confidence rating (as we had in 09 from fans and board) instead of the star-rating system currently in place.

So far I think we all agree, from what Ive read, on the change for the Mentality bar to be a quicksetting for different tactics and formations. I still think it's a big loss not to have something PES had years and year ago. Back then it was R2+button and that could be assigned in the menu's. So you could have R2+[] for counter attack and R2+X for a 4-5-1formation. I think we are far enough now to be able to have both tactics and formations linked to one mentality.

 

[nerf]

re: Manager authority and players having their form/morale affected by inappropriate instructions... remember that the system is the same whatever game mode you're playing, so it has to apply to non-Career modes. There's no point having authority ratings and players requesting transfers if it enables someone to make Berbatov defend in one-off online matches.

I just have a fundamental problem with being able to compensate for an individual's flaws by merely instructing him to do more. I think a lazy player should behave like a lazy player, not become a less lazy player just because I can set anyone's defensive work-rate to High. Even if the penalty would be that his fatigue drops quicker, the problem is that he's still behaving un-like himself. And not all defensively-lazy players necessarily have low stamina.

Philosophically I'm trying to separate player individuality from formation instructions as much as possible. The two shouldn't cross over, for me. Formation instructions should be along the lines of - you play this position, with this amount of freedom. What the player then brings to the table depends on which player you select.

Having said that... the more I give second thought to the white positioning arrows, the more I think we're stuck with them. If you want to create an outside-in winger, you need that arrow pointing towards the opposition D. If you want a midfield libero to drop in as a third centre-back when defending, you need that arrow pointing towards his own goal. So I think I'd modify my suggestion to a trio of Role/Style/Arrow. I would still like to see 'edit base position' and 'player work-rate' removed, however, for reasons previously expressed.

Subsequently, if you wanted a defensively-lazy forward to contribute more in the defensive phase, you could give him a backwards arrow to make him drop a little deeper without possession. It's not making him work harder, but you're requesting more positional discipline. In this way, Mourinho can ask Eto'o to drop into right-midfield when defending (and Eto'o has always had a strong work ethic anyway). Benitez, meanwhile, can set more of his players to Balanced/Defensive styles and fewer to Attacking styles, to play a more rigid system.

 

[TikTikTikTikTik]

I think we need to come to an agreement what everything means and how much effect it has.

Subsequently, if you wanted a defensively-lazy forward to contribute more in the defensive phase, you could give him a backwards arrow to make him drop a little deeper without possession. It's not making him work harder, but you're requesting more positional discipline.

I completely agree with this. I don't think player workethic influences positional directions, but influences the speed, effort to get to where they should be.

For example you can tell Berbatov to drop deep when defending, however he will take his time to get to that position, whereas someone like Kuyt will run full speed to get to his assigned position.

With another trait you could determine how closely a player follows his orders. Gerrard may have a CM/DM order but a lot of the time he will go roaming.

So with this as a base (probably what you meant all along Nerf, ) a formation screen workrate option can be removed.

We could go another way and use the formation edit screen to create an attacking and defensive option within the same formation and only add arrows for extra directions in play (go inside, hug touchline, etc). But that would probably be too complicated.

 

[TikTikTikTikTik]

Actually, coming back to your player styles should we not add a separate attacking and defensive style? To keep personality+ as strong as possible you shouldn't restrict a players instincts, all you can say is when defending and/or attacking he needs to be at position X. And his stats will determine how strictly he sticks to your orders and how effective he is.

For example you can tell Gerrard that he needs to stay next to Masch (DM) even when the team is attacking (a back arrow in the attacking role(somthing PES had, and I think FIFA aswell till 10, or 09?) and his stats will determine how much he listens.

The problem I have with your Playing Style is that it's now either attacking or defending or balanced. Whereas within one formation I would want to determine where he attacks but also where he defends.

Maybe an edit to Attacking Style and Defensive Style and within that set you can have defensive+arrows, balanced+arrows and attacking+arrows.

I think that would incorporate what we both want whilst relying on player personality to determine how effective the player is but also accurately determine the positions he should be taking in the correct situation.

 

[nerf]

Possibly... it depends what you want to be able to do. In your Gerrard example, wouldn't a Defensive Style fit that? If not, why?

Spoiler

Playing Style would be a better way of defining a player's job:
* Attacking would give the player the freedom to make forward runs in accordance with his individual attacking work-rate attribute. It makes him generally choose a more advanced position on the field, and allows him to leave his position and drift into space elsewhere when it is a good idea to do so (wingers cutting inside, forwards drifting wide, etc).
* Balanced is 'normal' default behaviour.
* Defensive would instruct the player to concentrate on holding his position. His natural attacking inclination is restricted to stop forward runs. His primary concern is to hold the team's shape and be in his position if the team loses possession. It doesn't tell him to work harder defensively (his individual attribute decides that), but he is likely to be behind the ball and in a deeper defensive position to start with.