Players confused by unusual formation

Hi,

On the new post-match report screen I have gotten the following warning: "Players confused by unusual formation". As my formation was unusual I understood where it came from, but I was expecting players to get used to the formation after some matches. However, the warning doesn't seem to go away ever.

the only strange thing is that I have only two central defenders and no full backs.

I got the same message when I moved one of my full backs into a DML position - seems like they don't like non-symmetrical formations

Well, is it that unusual? Barça has Dani Alves and Adriano playing basically as defensive wingers... No matter how strange the formation, there should be a time when players get used to it.

Or any Brazilian national team since 1990. Cafu+Roberto Carlos anyone?

They would be wing-backs?

This is a deal-breaker for me. And I will explain why:

1. "Unusual formation" should be any formation which the player is not used to. So if a club plays 4-4-2 for an entire season, and the manager changes it to a 4-3-3, the players should also have trouble adapting to the change for a while.

2. Even though it may confuse the players, it should go away after a certain amount of matches. Now my players played half a season with my new formation and apparently they will never get used to it.

Basically what you're doing is saying "you can make any formation you would like, but we will deliberately make your players underperform forever if it doesn't fit the standards".

It basically destroys creativity. It would be much more constructive if the feedback was "defenders were outnumbered too often". I basically ruined my season expecting the players to get used to the formation. Instead, they just underperformed in every single match.

It's really really annoying.

Probably the best way to replicate Barca/Brazil tactics in game is to play the players in the DL and DR positions with Wing Back roles.

Are you saying Barca play with a back 5? Or at least they would in the game?

Rafa was trying to play 2 CBs with DML/DMR hence my suggestion corresponds to 4 at the back.

I'm thinking of Barca under Guardiola (I haven't watched them much since my son was born two years ago). They would play 4-3-3 without the ball and when they won possession the wing backs would bomb forward another defensive mid would fall back to form a back three. So the 4-3-3 would become 3-4-3 or even 3-2-5 depending on how far forward the wing-backs got.

I'm guessing a system like this is not possible in FMH at this time.

I'm thinking of Barca under Guardiola (I haven't watched them much since my son was born two years ago). They would play 4-3-3 without the ball and when they won possession the wing backs would bomb forward another defensive mid would fall back to form a back three. So the 4-3-3 would become 3-4-3 or even 3-2-5 depending on how far forward the wing-backs got.

I'm guessing a system like this is not possible in FMH at this time.

I personally tend to view the formation I set up as the defensive shape, so in your Barca example I would have a back four. Then the DR and DL would be Wing Backs so they bomb forwards.

Admittedly the defensive mid dropping back into defence is a little more difficult, but I think in-game a Deep Lying Midfielder covers it well enough IMO.

If your players are under-performing I would suggest it's largely as a result of the tactic itself. the coach comment is diagnostic, not something that would be a causal factor.

I know that the coach is diagnostic, but when the text clearly states "your players are confused" it is a strong hint that there's a negative effect on them due to the tactical choice.

I don't want to have players have to adapt to formations over time - it would make the game far more confusing to people as to why they might be losing (ie. are my tactics rubbish or is it just that the players need more time to get used to them).

It's a shame, as I think it can be done in a way that looks simple and intuitive. But that's not the issue in hand here. In my opinion, it's disappointing that certain formations make the players confused and they never actually can grow acquainted to it.

So you should

A) create a system where players can learn and grow accustomed to different formations OR

B) remove the "confusion effect" and instead provide better feedback based on match events, like "the defense was often outnumbered", or "the opposition wingers had too much space".

At least in the last way I would try and correct the problem instead of waiting for a full season for my players to grow accustomed to a formation that they will never be comfortable with by default.

Surely one of the attributes for a players would mean they can easily adapt to multiple tactics in a single game

4-4-2 to 3-5-2 to 3-3-4 maybe

I might expect a response from a few players but not the assistant saying the whole team were affected by the formation

I think the match analysis is great - tweaked the formation a few times after seeing some feedback I thought I could address and it seems to work the next game.

Someone else asked for a half time report - great idea !

The only other report I'd love to see would be a monthly report on any player who have been loaned out - rather than just the end of year summary.

i got this message a hole saison with a normaly 4-2-1-3, this is ridiculous:

My biggest issue with this is the 4 2 3 1 with 3 AmC. A tactic played by Barcelona, Arsenal, Dortmund just to name a few. 2 hard working ball-winning midfielders, an advanced/dlf/targetman up front and deadly attacking midfielders. It makes no sense that one of the most dynamic and interesting formations that is so often used in the real life game should be unusual ingame. Hell, when you start a game on the main FM for computer several teams start with this as their standard tactic.

It's been noted by a fair few people that the narrow tactics that have tended to dominate earlier versions of FMH are much less effective in FMH 2014. This coupled with the "Players confused..." message in the match report has led to the feeling that the game is programmed to "punish" the use of narrow formations by making players under-perform.

The use of such a blunt tool to reduce the effectiveness of narrow formations (and it does seem to be primarily formations with a narrow midfield that trigger this message) doesn't really sound like the sort of thing that I'd expect from Marc and co. so I suppose my question is, is the AI simply better at countering narrow formations in FMH 2014 or is there something more sinister going on?

Apologies if I can across a bit "conspiracy theorist", I accept that there isn't some sort of "Confused De-buff" applied to players using an unconventional tactic

On the other point in my post, has the match engine changed significantly since 2013? I haven't delved too deeply into this version myself yet, but the general consensus is that non-standard tactics are far less effective than they used to be.

Sorry if I'm being dense, but what do you mean by "it's diagnostic"?