Let's FIFA 11/12/13: Making the perfect football game.

[mfmaxpower]

Just posted this in the EA forums so I think it's suited here, training/growth is obviously an area which is now horrifically lacking and under-implemented (even more than it was already lacking in previous Fifa's).

Wow you must have a whole lot more faith in EA than I do at the moment to propose such a complicated training system. Not that your idea is bad but I cringe just thinking of EA attempting something like this.

I do think it's a little funny that you're against the return of the option for manual player growth when your training idea is just a less specific form of manual growth, which is to say you're against having total control but okay with having a little. Personally, if some kid out there wants to turn John Terry into Ronaldo I couldn't give a shit. Since this is an offline mode, I'd prefer EA to err on the side of greater control and freedom than less in their features.

That's not to say I would be unhappy if a training system like that would be added. My biggest concern would be that without having greater control over player growth I wouldn't be able to improve a player in a certain way - I don't want all players to grow and change equally. I want variable player potential - both in regards to caps and growth rates - and I want the ability to coach up player into something slightly different if I so choose, such as turning a young Gareth Bale from a LWB into a LW/LM, etc.

I would love to see EA get creative with some of the features in CM, but with the very different demands of the community - those who want more realism and those who want more fantasy - I don't see EA accomplishing anything close to what we'd like with the current devs in charge. One of the main reasons why I'd like to see the return of the manual growth option is simply because it sounds like relatively easy compared everything else, and I'd prefer to see quite a few features added next year.

 

[Placebo]

I do think it's a little funny that you're against the return of the option for manual player growth when your training idea is just a less specific form of manual growth

Less specific? Try none specific...

 

[Nick Cave]

Getting to put some things direct to the Dev team hopefully, it's hard to read through (and time-consuming) paragraph after paragraph of blurb but if you can keep them at a couple of lines each can you guys list your most important features or issues for 12, I think we know the issues with 11 and nothing new is suddenly going to appear other than patching the glitches already there..

Please put them in this kind of format with the most important near the top, I'm putting together a raft of other things and once we have a base of where and what we feel are the most important we can then go into more depth..


1.

2.

3. etc

This will be going direct to the Dev team that work with Marcel, this is a chance to get in early input into 12, me and Rom will try to get as much of this together and passed on..

 

[nerf]

I like the training ideas. Surely qualifies as Career Mode rather than gamplay though, right?

I agree and disagree. First, that's not completely true that you would never think about athletes in statistical terms. It's been an increasing trend over the last decade for managers, clubs, and others in sports, from football to baseball to basketball, to collect and analyze detailed data on player performances. Arsene Wenger, who has an economics background, is one manager well-known for his fascination with compiling and analyzing player and game data. So while real life managers don't consider stats in terms of an OVR based on individual attribute scores on a scale of 100 (at least none that I know of!), I wouldn't want EA to remove the attribute ratings, and the system FIFA uses seems logical and sufficient to me.

But that's all nothing more than post-performance statistics. Recording what situational actions he performed, not what he can physically do. It's not the actual substance of a player's intrinsic abilities. In reality that's indefinable flesh and blood.

The attribute numbers still have to exist somewhere under the hood, because the numbers in this virtual world are that flesh and blood, but as a description of a player I find it clunky and horribly derivative.

My main point was that you don't talk about Emile Heskey in terms of rating individual categories numerically. You would say: "he's a target man who can hold the ball up well but lacks goalscoring instincts". You automatically think of what type of player he is and what his main strengths/weaknesses are, so why not do something similar in video games too? We've become stuck with this predictable, abstract list of integers because that's how sports games have done it in the past, and it's easier to just paste the contents of the database onto the screen.

Where I agree with you is that more needs to be done on the other end of things, i.e. FIFA should improve how it describes players in non-numerical terms, from adding more traits/characteristics/tendencies, to a better graphic layout. Their needs to be an easy way to get the gist of a player quickly, but their also needs to be a way to tell whether Walcott is the fastest player in the world or not. So I see no reason to get rid of the stats, rather EA I think should just work on the front-end and further develop P+.

Yes, although I guess if you looked at Walcott's hexagon/octogon thing and saw his Speed was way over to the edge, you'd have an idea. Knowing he's a point more or less than Agbonlahor hardly seems necessary, to me.

Like I said, a fair portion of this is me with a bee in my bonnet about crappy UI. Further developing P+ in terms of distinct playing styles is perhaps the meat of the issue, behavioural stuff that you're not going to get from a system predominantly focussed on attribute numbers. Heskey should play like a target man, should operate with obviously different tendencies/movements to how Walcott would play if you subbed him on in his place. Being stronger, quicker or more skillfull does not define the player so much as the style in which he plays (one reason why work-rate is the best part of P+ so far).

Getting to put some things direct to the Dev team hopefully, it's hard to read through (and time-consuming) paragraph after paragraph of blurb but if you can keep them at a couple of lines each can you guys list your most important features or issues for 12

My top few at this moment in time:

1. Gameplay Sliders, so we can balance our own gameplay (with some Arcade/Sim default presets too).

2. Expand Personality Plus, with distinct playing styles/tendencies ('target man' behaviour, 'playmaker' behaviour etc), with greater depth/variation to the supporting database (not just the top teams), by including descriptive information in the Player Bio and improving the usability thereof, and by generally exaggerating the differences between attribute ratings more clearly.

3. Team AI. Greater impact of team style on the pitch (so that each opposing team behaves differently), and a system whereby the AI coach adapts his tactics to the scenario/opponent tangibly and intelligently (vital that these actions are communicated clearly to the human).

4. Quick Subs/Tactics menu, with which we can make small strategic changes via a slick in-game pop-up menu during natural stoppages in play, without having to pause the game and trawl through several squad management screens just to swap one player with another, or change someone's role etc.

 

[Placebo]

I like the training ideas. Surely qualifies as Career Mode rather than gamplay though, right?

Sure, but I have no interest in "fixing" the gameplay, I'd gladly have 11's gameplay ported directly into 12 if they do a proper job of creating a deep, extensive career mode (without bugs for a nice change!) for 12.

 

[Niero]

I believe it's possible. It needs a well-balanced 'inconsistency' factor, whereby Bornsmith's passes often go slightly off-target, and slightly under/overhit, and bobble, etc. Xavi's passes would be precise to your input and smooth almost every time.

FIFA needs more of a presence of stat-based inconsistency and unpredictability throughout, whether it's short passes, crosses, first touch, manual, assisted...

Thats where I disagree 1000%...My input should be 50% of the outcome....The other 50 would be the STATS....If I want to pass to Villa and hes behind like 4 defenders bodies XAVI WILL DO it like 70% of the time...While Bornsmith will FAIL 80% of the time...
No matter even if i spend 100 lifetimes with a pad in my hand...

 

[nerf]

Thats where I disagree 1000%...My input should be 50% of the outcome....The other 50 would be the STATS....If I want to pass to Villa and hes behind like 4 defenders bodies XAVI WILL DO it like 70% of the time...While Bornsmith will FAIL 80% of the time...
No matter even if i spend 100 lifetimes with a pad in my hand...

Understood. But it is possible to represent some amount of variation in ability/consistency with Manual.

There are always compromises regardless of your control scheme. Only half of Xavi's ability to pass the ball is down to consistency of accuracy/technique. The rest is his vision/awareness, timing, decision making... but those are always going to be completely down to you no matter how your controls work.

Also, we always seem to be talking about passing when discussing how Manual should work with individuality. There are approximately thirty different outfield attributes, only seven of those involve directing the ball.

 

[mfmaxpower]

Less specific? Try none specific...

Either you're for user-input or not; if you're for "non-specific" then it sounds like you're for a fully automated system and considering EA's track record I'd prefer the control to be in the user's hands.

The previous option for manual growth was simply the extreme end of user-input whereas what we have now is the other extreme. Call it what you will, less specific, less manual, less user input, whatever, doesn't really matter. The point is I'd like a return of the option to have total control because first and foremost I don't trust the game to do things right. Based on the last to years of MM/CM, I think my opinion is more than justified. If some kid out their wants to be completely unrealistic with how he develops his players then let him. Ideally he'd be punished in-game.

I'm my opinion the player growth system should be one that gives enough control and freedom to the user to allow for either fantasy or realism or a mixture of both. If the gameplay is solid you'll be punished in your match results for spending all your XP on speed. If this year is going to be all about sliders then I want that emphasis to extend to CM - don't force me to play it ultra-realistic or ultra-fantasy, let me play my CM the way I want to!

 

[romagnoli]

Sure, but I have no interest in "fixing" the gameplay, I'd gladly have 11's gameplay ported directly into 12 if they do a proper job of creating a deep, extensive career mode (without bugs for a nice change!) for 12.

Probably not the thread for you then!

I did have a manager mode thread exactly like this. Not in a position to search now but it's around..

 

[romagnoli]

But people argue that's what the gameplay does Max. You can play it realistically if you want by ignoring all the flaws and exploits, by pretending that John Terry can't hit that 60 yard inch perfect driven lob rather than the game doing so for you. You can spend the whole game refusing to make certain passes with certain players because you know it isn't even a risk that they'll get it wrong when they should, while the CPU has no such qualms. Is the solution to our complaints in here to ditch personality and attributes altogether and tell the user to act the whole thing out rather than play to their limits and have the game restrain them to footballing realism/depth? Cos that's what FIFA is doing at the moment.

The whole point of any non-specific yet user influenced training setup is that you can mould players a bit more to what suits you but you are still operating within the limits of the footballer being moulded. So you can tell Beckham to get pace training but he has a natural cap, partly depending on his base stats but also because you can't just channel all their learning ability into honing one fine aspect of their game.

Fundamentally I think 100% manual growth is bullshit but the same does go for having no input in training.

 

[mfmaxpower]

@nerf: I agree with 100%. Seems to me that what we're talking about boils down to two things:

1) Improved presentation of player attributes, traits, personalty, etc. Also improved tools for comparing/contrasting players. The hexagon is a must.

2) More P+ (P++ anyone?). More individuality for ALL players.

Both of these are hugely important but I want to say something in particular regarding #2. As a CM-focused FIFA player I've been disappointed with P+ when it comes to the lesser know players and teams. I've so far managed teams in the Bundesliga 2 and the npower leagues 1 and 2, and so far I've noticed very little change in individuality from last year. There's differences but they're minimal. I don't expect EPL-level treatment but it should be better than what it is. A short check-list of gripes:

- hardly any traits/abilities
- almost all work rates set to medium for both attack and defense
- generic faces are bad, really really bad
- generic boots (for the love of all things holy can we please get rid of these damn things!)

Overall, playing teams in lower leagues feels all the same - it's hard to remember one team from another. I don't expect lesser known players/teams to get the royal treatment, and as such it would help if we could edit at least player looks during CM.

 

[Niero]

Understood. But it is possible to represent some amount of variation in ability/consistency with Manual.

There are always compromises regardless of your control scheme. Only half of Xavi's ability to pass the ball is down to consistency of accuracy/technique. The rest is his vision/awareness, timing, decision making... but those are always going to be completely down to you no matter how your controls work.

Also, we always seem to be talking about passing when discussing how Manual should work with individuality. There are approximately thirty different outfield attributes, only seven of those involve directing the ball.

Anyway the point is that there must be a balance between the stats influence and the players input.
A bad player controlling barca MUST defeat a great player controlling Arlington....But a Great player controlling the likes of Arsenal MUST roll over the bad player....
Stats and the input must be in balance...
Here is were PES2011 finally approaches the balance...In MLO Ive just today defeated a seasoned player that had C Ronaldo...Arshavin and others in his team while mine had only Djebbur and the rest of espinas and co....

 

[mfmaxpower]

But people argue that's what the gameplay does Max. You can play it realistically if you want by ignoring all the flaws and exploits, by pretending that John Terry can't hit that 60 yard inch perfect driven lob rather than the game doing so for you. You can spend the whole game refusing to make certain passes with certain players because you know it isn't even a risk that they'll get it wrong when they should, while the CPU has no such qualms. Is the solution to our complaints in here to ditch personality and attributes altogether and tell the user to act the whole thing out rather than play to their limits and have the game restrain them to footballing realism/depth? Cos that's what FIFA is doing at the moment.

The whole point of any non-specific yet user influenced training setup is that you can mould players a bit more to what suits you but you are still operating within the limits of the footballer being moulded. So you can tell Beckham to get pace training but he has a natural cap, partly depending on his base stats but also because you can't just channel all their learning ability into honing one fine aspect of their game.

Fundamentally I think 100% manual growth is bullshit but the same does go for having no input in training.

Oh, I agree completely. I ask for the return of the manual option only because if growth doesn't work right then that's on me, whereas this year it's a total crapshoot. Would my ideal growth system be 100% "manual" allowing for total freedom to do anything? Absolutely not. That said, I like having total control 1) because I have no faith in the devs working on this mode at the moment and 2) because then, like I said, if something goes wrong it's my fault. I couldn't care less if someone plays their single-player offline mode in an unrealistic way. Doesn't affect me.

No, my ideal system would have a solid mix of user-input, automation, and limits. Like you suggested I strongly believe players should have specific potential caps BUT we must be able to at least get an estimate of a player's potential BEFORE we acquire him. Players should not only have unique caps but also varying rates at which they develop. These varying caps and growth rates would then be configured in their transfer value. Again, my biggest concern is not whether but how they would manage to screw this up.

What we're essentially talking about here are roll-playing mechanics and there's no doubt EA could get real creative in implementing a training feature. The reason why I keep harping on about the manual growth option is because the laundry list of additions CM so desperately needs is quite long, and a manual option is a basic solution that, as long as growth speed is fine, would let everyone play the game the way they want. Again, not the ideal solution but a relatively simple one. After this and last year, I'm erring on the side of caution.

 

[TikTikTikTikTik]

Improvements;

1 - Dynamic team AI
How about removing the current "playbook" that is ingrained into every team? Again PES is so far ahead it's quite amazing. I'll just post an example of a couple of matches I had in the Copa to explain;

Semi final match 2 legs. So played the first match away and the opposition was pushed high up and retaining possesion, playing triangles and looking for openings. Something I love, and which used to be present in FIFA, is that if you close down passing lanes or mark players they won't be passed to so the AI keeps possesion and tries to work different angles or switches play. SO anyway the 1st match was really tough, I could hardly keep any meaningfull possesion as they were doing a Liverpool model of early high pressure that made me lose possesion a lot near the halfway line. I really couldn't do much for the whole match till they scored early in the second half and they started to sit back more and concede possesion. I still couldn't really do much as they were defending really well and deep and I think I managed just one decent chance, which ended on the wrong foot of my striker so I lost the 1st leg 1-0.
Second leg was a totally different game, they pressured a bit early on and kept me stuck in midfield for the 1st 30min. but after that thet got more nad more defensive. I managed to score at the end of the 1st half to tie the match. 2nd half was all about me putting pressure on them and keeping them pinned back. I was creating a couple of chances but still couldn't really get through. Around the 75th min. mark I was noticing how MUCH I was dominating the midfield and how they were doing an Inter with 6 men lining up on the edge to the area just trying to stop everything I was doing. The AI had actually changed it's formation to 6-0-4 and had pushed the two CM back and the 2 SM up with the attackers. Now they were hitting longballs up and trying to equalise (and win the tie) by outnumbering my 2 CB and a DM. I was stunned to find they had altered their formation and tactics to such an extent and was left with a chess-like decision of being more conservative to keep them away from my goal and have less attack. I didn't and survived a couple of dangerous longballs but the match ended 1-0 with them winning on penalties.

Another example in the groupstages. I was top after 6 matches and playing the bottomteam at home. 1st half they were defending very well and not really creating much in attack. It was balanced match with me having about 70% possesion but not really getting anywhere with it. Then near the end of the 1st half a speculative cross got fumbled by the goalie and the defender couldn't clear it properly. The ball fell to my striker in the box and he scuffed the ball into the net. 2nd half they altered tactics to try and get something from the game but they really looked "fed-up" with most of their attacking passes not coming off. Because they had pushed up further I was now able to counter them into oblivion and ran out comfortable winners scoring another 2 and missing a hatful of chances. You kind of felt sorry for them, the rubbish goal I scored seemed to deflate them and they half heartedly tried to get something from the game but were really no match when they tried to play football.

Another example from a group match is being dominated away and but hanging on yet the return match being pretty comfortable and winning 2-0.

Now in FIFA the only difference I notice between teams is how agressive they pressure and some tiring at the end of the match.

2 - P+
How about it actually becoming meaningfull? Been playing PES and you really have to look for the right player to do the right pass/shot/etc. In FIFA I still don't have that feeling. Also the fact that lower league players have somekind of ridiculous limit to how fast they can run because they are in a lower division is another plainly stupid way of rating players. It's symtomatic of how they have structured the game imo and gives the impression they lack the knowledge, understanding or skill to convert football essence into the game.

*I'm not going into longwinded posts anymore as I have already stopped playing the game and can't really be arsed to spend as much time on it again suggesting improvements. The majority are still present from last years suggestions.

3 - CM
See the thread for the huge list for that.

4 - Gameplay balance
How about not screwing up and doing botchjobs to fix fundemental flaws? Defensive strength is far too high now, sprinting and fast players are pretty useless. AI reactions are ridiculously high, etc, etc.

 

[romagnoli]

Guys, I'll be looking to get stuff sent on in the next couple of days. If you want to get in on this first wave of stuff can you put something together that explains what you want changed? Whether it's focussing on one major issue or putting together a top 5 or 10 of things you want changed with shorter mini paragraphs on each, anything is welcome. Hopefully Nick is jotting a lot down too.

Try and get something down for Wednesday night if possible

 

[klashman69]

Romi whats the potential for the AI in this game man? Can it reach the level so PES 2011.

Just wondered how to structure my post in regards to improving the game.

Maybe, tbh i think I'll stick to my beef with the player skating etc...

 

[romagnoli]

I dunno. I mean, the intelligence is coded around the game itself - diversity of AI cannot be implemented with the rest of the game as it is. PES can give us character in its players because the game is balanced to allow us to see and feel it in such fine detail. With FIFA in it's current state how can you tell the difference between more subtly different players? You can barely see it in wider gaps.

I'm going to make a big thing about the single player AI and how teams play. Tactics and flexibility of tactics are a huge deal in football, but even if you copied PES's menus across you couldn't make much of the options available with the current AI, pressing, and pass speed vs player speed setups.

 

[mfmaxpower]

I'm going to make a big thing about the single player AI and how teams play. Tactics and flexibility of tactics are a huge deal in football, but even if you copied PES's menus across you couldn't make much of the options available with the current AI, pressing, and pass speed vs player speed setups.

Can't remember off the top of my head but that might've been #1 on my list, wherever it is. Won't make a huge deal of it if you're already planning on emphasizing it. Seriously though, AI has gotta be the worst I can remember. The CPU attacking is god awful.

 

[Placebo]

The big thing for me with the AI is that they no longer change formation to chase/hold a win, this was working fine in previous Fifa's so I don't know why it was removed.

 

[romagnoli]

Can't remember off the top of my head but that might've been #1 on my list, wherever it is. Won't make a huge deal of it if you're already planning on emphasizing it. Seriously though, AI has gotta be the worst I can remember. The CPU attacking is god awful.

It's still well worth you elaborating on exactly what you think the problem is, even if it's just a paragraph or so. How do you mean 'the worst you can remember'? For cheating? Lack of imagination? Lack of variety? Anything they routinely do that particularly annoys you?

Ill be talking a bit more broadly about what should be happening, so any specifics about what is especially wrong this year would be very welcome.

 

[nerf]

I'm going to make a big thing about the single player AI and how teams play. Tactics and flexibility of tactics are a huge deal in football, but even if you copied PES's menus across you couldn't make much of the options available with the current AI, pressing, and pass speed vs player speed setups.

PES's menus aren't any different, are they? They have the thing where you can set style changes depending on scoreline/time, which is interesting but unnecessarily convoluted, whereas the rest seems to be the same dreary ensemble of abstract sliders that FIFA already has, with similar Edit Formation options too.

I appreciate that the difference (and your point) lies in how rigidly the PES AI follows these instructions on the pitch (too rigidly, imo) compared to how little impact they appear to have in FIFA, but I just wanted to check that we weren't holding the PES tactical options up as some kind of shining example. I'd hope for something more intuitive.

Oh, look at that. As usual, I end up on another UI rant

 

[romagnoli]

Seriously, PES is as close to a shining example as I've seen from a football game. The drag and drop is light years ahead of FIFA's formation editing, the (more specific and instructive) sliders are out of 20 rather than 100 which makes tweaking them a lot quicker and more sensible, the responsiveness is instantaneous, the score-and-time-based strategy setup is a brilliant way of automating change of plan and differentiating between teams, as anyone who has played the title beyond the demo will attest. The AI is part of it, sure, as is the concept of players actually exhibiting noticeable strengths and weaknesses, but don't underestimate the importance of a UI that is quick and easy as well as effective and expressive. Compare moving a left midfielder 10 yards further up the pitch in FIFA to PES in terms of speed, responsiveness and intuitiveness.

Perhaps the best example of the huge chasm between Konami and EA's belief in the importance of tactics is in the fact that you cannot see what the other team's formation is at all when playing online. Not until the very en of the prematch cutscenes, which are frequently skipped. For that matter, look at the fanbase's morbidly dim view of custom tactics in FIFA, simply because of how poorly it has been balanced over the years. It's amazing as someone returning to PES after three years to think that EA are the ones who implemented sliders first.

 

[Nick Cave]

Agree on all these points especially the tactics and editing, EA are shocking on this count..
Are you bringing your PES with you on Friday...

 

[romagnoli]

I might do. It's more likely I'll make a few videos of certain points I want to make. I was thinking of doing a tactics 'obstacle course', bringing up a stock 4-5-1, changing it to a 4-3-3, changing a couple of the positions (CMF to a DMF etc), setting marking options, putting my fastest winger on the right... and so on.

I appreciate the slider setup may be a bit abstract, but to my mind the only thing PES gets wrong in this area is the wording of it. FM uses sliders after all. What might be nice is implementing more of FM's touchline instructions, which do seem more eloquent than anything the console games have, but then wording becomes even more important of course...

 

[nerf]

Abstract indeed. I refuse to believe that this is the best we can come up with! Why can't we use real-world terminology, in a system that reflects the way real-world tactics evolve? I'd be unhappy to settle for another derivitive slider-based interface just because that's how it has been done before.

I might want to defend deep, I might want to press only in my own half, I might want my forwards to pressure their defenders, I might want my back line to operate close to halfway... these are all sensible options. Tweaking between 8 and 9 on a slider is abstract nonsense, really.

And the score-and-time-based thing: in theory its heart is in the right place, but... "On exactly 70 minutes, if the scores are level, we will always switch to this tactic!" How artificial is that? It doesn't take into account the strength of opponent, the opponent's system, the match expectation, statistical trends during that match, sendings off... it's nothing like how a real-world manager would set-up and alter his team. If we can have some intelligent and dynamic team AI, which is what I'd love to see, then this is not the best way, surely.

 

[romagnoli]

Because real world terminology is open to interpretation or error, particularly if having to be translated into several different languages. Real world managers don't have to make decisions or changes in 30 seconds or so of pause time. They don't just say 'defend quite deepish'; they will specify how deep by pointing it out via match videos and through rigorous training sessions.

You're rather overplaying it to suit your point tbh. When you set sliders, you are also given a description of what you've chosen, as well as a very broad visual demonstration of your setting for that relative slider. It's abstract to say 'I want you to press at level 8 out of 20' but it's patently obvious what setting your pressure level to 8 out of 20 will achieve - and numeric sliders will give you more flexibility and room to be specific than 3 or 5 verbal settings.

Thinking about it I do think numerical sliders are absolutely fine - it's the description of what they do that goes along with setting your pressing to a larger number of different settings that should be improved. By doing so, you're happy as you can go by the verbal descriptions, and the rest of us are happy because we have more control over how our team presses than being lumbered with the equivalent of FIFA's 'slow-normal-fast' speed settings (where they decide how slow to make slow and how fast to make fast without us necessarily agreeing with their judgement).

Similarly you are taking the time based management far too seriously as far as the significance of the tactical play changing. It's not as if the pitch suddenly turns blue or the players start glowing all of a sudden - it's an organic change. Often you don't notice that a tactic has kicked in because the conditions aren't right for the tactic to actually play out (CB overlap requires your team to have the ball in the opposition half for example). In practice the time based change feels fluid, as anyone with the game will tell you. If you want different tactics to be used against different opponents then you either load up a different tactical setup that you've saved or you leave it blank and use the button presets as in previous editions. It just gives you control of your tactics by allowing you to change things dynamically, and while having something more context sensitive to determine where the game is being won or lost would be nice, this is certainly a massive step forward in making the game feel more sophisticated. Allowing your game to change naturally and to your liking without you having to wait for the ball to go out of play is a very big plus if you just want to get on with it, but also gives you time to focus your attention elsewhere as far as your formations and strategies are concerned. I would have no qualms whatsoever about asking EA to plagiarise it off of PES because, if other changes were made to make tactics worthwhile in the first place, it would improve the tactics screens and gameplay significantly.

 

[nerf]

They don't just say 'defend quite deepish'; they will specify how deep by pointing it out via match videos and through rigorous training sessions.

Taking the defensive line as an example, nobody genuinely requires 20 different gradients. Adjusting it by one yard back/forth is never relevant, considering how the line has to rise and fall naturally as play develops anyway. It's just an overall mentality to guide your defenders. I've played a bit of centre-back, you communicate in measurements of five and ten yards and your reference points are the 18-yard and halfway lines. I think you're kidding yourself if you consider making a tweak between 7/20 and 9/20 to be worth patting yourself on the back about. 'Oh yes, I changed my build-up speed from 52 to 55 and now I'm convinced my players move better'. It generates an illusion of fine control encouraged by an artificial and binary environment, when in footballing terms a change from 'quite deep' to 'medium' is more sensible and logical.

It's abstract to say 'I want you to press at level 8 out of 20' but it's patently obvious what setting your pressure level to 8 out of 20 will achieve - and numeric sliders will give you more flexibility and room to be specific than 3 or 5 verbal settings.

8/20 is no more obvious within the confines of the menu than Low(2/5) or Medium(3/5) is. You still need to know what the extremes are and how that translates on the pitch, before you get an idea of what you'd like to choose. A verbal setting does this slightly better in terms of choosing a starting point because you can immediately relate it to real life, which you can't with 8 out of 20. 8 and 20 what?

the rest of us are happy because we have more control over how our team presses than being lumbered with the equivalent of FIFA's 'slow-normal-fast' speed settings (where they decide how slow to make slow and how fast to make fast without us necessarily agreeing with their judgement).

But Konami set how slow to make 1/20 and how fast to make 20/20, so what's the difference? You're still stuck with the same extreme parameters. A gradient of five contrasting verbal settings, like Creation Centre has, would be sufficient imo. They are descriptive and understandable, easy to read, and allow anyone to very quickly interpret the style they have in their head. Why convert it to abstract numbers, why make them worry about "should I set it to 14 or 15". It's a football team, not a racing car. Its not tyre pressures and gear ratios, it's philosophy, a mentality, an approach.

Tactics should be about the paper-scissors-stone. Certain tactics and strategic combinations counter other tactics. The philosophy, the approach, should be the important thing. It shouldn't be a game of tweaking numbers, in which that all-important contrast is diluted.

Similarly you are taking the time based management far too seriously as far as the significance of the tactical play changing.

You have more experience with this particular feature so I'll take your word for it. What I was saying about how artificial it is, however, was more from the perspective of a dynamic team AI than from a user standpoint. I would like the AI coach to be able to adjust his team's tactical options according to the conditions of that particular match, according to the opposing system, match events etc, rather than something pre-set. If I'm using two strikers but no wingers, is it smarter for the AI coach to commit a CB to attack or to push his fullbacks forward? But if I've only got a lone striker on the pitch, by all means make use of the spare man.

Allowing your game to change naturally and to your liking without you having to wait for the ball to go out of play is a very big plus if you just want to get on with it

Yes, I'd love some versatile quick tactics options that I can use to tweak my team without pausing the game.

I just don't like the thought of plagiarising a very similar system just because we've experienced it and it's slightly better, or of being stuck in a slidery-numbery-gamey rut because that's all we've known. Maybe there's better and more intuitive ground to break instead, which better represents the sport we're trying to simulate.

 

[romagnoli]

The difference between 10 and 12 is significant enough to turn a game around, I find, so yes I do feel each notch is worthwhile. You're talking about a 10% difference between the absolute deepest the defensive line will go and the absolute highest line they'll take.

I don't know exactly what the extremes do in terms of each setting but subtle changes do make enough of a difference for you to want to stay within them, rather than min/maxing each out. I guess it's another thing along with the team management screen that you need experience with to appreciate the difference.

My point was not that I WILL ask EA to nick the management concept, but that I heartily recommend the concept as a good way of naturally supplying the game with variety and depth without you having to make changes. You mention getting the AI to do such stuff for you; again, PES has the auto-management setup that can set your attack bias, pick your team for you, call up the button strategies, even make subs for you. This is evident when the CPU plays you, particularly in Master League where you can more readily contrast approaches. Even in BaL your own manager changes the formation and tactics and you are notified via a grey inset that asks you to play on the counter or sit deep an keep possession or try and feed the ball out to the right. What you are asking for is what Konami were working on for the past four years and have finally got to a decent standard - that 'Teamvision' feature they bigged up what seems like an age ago.

 

[nerf]

The difference between 10 and 12 is significant enough to turn a game around, I find, so yes I do feel each notch is worthwhile. You're talking about a 10% difference between the absolute deepest the defensive line will go and the absolute highest line they'll take.

That's about three yards.

In terms of gameplay purposes, you would have had the same overall gameplay experience if you had changed that setting from 'Medium' to 'Quite High'. Essentially you are telling your defenders to step up a bit and hold a higher line, only then it would actually have been a change of any significance.

 

[romagnoli]

Three yards of what??

I have no idea where you got that from. Nor do I have any real understanding of why you think it's essential to change a slider system using 1 to 20 with visual explanations and a text description for a slider based system that uses vaguaries like 'quite' or 'fairly'. It's still a slider system even if you change the terms to apples/pears/oranges/pineapples/very pineapples. Meanwhile, you said 12 was quite high there - I disagree completely! 'Slightly high' at most. Thanks for highlighting the problem with text descriptions though