I'm Done.

[Kriss]

what is the problem if animation is very good ,ok and fit with design and it will work on basic PC's , why SI limit themselves !!!

I think the current ME limits them, which is why they're building a new one.

[wwfan]

i wanna know something is currently ME worth playing ?????

Yes. With logical instructions, it is extremely robust. However, if you input strange instructions, or upset your players, or both, then weird things can and will happen.

[Kriss]

So his random variables got in the way, happens to me sometimes!

My stock excuse when missing a sitter:)

[blala]

I think the current ME limits them, which is why they're building a new one.

wish ME in next version will be something especial and big step in the right direction.

Yes. With logical instructions, it is extremely robust. However, if you input strange instructions, or upset your players, or both, then weird things can and will happen.

thanks wwfan , i also thinks that isn't that bad

[Alex W]

In order for you to be able to make that statement, you need to know what mentality does. In the simplest terms, it tells your team how to play (which is why mentality is the core setting for the strategy element of the TC). It behooves the user to ensure that mentalities are not spread far apart, as by doing so, each group of different mentality players thinks the match strategy is different (i.e. the defenders think the manager wants them to play cautiously, whereas the attackers want to attack willy-nilly). If you do this, play will often look disjointed and illogical. However, the players are only doing what they are told to do. Non-existent CF makes this worse, as they have no option to override your instructions.

Lower mentality doesn't make the defenders defend better. It just makes them more cautious. If their mentality is far away from the d-line setting or the midfield cover, low mentality will actually make them defend worse.

At least one FB needs to be getting involved in attacks on a reasonably regular basis, or you risk moves being bogged down.

No, it is your interpretation. YOUR settings are causing this because players are obeying them. Low mentality and no CF translates as "don't make risky forward passes unless you are very sure they are on." If the player thinks the forward pass is even slightly risky, he won't take it.

It might be to do with many things. The opposition pressing a little more. The ball player getting nervous. The potential ball receiver being a little tired and not showing properly for the pass. Or, that the highlights only show the times in which many lateral passes result in a chance against and that it happens more than you think without being displayed. Or all the above.

This is actually an example of how robust the ME actually is. Even with dodgy instructions, players tend to do the logical thing. You are only seeing the few times in which they don't.

Players are doing the un-logical by not going forwards and passing forwards when in the very same game, such a move will have scored goals through that exact thing with no more pressing than there was before.

My full-backs do get involved to the point where they constantly pass forwards and move up, besides that they do not. I realise that is contributing, but when 95% of the time they will go forwards, some unbidden rule renders them stuck and they refuse to go forwards for one highlight, at which point the opponents score. They will then go forwards again in the next highlight, seemingly whatever was worrying him before is gone. If this were nervousness, he'd be even worse. If it were more pressing, he'd still be worried. If it were the fitness of the player infront of him, both the ball player and the ball receiver are more tired than before. I have seen sunday league players bollocked and pulled off the pitch by irate (and usually hungover) managers for doing such stupid things.

Besides which, MY instructions operate mainly through that left-back, and as I have said before, 95% of the time he will go forwards, simply passing forwards or sideways and doing nothing more. And again, for no reason, he will freeze up with the simplest of passes infront of him. The reasons you have put forward will then vanish for the next attack.

Regardless, that was the one bug that I conceded could be possibly be explained, there are atleast three/four more obvious ones that cannot. I hope they fix the ME, bugs or implemented things like this are a mess.

[wwfan]

I can't help if you are not going to listen. I've explained mentality and creative freedom logic and why your settings are resulting in this issue. You may think it is illogical, but that is how it works. Given you can't change the ME mechanics, then you'll need to open your mind to a different interpretation of how mentality works. Until you do, you won't get anywhere.

[bullybeef]

I just want to repeat what I have said before, I thought the ME in FM11 was OK, and if the FM12 ME is just a reproduction of that, well we obviously have to make the best of it, and look to used every tool within the game that is at our disposal to gain an advantage.

I also appreciate your advice on not having too many conflicting instructions in the game, wwfan, and it must obviously it must be frustrating even for the staff when little foibles crop up within the game, whether it's the ME, or any other part of the game.

[x42bn6]

I can't help if you are not going to listen. I've explained mentality and creative freedom logic and why your settings are resulting in this issue. You may think it is illogical, but that is how it works.

It sounds like a defect to me.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Players are doing the un-logical by not going forwards and passing forwards when in the very same game, such a move will have scored goals through that exact thing with no more pressing than there was before.

My full-backs do get involved to the point where they constantly pass forwards and move up, besides that they do not. I realise that is contributing, but when 95% of the time they will go forwards, some unbidden rule renders them stuck and they refuse to go forwards for one highlight, at which point the opponents score. They will then go forwards again in the next highlight, seemingly whatever was worrying him before is gone. If this were nervousness, he'd be even worse. If it were more pressing, he'd still be worried. If it were the fitness of the player infront of him, both the ball player and the ball receiver are more tired than before. I have seen sunday league players bollocked and pulled off the pitch by irate (and usually hungover) managers for doing such stupid things.

Besides which, MY instructions operate mainly through that left-back, and as I have said before, 95% of the time he will go forwards, simply passing forwards or sideways and doing nothing more. And again, for no reason, he will freeze up with the simplest of passes infront of him. The reasons you have put forward will then vanish for the next attack.

Regardless, that was the one bug that I conceded could be possibly be explained, there are atleast three/four more obvious ones that cannot. I hope they fix the ME, bugs or implemented things like this are a mess.

Players get "stuck" because they cannot carry out the instructions they have been given and the limits of their attributes, overseen by their motivation/morale. A small change to a player's instructions, slightly longer passing for example, could stop behaviour like this.

[wwfan]

It sounds like a defect to me.

I'd certainly agree that is inadequately explained. Although the logic is implicit in the TC, it hasn't really been made explicit in any SI documentation. Consequently, people think they are making logical interpretations of sliders when in fact they are producing disjointed strategies and harming player communication.

There's at least one Hints and Tips message that completely contradicts this logic, which doesn't help. Thankfully, most people ignore these.

[Alex W]

I can't help if you are not going to listen. I've explained mentality and creative freedom logic and why your settings are resulting in this issue. You may think it is illogical, but that is how it works. Given you can't change the ME mechanics, then you'll need to open your mind to a different interpretation of how mentality works. Until you do, you won't get anywhere.

I appreciate the effort, but it works 95% of the time, and the examples of what would affect it, if truly affecting that player, should be apparent in every highlight of that type after the first didn't work. Tiredness, nervousness, more pressing etc would be obviously continuous, it would affect the player again. But everything is magically ok again after that event.

And I realise I can't change the ME, what i'm trying to point out here is that if that is how it works, it is nonsense and hopefully will not be in any new creations. There should not be such an over-egged system for if a full-back passes forwards, simply make it happen unless the player has a break-down or cannot do so for obvious reasons. And if there are reasons for it, they should not magically disappear with the next highlight.

As I say, I shall not be playing it again now, infact i'm tempted to quit FM entirely. Perhaps I will. I was just hoping that if I can't message anyone at SI, that maybe one person will have read the thread and thought about atleast one of the bugs i've pointed out.

[Alex W]

Players get "stuck" because they cannot carry out the instructions they have been given and the limits of their attributes, overseen by their motivation/morale. A small change to a players instructions, slightly longer passing for example, could stop behaviour like this.

Their passing is not limited, they play on a normal mentality and with very little creativity, but their passing is pretty average along the 'bar' that defines it. The players have no problems with this almost all of the time and will freeze for no reason, and that includes morale, which i've never had a problem with. Not unless there is a morale bar hidden away that the player cannot see.

[Alex W]

I'll let the thread die now folks, i've found out what I needed to know. Hopefully the next ME is far better. (Sounding like a broken record now)

Thank you for your input.

[Wigmore]

I've only read the first post in this thread.

I wonder how many of these posts crop up per year - I wonder if there is a way to research how many there are, would be interesting to know.

Do they ever learn!

[Alex W]

Do they ever learn? Considering I do not go on this forum at all, it would be hard to 'learn' anything considering I haven't been around for any other explanations of such things.

And the left-back issue is the only one i'm able to discuss, the others must be bugs or a flawed ME. That much seems certain.

[wwfan]

I appreciate the effort, but it works 95% of the time, and the examples of what would affect it, if truly affecting that player, should be apparent in every highlight of that type after the first didn't work. Tiredness, nervousness, more pressing etc would be obviously continuous, it would affect the player again. But everything is magically ok again after that event.

And I realise I can't change the ME, what i'm trying to point out here is that if that is how it works, it is nonsense and hopefully will not be in any new creations. There should not be such an over-egged system for if a full-back passes forwards, simply make it happen unless the player has a break-down or cannot do so for obvious reasons. And if there are reasons for it, they should not magically disappear with the next highlight.

As I say, I shall not be playing it again now, infact i'm tempted to quit FM entirely. Perhaps I will. I was just hoping that if I can't message anyone at SI, that maybe one person will have read the thread and thought about atleast one of the bugs i've pointed out.

Mentality logic isn't at all illogical once you grasp it is strategy related. It is vital that a team has a coherent match strategy. A narrow mentality band achieves this. A wide one breaks it. No manager would ever send his team out with a different "overall" match plan, which widely spread mentality produces.

You need to stop wanting play to be 100% robotic if you want to grasp the intricacies of the ME. Players will not always do exactly the same thing. Their interpretation of risk will be different to yours. You might think the situation is 100% the same, but it won't be. Might only be a matter of yards in terms of player positions, but it will make a difference.

[Guest]

I'd certainly agree that is inadequately explained. Although the logic is implicit in the TC, it hasn't really been made explicit in any SI documentation. Consequently, people think they are making logical interpretations of sliders when in fact they are producing disjointed strategies and harming player communication.

This is why in my view the slider method needs to be removed (I have only made 4 slider adjustments on my tactics & they were only made due to flaws in the default Keeper instructions & FB closing down).

The TC is a solid basis for setting up a core tactical approach & I'd prefer to see this area expanded to allow more fine tuning of player instructions by way of drop down instruction box, it could even be integrated with match prep where I can set specific instructions to a player for the next match.

[Alex W]

Mentality logic isn't at all illogical once you grasp it is strategy related. It is vital that a team has a coherent match strategy. A narrow mentality band achieves this. A wide one breaks it. No manager would ever send his team out with a different "overall" match plan, which widely spread mentality produces.

You need to stop wanting play to be 100% robotic if you want to grasp the intricacies of the ME. Players will not always do exactly the same thing. Their interpretation of risk will be different to yours. You might think the situation is 100% the same, but it won't be. Might only be a matter of yards in terms of player positions, but it will make a difference.

I have sat and listened to a League Two manager who has done fairly well with exactly that formula, but if the ME doesn't agree then there's bugger all I can do about it.

And I want a manager game to be atleast slightly robotic, not every single situation being the same, but atleast enough for the game to do what I ask. Some managers ask their sides to be robotic, AVB did so in Portugal, infact he did so at Chelsea, unfortunately the players didn't like it. Again, the ME doesn't work that way, which is a shame.

I think it's best we leave it here.

[wwfan]

I have sat and listened to a League Two manager who has done fairly well with exactly that formula, but if the ME doesn't agree then there's bugger all I can do about it.

And I want a manager game to be atleast slightly robotic, not every single situation being the same, but atleast enough for the game to do what I ask. Some managers ask their sides to be robotic, AVB did so in Portugal, infact he did so at Chelsea, unfortunately the players didn't like it. Again, the ME doesn't work that way, which is a shame.

I think it's best we leave it here.

I don't think real life managers talk about mentality levels, rather strategies. It is perfectly possible for defenders to be on lower mentalities than attackers, but in relative, not absolute, terms. I imagine that will be closer to what your manager was talking about.

Players doing the same things 95% of the time is pretty robotic, is it not? No human can ever do it 100% of the time.

[BiggusD]

Well, all I can say about Mentality and Creative Freedom settings is that I cannot see why anyone would use defensive mentalities at all and why anyone would seek to limit to a huge degree what their players are supposed to do. The way both settings work, they should really be to the right of the centre in all tactics at all times... The exceptions to this must be truly extreme tactics, and possibly to central defenders and goalkeepers.

[Alex W]

I don't think real life managers talk about mentality levels, rather strategies. It is perfectly possible for defenders to be on lower mentalities than attackers, but in relative, not absolute, terms. I imagine that will be closer to what your manager was talking about.

Players doing the same things 95% of the time is pretty robotic, is it not? No human can ever do it 100% of the time.

Actually he told me about his thought process into the defence/midfield/attack all being part of the same watch, but built with a different part from a seperate watch each time. Each part of his side would have a different process, which I suppose could be called a strategy, and it built properly they all worked cohesively. If one did not work, none of it worked, not fluidly anyway. I expected the ME to be similiar. Nevermind.

No, not 100% the same moves every time. But they can attempt to go about their play in the same ways, with a little freedom for creative players. Did you ever watch AVB's Porto side? They always followed the same routine, yet they created many different things. A few other managers did the same thing. Sir Brian Clough was similiar, always had the same basics and told them exactly what to do and how. And they were bloody brilliant (So i'm told every time I travel to Pride Park on the supporters buses atleast!)

[bullybeef]

It is interesting that although the tactics allow you to do as you wish, it also allows a huge amount of ambiguity that can be effectively wrong, sometimes without you knowing whether it is your own fault.

So why give so much freedom if some selections/instructions can cause the ME to have a meltdown? Surely the tactics should give you an either/or choice, rather than an either/wrong choice. If tactical instructions can cause the ME to display clashes, don't give the user the option to choose them.

But what works for a manger at one club, may not work for him elsewhere with different players. There should be no right and no wrong answer, but I suppose it is also dependant on the vision of the manager. I have had to try to visualise how the ME would incorporate my ideas, and it does take time too. Most of the time it's a work around, and I suppose like real management, it is also based upon past experiences. We live and learn.

[wwfan]

Actually he told me about his thought process into the defence/midfield/attack all being part of the same watch, but built with a different part from a seperate watch each time. Each part of his side would have a different process, which I suppose could be called a strategy, and it built properly they all worked cohesively. If one did not work, none of it worked, not fluidly anyway. I expected the ME to be similiar. Nevermind.

That's EXACTLY how TC settings work. The ME is built around such settings. The only problem is expanding the slider gaps. To use your analogy, doing that means that none of the cogs would actually be touching each other, meaning, that although the watch has all its parts, it won't work. All you need to do is adjust your interpretation of the mentality and CF sliders, and everything will fall into place.

No, not 100% the same moves every time. But they can attempt to go about their play in the same ways, with a little freedom for creative players. Did you ever watch AVB's Porto side? They always followed the same routine, yet they created many different things. A few other managers did the same thing. Sir Brian Clough was similiar, always had the same basics and told them exactly what to do and how. And they were bloody brilliant (So i'm told every time I travel to Pride Park on the supporters buses atleast!)

If you want a team to do that, use the Very Rigid TC strategy, which simulates such logic. Again, all of this is in the game. It is your specific slider interpretation breaking it.

[wwfan]

It is interesting that although the tactics allow you to do as you wish, it also allows a huge amount of ambiguity that can be effectively wrong, sometimes without you knowing whether it is your own fault.

So why give so much freedom if some selections/instructions can cause the ME to have a meltdown? Surely the tactics should give you an either/or choice, rather than an either/wrong choice. If tactical instructions can cause the ME to display clashes, don't give the user the option to choose them.

But what works for a manger at one club, may not work for him elsewhere with different players. There should be no right and no wrong answer, but I suppose it is also dependant on the vision of the manager. I have had to try to visualise how the ME would incorporate my ideas, and it does take time too. Most of the time it's a work around, and I suppose like real management, it is also based upon past experiences. We live and learn.

In this sense, I'd agree with Barside's opinion that sliders should be, not removed as they are the game's basic mechanics, but made inaccessible to the user. However, there'd then be a massive outcry from classic tactic lovers. I think the TC needs to become more sophisticated prior to this happening.

The problem with total slider freedom is "garbage in, garbage out." Whereas those who know their sliders can make hugely successful tactics through micro-controling them, those who don't can produce all kinds of weird outcomes.

[Alex W]

That's EXACTLY how TC settings work. The ME is built around such settings. The only problem is expanding the slider gaps. To use your analogy, doing that means that none of the cogs would actually be touching each other, meaning, that although the watch has all its parts, it won't work. All you need to do is adjust your interpretation of the mentality and CF sliders, and everything will fall into place.

If you want a team to do that, use the Very Rigid TC strategy, which simulates such logic. Again, all of this is in the game. It is your specific slider interpretation breaking it.

The problem there is that, with all these posts between you and I discussing it, my settings aren't very different at all, infact they're barely moved overall. The strikers are very attacking but no issues ever arise out of them. The whole side moves as one pretty much from the goal-keeper to the attacking midfidler, and that's where things begin to change. I did also point out that upon my first season in the Prem i'm winning the league and 6 points clear in Feb. I've also just won the League Cup again, i'm still in the FA Cup and the Euro Cup has got me into the second knock-out stage after the groups. Now, that isn't meant to be a bragging point (though it can be as a last resort if this discussion goes sour! ) but merely to point out that my tactics work, it's just these bloody occurances that come out of nowhere.

The Very Rigid system does not seem work for me with those exact tactics and my current ones work brilliantly, it's just these ridiculous goals against me that I have issue with. How nice it is when a team scores a good goal against me rather than me throwing them the ball from a throw in or scoring the goal for them.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Their passing is not limited, they play on a normal mentality and with very little creativity, but their passing is pretty average along the 'bar' that defines it. The players have no problems with this almost all of the time and will freeze for no reason, and that includes morale, which i've never had a problem with. Not unless there is a morale bar hidden away that the player cannot see.

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't offering a direct solution to your fullback problem, maybe I should have said even a small change to the relevant instructions can make a big difference to how a player goes about his business.

I stated longer passing just as an example, as I have found, whilst experimenting, it can be a solution, or cover mismatched mentality instructions and creative freedom that is set too low amongst your players. (ie player wants to pass the ball but he feels there is noone within the area/distance he sees based on the instructions he has been given, so he stands there like a lemon waiting to be tackled)

[considering the title of this thread, it's doing quite well. ]

[wwfan]

Well, all I can say about Mentality and Creative Freedom settings is that I cannot see why anyone would use defensive mentalities at all and why anyone would seek to limit to a huge degree what their players are supposed to do. The way both settings work, they should really be to the right of the centre in all tactics at all times... The exceptions to this must be truly extreme tactics, and possibly to central defenders and goalkeepers.

No, no, no!! This kind of advice really doesn't help. I play a good 90%+ of my matches using Counter or Defend strategies. At lower levels, I use low CF throughout. This does not inhibit your scoring or make your defending worse if you have a logically constructed system / strategy.

There are many ways to skin a cat. You have your system, which happily works for you, but it is not the only way to be successful.

[wwfan]

The problem there is that, with all these posts between you and I discussing it, my settings aren't very different at all, infact they're barely moved overall. The strikers are very attacking but no issues ever arise out of them. The whole side moves as one pretty much from the goal-keeper to the attacking midfidler, and that's where things begin to change. I did also point out that upon my first season in the Prem i'm winning the league and 6 points clear in Feb. I've also just won the League Cup again, i'm still in the FA Cup and the Euro Cup has got me into the second knock-out stage after the groups. Now, that isn't meant to be a bragging point (though it can be as a last resort if this discussion goes sour! ) but merely to point out that my tactics work, it's just these bloody occurances that come out of nowhere.

The Very Rigid system does not seem work for me with those exact tactics and my current ones work brilliantly, it's just these ridiculous goals against me that I have issue with. How nice it is when a team scores a good goal against me rather than me throwing them the ball from a throw in or scoring the goal for them.

I'm not suggesting you can't do well with your tactical approach. Your form of split mentality system causes the ME troubles, whilst also causing the issues you complain about.

If you specifically want to prevent them, you need to change the things I'm suggesting. However, it may result in your tactic being less effective in other ways.

Your choice.

[Alex W]

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't offering a direct solution to your fullback problem, maybe I should have said even a small change to the relevant instructions can make a big difference to how a player goes about his business.

I stated longer passing just as an example, as I have found, whilst experimenting, it can be a solution, or cover mismatched mentality instructions and creative freedom that is set too low amongst your players. (ie player wants to pass the ball but he feels there is noone within the area/distance he sees based on the instructions he has been given, so he stands there like a lemon waiting to be tackled)

[considering the title of this thread, it's doing quite well. ]

I'm a scout and commentator by trade, I make a living out of rambling on for pages about the most simple of things!

I can turn "They scored" and "The striker is ****" into a 40 page ballad with musical performances included. And all for a very modest fee

Feel free to let the thread die folks, i'm reply out of courtesy and curiosity at wwfans replies right now.

[Smurf]

What I'd really like are "training days" to test out tactics, or to help get a player suited to a new position/role.

Setting up a 5-aside match from time to time to analyse what's going on. Perhaps just have two of the midfielders two strikers against your defenders and goalkeeper.

You might be trying to quicken your defenders pace - and have them doing extra training, so putting them up against your fastest winger to stop crosses etc.

I'd love it - it would give you a chance to hone your tactics on the training ground, rather than experimenting during the actual game.

I might want to see my 16 year old winger playing alongside the pros for a training game or two. Players could get "training ratings" - then you can visually see who has been performing well in training. You might even drop a star player because someone in training had a great week.

I would love to be able to hone tactics on the training pitch.

For example, I started a game with Barcelona to try and emulate how they play - utilising Messi as a goal machine. I tweaked the tactics so they would play a quicker tempo, pass to feet, attacking, Messi to run with ball, not take long shots.

To my horror I lost 4-0 to Getaffe! It was because the players were playing short passes, but passing it backwards and losing the ball. I had to tweak the tactics mid-game and for the next 3 games to get things right. But by this time - the players morale were so low and they were switched off during team talks etc. It really set things back.

But I'd prefer to tweak things in the training ground - and then there's a chance things go well during the match or it could all still go to hell.

This would really be down to how good the coaches are and how good the Ass Man is.

[upthetoon]

There's opinion and there's fact. I can't help what research on chance conversion has revealed.

One on ones are converted, on average, between 25% and 35%, with the higher number being pretty close to world class. The keeper is always the favourite.

If you complained about how easy it was to create one on ones, especially with down the middle through balls, I'd agree with you. However, you aren't going to get me to reshape reality and tell you that one on ones are easier to convert than they are.

The problem with the current match engine is, it creates far too many one on ones in a single game which makes player attributes almost useless in these situations. It doesn't matter if your Ibrahimovic has finishing 20 or 1.

I don't understand about the debate of missing open goals here. I think its fairly accurately represented by the ME. The biggest flaw is the production of one on ones. Top players are not going to miss one ones 6/10 times which happens so frequently in the ME. I'm not asking you to shape reality, just face the facts that top strikers when put through on goal will just finish it in the back of the net with ease.

The ME needs to realise that clear through on goal doesn't happen so damn often in a single game. There are some games in the La Liga and French league i see that no one on one chance is created.

[wwfan]

As a rule of thumb, a mentality split of more than 8 (eight) clicks between the most advanced FC and deepest DC is the maximum number before disjointed and weird play might result. It will be even worse with large mentality splits between defenders and midfielders.

[wwfan]

The problem with the current match engine is, it creates far too many one on ones in a single game which makes player attributes almost useless in these situations. It doesn't matter if your Ibrahimovic has finishing 20 or 1.

I don't understand about the debate of missing open goals here. I think its fairly accurately represented by the ME. The biggest flaw is the production of one on ones. Top players are not going to miss one ones 6/10 times which happens so frequently in the ME. I'm not asking you to shape reality, just face the facts that top strikers when put through on goal will just finish it in the back of the net with ease.

The ME needs to realise that clear through on goal doesn't happen so damn often in a single game. There are some games in the La Liga and French league i see that no one on one chance is created.

While I fully agree with your analysis of "too many one on ones", a 60% conversion ratio, for anybody, is pure fantasy. I'm sorry, but anything above 35% is world class.

[Alex W]

As a rule of thumb, a mentality split of more than 8 (eight) clicks between the most advanced FC and deepest DC is the maximum number before disjointed and weird play might result. It will be even worse with large mentality splits between defenders and midfielders.

Well then that would suggest there should be a big difference between my strikers and the rest of the team, but everyone else should pretty much be in order. I believe my playmaker is pushing that 8 click rule but he's not all that far. Not that I knew it would affect anything in such a way when I created the tactics.

[upthetoon]

While I fully agree with your analysis of "too many one on ones", a 60% conversion ratio, for anybody, is pure fantasy. I'm sorry, but anything above 35% is world class.

So your saying any striker, who is put through clear on goal and scores roughly 3.5 out of 10 times, is world class? We sure have thousands of world class strikers on the planet going by your logic.

[BiggusD]

While I fully agree with your analysis of "too many one on ones", a 60% conversion ratio, for anybody, is pure fantasy. I'm sorry, but anything above 35% is world class.

Maybe the issue really is that those one-on-ones (and ccc's like in the screenshot above) looks easier than they actually are because there is more time and space in FM than in real life? In that screenshot it looks like Bellamy has plenty of time to tuck the ball into an empty net, while that metre-wide radius is virtually nothing in real life so the ME correctly interprets it as a tough chance to convert since that space would have been closed down in a fraction of a second in real life while in FM the defenders would be still turning and ball-watching, looking chanceless to intercept?

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Well then that would suggest there should be a big difference between my strikers and the rest of the team, but everyone else should pretty much be in order. I believe my playmaker is pushing that 8 click rule but he's not all that far. Not that I knew it would affect anything in such a way when I created the tactics.

As he is the player everyone is looking for, bringing him closer in mentality could help a lot.

[upthetoon]

Maybe the issue really is that those one-on-ones (and ccc's like in the screenshot above) looks easier than they actually are because there is more time and space in FM than in real life? In that screenshot it looks like Bellamy has plenty of time to tuck the ball into an empty net, while that metre-wide radius is virtually nothing in real life so the ME correctly interprets it as a tough chance to convert since that space would have been closed down in a fraction of a second in real life while in FM the defenders would be still turning and ball-watching, looking chanceless to intercept?

yes the issue in the match engine is the amount of 1on1s it creates especially when you play a single striker. i play a 4-5-1 with montepellier with Giroud as my main striker(Poacher). In some games, he gets atleast 5 one-on-ones and he will miss every single 1 of them. A player like Giroud needing more than 5 one-on-ones to put it in the net? lol. Even with PPM like 'Places Shots' doesn't matter. So basically in this ME, as far as i'm concern as of now, a good striker's required attributes(finishing composure etc) doesn't really matter at all.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

There's opinion and there's fact. I can't help what research on chance conversion has revealed.

One on ones are converted, on average, between 25% and 35%, with the higher number being pretty close to world class. The keeper is always the favourite.

If you complained about how easy it was to create one on ones, especially with down the middle through balls, I'd agree with you. However, you aren't going to get me to reshape reality and tell you that one on ones are easier to convert than they are.

What have I got to do to get you to do this? I wanna see it!

[milnerpoint]

You agreeing with me on something is a good start

[Kriss]

So your saying any striker, who is put through clear on goal and scores roughly 3.5 out of 10 times, is world class? We sure have thousands of world class strikers on the planet going by your logic.

No, through on the keeper, there's a huge difference and rl stats back wwfan up.

[upthetoon]

No, through on the keeper, there's a huge difference and rl stats back wwfan up.

i'm referring to players being 1 on 1 with the keeper. can i have the stats?

[Alex W]

As he is the player everyone is looking for, bringing him closer in mentality could help a lot.

My left-back isn't meant to find him and he works rather well, my full-back goes wide every time, i've the luxury of an either footed inside forward who I do not want to waste

But anyway, the squad works well, just those freak goals are too common for my liking. I shall retire until FM13.

[FM1000]

While I fully agree with your analysis of "too many one on ones", a 60% conversion ratio, for anybody, is pure fantasy. I'm sorry, but anything above 35% is world class.

Seeing as you claim to know how the ME works can you tell me what exactly creative freedom does? Does it just give players freedom to break from the tactical plan, or does it also encourage them to try more ambitious actions like a chipped through pass or a lob over the keeper?

[pigfacemonkeyman]

My left-back isn't meant to find him and he works rather well, my full-back goes wide every time, i've the luxury of an either footed inside forward who I do not want to waste

But anyway, the squad works well, just those freak goals are too common for my liking. I shall retire until FM13.

Ok and I'll stop guessing ways to help when I know diddly about your team & tactics.

[bullybeef]

It is interesting to learn that CF can have a negative affect if not used at all in certain positions. Based upon the way I play, if I don't use a lot of CF for my forward players, I create very little, but I have always instructed my CBs and GK to have no CF at all. Going to have a play around with it in my 2nd season. Wish me luck!

[Guest]

The main problem is the use of the word creative, the last thing I want my defenders to be doing is trying flicks & tricks on the edge of the area which is why in the early days I always set CF very low, took me ages to figure out what it really meant.

[bullybeef]

I suppose the tactics creator wouldn't intentionally give defenders any CF if it was so detrimental.

[Guest]

This was in the days before the tactics creator, before that was introduced I spent most of my time second guessing what SI actually meant.

[Cleon]

This was in the days before the tactics creator, before that was introduced I spent most of my time second guessing what SI actually meant.

Should have used the tactics forum