Fix the game, please!! (I can no longer enjoy it, and it makes me sad)

[HUNT3R]

1 minute ago, rdbayly said:

Hunt3r - This is exemplified by a point you made in this thread about trying through balls was aka 'more risky passes' - I would have liked the game to have told me that. Didn't there used to be a 'try through balls' option you could tick years ago?

Risky Passes PI is the same as Passes Into Space TI   -  It means passes into space, ie not to feet. It could be a through ball or it could just be a pass into space for someone to run onto, who's being marked.

[Muja]

20 hours ago, mrgreenze said:

Also unless it's the Italian translation the AM's all have the Trequartista role which I'm not sure any Italian team I've watched has ever employed.

(Litlle note, I wanted to answer to this)

No italian team has ever employed a trequartista? Italians invented the term! That's italian, you know?

It's a term so used here, that in the italian translation every AM is a "trequartista"

[Muja]

12 minutes ago, Muja said:

Another question that comes to my mind to renforce my point.

Let's look at these two (apparently) different tactical setups:





As you can see, one has counter mentality, the other control mentality.
As shown by the green squares, the "defense line", "tempo", "width" and "passing directness" have the same value.

So what's the difference between the two tactics? Why should I choose one over the other? 
The only thing that is different now is "mentality". What does it EXACTLY mean? The programmers ought to know, so why wouldn't they just tell us? Even in "videogame" terms. They might no be realistic, but anything is better than nothing!

 

 

8 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

It may look like it, but it won't be. With those settings, you're closer to Standard, although probably still short.

Then shouldn't the green square show that the values are different?? Now the interface is even lying to me?? How is this user-friendly??
 

8 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

The biggest thing is that Mentality changes decision making. Every decision. So the Counter tactic will see every decision made, being a lot safer than Control.

Then WHY can't I find this information in-game? Why did I have to write a three pages post on your forum to understand that??

And why doesn't the game let the "mentality" command simply affect the decisions and STOP THERE, as we already have the appropriate command buttons to change the other things like passes, width etcetera IF we want to?

It's simply over-complicated and counter-intuitive.
Maybe the interface is the only problem the game has and the ME is just fine as it is..


 

[rdbayly]

7 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Risky Passes PI is the same as Passes Into Space TI   -  It means passes into space, ie not to feet. It could be a through ball or it could just be a pass into space for someone to run onto, who's being marked.

Can you appreciate how this switch in terminology between player and team instructions could confuse the user? Especially if they apply their own logic rather than the developer's?

It seems your descriptions are a significant improvement on the in game advice? 

[HUNT3R]

2 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

Can you appreciate how this switch in terminology between player and team instructions could confuse the user? Especially if they apply their own logic rather than the developer's?

It seems your descriptions are a significant improvement on the in game advice? 

We always direct people to guides as well. If more users would actually read them, that would help too. Lines and Diamonds provides explanations for every instruction, among a host of other things. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

On 05/09/2017 at 13:06, Muja said:

I might not be a decent manager, but give me Juventus and I'll win against Ascoli, Bari and Acireale without giving my players ANY instruction.

 

Any semblance of an argument you might have had is blown away by this utter nonsense. 

On 05/09/2017 at 19:03, Muja said:

the game is unrealistic, I get frustrated - quit the game and rant

And yet you fondly look back on the likes of FM12, a game where players could ghost through other players and where tactical instructions could be tweaked in instalments of 20 (in some cases) giving a level of micro management even Guardiola couldn't cope with. 

But yeah, it's unrealistic NOW 

[rdbayly]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

We always direct people to guides as well. If more users would actually read them, that would help too. Lines and Diamonds provides explanations for every instruction, among a host of other things. 

This guide and others are excellent. They helped me to correct some tactical imbalances in my approach that have helped me to finally win trophies. My point stands that the game does not make it easy for the user to understand the impact of their tactical instructions, and this is an area that can easily be improved with the use of consistent terminology and explicit tool tips.

[lemeuresnew]

12 minutes ago, Muja said:

Then WHY can't I find this information in-game? Why did I have to write a three pages post on your forum to understand that??

isnt that information in the screen shots you posted? it clearly states different ways it effects players, right? explains full backs will play differently, players will stay behind the ball or support more

how could that not obviously effect decisions? it would be impossible for it not to... am i missing something

[Muja]

1 minute ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

Any semblance of an argument you might have had is blown away by this utter nonsense. 

Have you ever played soccer, or is your whole experience on the sport based on a simulation?

2 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

This guide and others are excellent. They helped me to correct some tactical imbalances in my approach that have helped me to finally win trophies. My point stands that the game does not make it easy for the user to understand the impact of their tactical instructions, and this is an area that can easily be improved with the use of consistent terminology and explicit tool tips.

Agreed, that would be a good start. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

Just now, rdbayly said:

My point stands that the game does not make it easy for the user to understand the impact of their tactical instructions, and this is an area that can easily be improved with the use of consistent terminology and explicit tool tips.

What you have to be careful of though, is it becoming a 'press x, get y response' deal. The whole nature of a football match is its fluidity. FM should never get to a point where an instruction you give will work 100% of the time, therefore that level of in-game instruction would arguably lead to more complaints. It's a difficult balancing act. While I agree there is a need for perhaps more in-game help, there has to be a line drawn. 

[HUNT3R]

Just now, rdbayly said:

This guide and others are excellent. They helped me to correct some tactical imbalances in my approach that have helped me to finally win trophies. My point stands that the game does not make it easy for the user to understand the impact of their tactical instructions, and this is an area that can easily be improved with the use of consistent terminology and explicit tool tips.

Of course. I said earlier that the game shouldn't be about wondering what it is you just instructed. You should know what it is you're instructing... you're instructing it, after all! If this can be improved, the thinking in-game/in-match can become a lot more tactical, rather than figuring out "what did I actually just tell my players to do?".

[Dagenham_Dave]

1 minute ago, Muja said:

Have you ever played soccer, or is your whole experience on the sport based on a simulation?

 

I have, but I don't really see the relevance. 

[lemeuresnew]

Just now, Dagenham_Dave said:

I have, but I don't really see the relevance. 

do they have 'soccer' in Dagenham? 

 

[HUNT3R]

Jokes aside, let's not go down the bickering route again. The thread has moved past that initial post and is much more of a discussion than the rant it appeared to be.

[Muja]

1 minute ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

What you have to be careful of though, is it becoming a 'press x, get y response' deal. The whole nature of a football match is its fluidity. FM should never get to a point where an instruction you give will work 100% of the time, therefore that level of in-game instruction would arguably lead to more complaints. It's a difficult balancing act. While I agree there is a need for perhaps more in-game help, there has to be a line drawn. 

You're completely ignoring other variables like "luck" or "form", that are inherently unpredictable and could trample your tactic even if it's sound, just like in real life.

The game doesn't have to be an exact math. But the istructions and the player's impact should be, A player must know EXACTLY what he's doing.

When you fail and you haven't learn anything in the process because everything is unclear, it's simply not fun. 
 

[Muja]

7 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

I have, but I don't really see the relevance. 

Just that you were calling nonsense what is actually common sense, so the doubt arised

Just saying, just yesterday Italy won 1-0 against Israel even by playing a very horrible football with no tactical schemes at all. Ventura might have even not been there at all.
But that's just how football is, you know.

[rdbayly]

2 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

What you have to be careful of though, is it becoming a 'press x, get y response' deal. The whole nature of a football match is its fluidity. FM should never get to a point where an instruction you give will work 100% of the time, therefore that level of in-game instruction would arguably lead to more complaints. It's a difficult balancing act. While I agree there is a need for perhaps more in-game help, there has to be a line drawn. 

Completely agree. I love the variety and unpredictability of this year's match engine. It seems this thread has become a debate on the tactics creator.

Earlier in the thread, Hunt3r said "Risky passes PI is the same as Pass into Space TI" - I don't see the rationale for using different language here? I'd suggest that if I instruct a player to make 'More risky passes', It should flash up somewhere of the kind of passes I'm telling him to make. For example 'Player will attempt through balls, passes to marked players, first time balls, passes with the outside of his foot etc" - That way if he ends up with a poor pass completion rate or a match rating of 6.2, I know it's my fault for maybe asking him to do something beyond his skill set.

 

 

[HUNT3R]

1 minute ago, rdbayly said:

Completely agree. I love the variety and unpredictability of this year's match engine. It seems this thread has become a debate on the tactics creator.

Earlier in the thread, Hunt3r said "Risky passes PI is the same as Pass into Space TI" - I don't see the rationale for using different language here? I'd suggest that if I instruct a player to make 'More risky passes', It should flash up somewhere of the kind of passes I'm telling him to make. For example 'Player will attempt through balls, passes to marked players, first time balls, passes with the outside of his foot etc" - That way if he ends up with a poor pass completion rate or a match rating of 6.2, I know it's my fault for maybe asking him to do something beyond his skill set.

 

 

Tbf, any pass NOT straight to a player is already a more risky pass - but I do agree.

Ideally, no one should doubt (in this case) that they're instructing risky passes/passes not to feet/passes into space. Whether it "works" tactically, is what should be the focus.

[AFCBeer]

I do have some sympathy with @Muja here with the wording and effect of the mentality settings in particular. They are confusing and counter intuitive for a native English speaker let alone a foreign language speaker. 

"Counter" is probably the most confusing of the lot. Yes naturally sitting deep will be more likely to trigger a fast counter attack, but in the main, Counter in FM describes a fairly slow probing style of play. 

Instead of a scale of Defensive-Counter-Standard-Control-Attacking, a better scale might be Safe-Cautious-Default-Adventurous-Aggressive. A lot of people describe Pep's Barca as a slow probing style of passing which in FM would translate as Counter. But if you said to an actual football pundit that Barca played a counter attacking style they would laugh at you. A cautious, short passing style with a higher line and lots of pressing and you might get agreement. 

I do appreciate people's interpretations are subjective and been discussed to death elsewhere, but better descriptions would be simple for SI to implement and improve people's understanding no end. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

4 minutes ago, Muja said:

Just saying, just yesterday Italy won 1-0 against Israel even by playing a very horrible football with no tactical schemes at all. Ventura might have even not been there at all.
But that's just how football is, you know.

Please. Stop. 

[Muja]

1 minute ago, AFCBeer said:

"Counter" is probably the most confusing of the lot. Yes naturally sitting deep will be more likely to trigger a fast counter attack, but in the main, Counter in FM describes a fairly slow probing style of play. 

Instead of a scale of Defensive-Counter-Standard-Control-Attacking, a better scale might be Safe-Cautious-Default-Adventurous-Aggressive. A lot of people describe Pep's Barca as a slow probing style of passing which in FM would translate as Counter. But if you said to an actual football pundit that Barca played a counter attacking style they would laugh at you. A cautious, short passing style with a higher line and lots of pressing and you might get agreement. 

Exactly what I've been trying to say for a while, I agree wholeheartedly

[rdbayly]

1 minute ago, Muja said:

"Counter" is probably the most confusing of the lot.

Couldn't agree more - Perhaps because there are several different styles of counter attacking. Look at Liverpool's direct counter style under Klopp. No way could you achieve that on the counter alone TI; it's far too slow. I've found you need to beef up the tempo and passing length to get anywhere close to it. Before understanding this I can recall countless games of screaming at my team when we won the ball, BREAK!! BREAK!!

[Guest]

I reckon everyone is in agreement that the FM tactical effect of the mentality terms does not match the user expectations based on the real life usage of those same one word descriptors, it's something many of us have suggested SI change in the future.

[rdbayly]

1 minute ago, Barside said:

I reckon everyone is in agreement that the FM tactical effect of the mentality terms does not match the user expectations based on the real life usage of those same one word descriptors, it's something many of us have suggested SI change in the future.

I think we are done here

[Muja]

10 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

I think we are done here

Good for me. Let's hope SI has already done something about that in FM18. This is the first year I'll be playing the demo first.
 

21 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

Please. Stop. 

[Guest]

Well that's a great way to keep a thread going.

[mrgreenze]

4 hours ago, Muja said:

(Litlle note, I wanted to answer to this)

No italian team has ever employed a trequartista? Italians invented the term! That's italian, you know?

It's a term so used here, that in the italian translation every AM is a "trequartista"

Sorry - should have read I'd never seen 3 Trequartista's in the same line-up before. Shame - how great would it have been to see Baggio, Totti and Del Piero in the same team behind a striker. Unfeasible but fun.

[Muja]

4 minutes ago, mrgreenze said:

Sorry - should have read I'd never seen 3 Trequartista's in the same line-up before. Shame - how great would it have been to see Baggio, Totti and Del Piero in the same team behind a striker. Unfeasible but fun.

Aah I didn't understand that's what you meant, sorry

I was trying to do just that at the time! (with Cazares, Oliver and Felipe Anderson)
But yeah, it was unfisible.

However you'd expect such a tactic to creat lots of chances, but to concede a lot too. 
In FM, with my setup, I usually won 1-0 or lost 0-1, lots of possession but very little clear cut chances on both sides

 

[mrgreenze]

34 minutes ago, Muja said:

Aah I didn't understand that's what you meant, sorry

I was trying to do just that at the time! (with Cazares, Oliver and Felipe Anderson)
But yeah, it was unfisible.

However you'd expect such a tactic to creat lots of chances, but to concede a lot too. 
In FM, with my setup, I usually won 1-0 or lost 0-1, lots of possession but very little clear cut chances on both sides

 

No worries.

Just on your point regarding the type of scorelines you'd expect on the tactic you posted, attacking formations and roles can sometimes lead to excruciatingly tedious football.  

To illustrate I had the misfortune to watch Malta vs England last Friday - now in FM terms England went out with an attacking (or control maybe) mentality being overwhelming favourites to win. However, England lack players who can effectively play in the half space (support duty roles) and create the pass or space for the goal scorers in the team. The result being 80 minutes of utter tedium watching attack v defence - the 3 late goals were more down to fatigue from a set of part time players than any tactical change from Southgate.

England were well set up in that game to avoid conceding with essentially 2 aggressive holding midfielders which may seem ironic with an attacking mentality. But this can facilitate a quick regain of possession vs a lesser technical team.

Basically with a team mentality of control or attacking, I always go for more support roles. It's particularly effective with wide roles, as if the winger receives the ball deeper he can turn and face the fullback, making it easier to dribble past him. It's usually more difficult if they're on attack duty in the AM strata as they'll likely receive the ball with their back to goal.

Although slightly off topic you might want to check the below thread on attacking football by Cleon - explains it far better than me!  Keep the faith.

 

[alanschu14]

On 9/5/2017 at 07:41, Muja said:

I never offended anyone, though.

I always love it when people declare this as though they're the ones to judge it!

FWIW Op, no FM effectively pulled me in until FM2016, so how it goes.  That one literally got me a fan of football and now I have a team and everything.  The ones before just lacked that je ne sais quois I guess!

Win some lose some I guess.

(I also work in game development btw, and it just reads as arrogant to come in with an unsupported claim that you have some sort of expertise in an effort to validate your position. C'est la vie.).

[Muja]

8 hours ago, alanschu14 said:

I always love it when people declare this as though they're the ones to judge it!

If i say "I'm sick of this game, I don't like it because blah blah blah" am I offending you?
If you get offended by that, I'd say you're too sensitive about the subject and that it's your problem.

Unless you're a developer/designer of the game, I simply don't see how I'd be offending you... and even then, I'd tell you not to take it personally and that I'm simply offering my feedback.

If you then reply not by addressing the points I've made, but rather by attacking me personally with sarcastic comments and the general goal to make fun of me, now THAT I find offensive. 

And I usually answer fire with fire,  although rationally I admit it's not the best option... and that's why this time I'll stop here, even though your comment's goal was to virtually "throw me a jab" rather than to add anything specific to the discussion

10 hours ago, mrgreenze said:

Just on your point regarding the type of scorelines you'd expect on the tactic you posted, attacking formations and roles can sometimes lead to excruciatingly tedious football.  

I think the biggest misconception between the game's logic and real life's logic is that FM considers fast, direct passes to be "attacking" while more often than not that approach will create very little chances to score against a team already in its defending positions, and it's effective in very rare circumstances such as fast breaks or when switching the play.

Quick direct passes is how smaller, weaker teams generally play against stronger teams. They can't possibly keep possession when the opponents are much stronger, so they try very risky plays hoping that one will find the other team unprepared, and connect. 

Even if it's more risky, in a real game that is not an "attacking" approach at all because normally it has a much lower possibility to actually make you score.
And since you're trying difficult plays you'll lose the ball more often, so you're also voluntarily ceding possession to the opponents... meaning you'll have to defend a lot and be able to do so.

More risks ≠ attacking mentality

This is false only in the situation when you want to overload the box, when you quickly want to change the result as there's little time and you're desperate.

That's why I think the Tactics Creator needs a revolution not only in terminology and explanations, but in the "logic" behind it.

[lemeuresnew]

8 minutes ago, Muja said:

Quick direct passes is how smaller, weaker teams generally play against stronger teams. They can't possibly keep possession when the opponents are much stronger, so they try very risky plays hoping that one will find the other team unprepared, and connect. 

you watch too much bad football by the sounds of it. come over to England, everything is done quicker! you might get the odd Wenger that tries something new, but generally WE WANT TO BE ENTERTAINED. you couldnt pay me to watch sideways football. i saw Milan play when Beckham was there. the hot dogs are better over there, but i  fell asleep before half time

13 minutes ago, Muja said:

Even if it's more risky, in a real game that is not an "attacking" approach at all because normally it has a much lower possibility to actually make you score, and you're also voluntarily ceding possession of the ball to the opponents... meaning you'll have to defend a lot and be able to do so.

no one scores without taking a risk. every shot is a chance to lose possession. very similar to my comment above, i will not pay to watch that kind of football. i expect to be entertained, not bored. if i wanted to watch 11 men jog around doing nothing and making odd little sprints ii would watch a test match

[HUNT3R]

@Muja Just remember that Mentality is merely levels of risk, not how attacking or defensive you are. You can set up a very attacking system with a Counter Mentality, for instance. And Cleon wrote an article showing that possession football is also possible with a Mentality as "risky" as Control, not like how it was always done before, with a safe Defensive or Counter Mentality.

I'm sure Rashidi (maybe Cleon too) also showed how an Attacking Mentality can also be extremely dangerous.

As always, how you set up is very important.

[Muja]

1 minute ago, lemeuresnew said:

you watch too much bad football by the sounds of it. come over to England, everything is done quicker! you might get the odd Wenger that tries something new, but generally WE WANT TO BE ENTERTAINED

If you're entertained by casual, forced long passes and player running back and forth with no real tactical sense, then yes, you'd be entertained by english football.
I watch it, I think it's very uneffective and antiquate. And it's also very casual and unpredictable.

That's why it happens more often than a big team loses against a small one, or that a team coming from the second league could win the first place in the premier league.

A team playing like that in Italy would be relegation material.

It's not a coincidence italian coaches are so succesfull there...
 

6 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

no one scores without taking a risk. every shot is a chance to lose possession. very similar to my comment above, i will not pay to watch that kind of football. i expect to be entertained, not bored. if i wanted to watch 11 men jog around doing nothing and making odd little sprints ii would watch a test match

Is tiki-taka boring?
If your answer is "yes" then we'll never agree on this.

I find more amusement in watching quick one-twos, good movement off the ball, and a more complex build up rewarded by the sudden stroke of genius of the creative player that splits the defense in two.

That's Messi.

"Bomb the ball forward! run forward! we lost the ball, they're bombing the ball forward, let's run back!"

That's... messy.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

@Muja Just remember that Mentality is merely levels of risk, not how attacking or defensive you are. You can set up a very attacking system with a Counter Mentality, for instance. And Cleon wrote an article showing that possession football is also possible with a Mentality as "risky" as Control, not like how it was always done before, with a safe Defensive or Counter Mentality.

I'm sure Rashidi (maybe Cleon too) also showed how an Attacking Mentality can also be extremely dangerous.

As always, how you set up is very important.

I can see how Muja has become confused as the longer mentality definitions tend to open with a line about relative strength & weakness along with an implied scale of defend to attacking styles, after spending time playing FM & observing the impact of the mentality options some FM'ers have come to the correct conclusion that we have to remove the idea of mentality being a defend/attack instruction from our thought process but for those who rely on the text descriptions that disconnection is harder to achieve.

[HUNT3R]

2 minutes ago, Barside said:

I can see how Muja has become confused as the longer mentality definitions tend to open with a line about relative strength & weakness along with an implied scale of defend to attacking styles, after spending time playing FM & observing the impact of the mentality options some FM'ers have come to the correct conclusion that we have to remove the idea of mentality being a defend/attack instruction from our thought process but for those who rely on the text descriptions that disconnection is harder to achieve.

Yeah, I don't blame him in this case at all. I can see how the descriptions broadly helps newcomers or casuals, but there's nothing to further the thinking or better explain what it actually is.

I really struggled to wrap my head around the concept of Duties (another definition that should be better explained, I think) when this was first introduced. Maybe it was a language thing, I don't know, but when it clicked, everything fell into place. 

[lemeuresnew]

3 minutes ago, Muja said:

A team playing like that in Italy would be relegation material.

generally speaking, the English leagues are a lot stronger than Italian and in some sense Spanish ones. the quality difference between a top and bottom team in those leagues is rediculous. there is a reason the tiki-taka is uneffective in this country. the tempo is too high for it to be effective consistently. managers need more flexibility to there systems. the defenses are better. there are more different styles of play to adapt to

no one could call Liverpools style of play boring the last few years. it is non the less very quick, it has to be. they defend quickly, in groups, because when they dont they are punished. just look what happened with man city and barcelona last season. in reality, barcelona against teams as strong as themselves dont score for fun every game. and cant defend like they do against quality players every week

[lemeuresnew]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

I really struggled to wrap my head around the concept of Duties (another definition that should be better explained, I think) when this was first introduced. Maybe it was a language thing, I don't know, but when it clicked, everything fell into place. 

where are you from? could it be better translated, or is an english description just not translatable?

i think everything introduced at first requires some trial and error. it would be boring otherwise . some people do seem to adapt quicker than others, think peoples brains are just wired differently for different things 

[HUNT3R]

Just now, lemeuresnew said:

where are you from? could it be better translated, or is an english description just not translatable?

i think everything introduced at first requires some trial and error. it would be boring otherwise . some people do seem to adapt quicker than others, think peoples brains are just wired differently for different things 

English is my second language, but tbf, had I spent more time looking at the sliders back then (it was still visible), I would have probably been able to connect the dots quicker.

It was me spending time to watch matches in full that really moved my understanding (in general too) forward a lot.

[lemeuresnew]

3 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

English is my second language, but tbf, had I spent more time looking at the sliders back then (it was still visible), I would have probably been able to connect the dots quicker.

It was me spending time to watch matches in full that really moved my understanding (in general too) forward a lot.

yeah, it definitely takes time. you see all these guys (i assume they are guys) complaining about how long it takes to play and figure things out in the full version of the game. im lucky, usually single, no kids. work shifts so plenty of time alone with my squad. if i cant take a full 24 hours game time before continuing the first day of a save, i feel like im not giving enough back to the club. and then your first game it can all change lol

[Muja]

7 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

generally speaking, the English leagues are a lot stronger than Italian and in some sense Spanish ones. the quality difference between a top and bottom team in those leagues is rediculous.

 

9 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

the tempo is too high for it to be effective consistently

It's the tactical inconsistency that levels the quality difference in english football.

Manchester United has a FAR better team than the rest of its english rivals in terms of individual skill. There's no Italian team which has such a concentrated number of VERY good, world-class players (and the money to buy them) except maybe Juventus, and it took them a lot of time to reach that point. 

And yet Man U's game style is incosistent, and they can lose against a much weaker team if their form isn't top notch, losing many points along the way.

It's a very casual style of play, based on luck and form. No team playing like that would ever win the Serie A. 

If the players follow him, I think Conte will have a winning streak just like he did in Italy, and even more easily so.

I won 2.000 euro betting he would win the Premier League at his first try

(betting is bad and can become a pathologic addiction, don't do it)
 

14 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

just look what happened with man city and barcelona last season. 

Barcelona has lost his way in the latest years.

During Guardiola's time, Barcelona would consistently humiliate Real Madrid (and any other team) more times in a season.

 

[lemeuresnew]

2 minutes ago, Muja said:

It's the tactical inconsistency that levels the quality difference in english football.

its not inconsistency, it is different styles and variation. no one style always beats another, much like paper scissor rock

4 minutes ago, Muja said:

Manchester United has a FAR better team than the rest of its english rivals in terms of individual skill.

i wouldnt say so. defense is a bit slow, not sure they have a natural winger that would break into every team? maybe 20 years ago, but not now. the money side of the game is changing things drastically, and as teams balance out with more cash from sky the players roles and instructions within the team become more important than the actual player maybe? time will tell i guess. the only player they have that would play in EVERY team in my opinion is the keeper

8 minutes ago, Muja said:

(betting is bad and can become a pathologic addiction, don't do it)

and yes, something we agree on lol

[Muja]

3 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

its not inconsistency, it is different styles and variation. no one style always beats another, much like paper scissor rock

That IS inconsistency.

If you want to win Serie A you HAVE TO win most matches, so you have to find a style that will allow you to do so. When the teams have a very similar value, winning a league (which has so many matches in it) becomes a race to see who's more consistent.

Consistency is the primary goal any team should have if it wants to win a league. And you can't leave it to case, or to a paper-scissor-rock mechanic.

And as I see it, the only way to gain consistency is to come up with a style that will give you domination of the field in. any. single. game. So you need the skills and the tactics to do that.

Modern football is all about dominating the midfield. The team having the most possession is usually the team that will have the most chances, as possession is never meant to be sterile unless as in a strategy to take a break or lose time.

It might not be funny, man, but only in the eyes of someone who doesn't see the beauty of how tactically efficient it is.
 

17 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

and yes, something we agree on lol

ahahah let's agree on that, then

 

37 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

English is my second language, but tbf, had I spent more time looking at the sliders back then (it was still visible), I would have probably been able to connect the dots quicker.

It was me spending time to watch matches in full that really moved my understanding (in general too) forward a lot.

Wait a moment, that gave me the idea for a perfect example to show more clearly what I meant earlier
 

[lemeuresnew]

7 minutes ago, Muja said:

And as I see it, the only way to gain consistency is to come up with a style that will give you domination of the field in. any. single. game. So you need the skills and the tactics to do that.

that does not exist in a competitive league where every team has different strengths and styles. if you fail to adapt, that is when you drop points. no style or system is perfect for more than a season or 2 at most any more. you could make the argument, for instance, considering recent history of winners of the league being fired, that Chelsea could need a new manager before the end of the season if he fails to adapt to the differences of challenging for and defending the title

[Muja]

This is the description you find in-game of the "COUNTER mentality"

If it's too small, I'll write it again:

"This mentality is best employed for matches in which you expect to lose the battle for possession, but feel you can break with some regularity. It aims to keep men behind the ball when defending but to provide quick support to attacking players when the ball is in the final third. It relies on getting the ball forward quickly enough to expose the space behind aggressive full-backs and wingers, with players tending to stay deeper and mantain defensive shape if the break looks like coming to nothing".

Now, THIS is the description of a "counter mentality" that I WROTE before:
 

Quote

- a "counter mentality", meaning a set up which has the goal to create more chances to use fast breaks or "counter" attacks. To do that, you need to stay deep, play defensive and concede possession, lure the opponents out, gain the ball and use fast breaks.

So, as you can see, the in-game description and the meaning I give to the term "counter mentality" COINCIDE (and that's the meaning it has in real life football, to be honest)

But then, when I write EXACTLY that in the forums, moderators would tell me that:

On 6/9/2017 at 12:07, themadsheep2001 said:

I've already defined mentality. It's levels of risk. Thats it. Nothing more than that. You've applied all these rules that do not need to exist. 

... or even ....

On 5/9/2017 at 22:50, themadsheep2001 said:

using Spain as an example here, that would be Counter

which is totally false if we use the real-life meaning of "counter".

You say:

2 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

Cleon wrote an article showing that possession football is also possible with a Mentality as "risky" as Control

but that's not something that should be surprising at all, "Control" means "to control the game", thus it should be the go-to option when you want possession.

The description itself of the "control mentality" says:

"it aims to move the ball around the park and to patiently probe the final third to find space as and when it opens up".

Once again, I agree with the description, but that's how the mentality will work in the game at all. It even automatically sets passes a little to the direct side, which is the perfect opposite of what the description says.

So i have to come to your forums to find out that the in-game description is not only false regarding how it works inside the game, but it's MISLEADING, which is the worst thing an in-game instruction could ever be.

When I've proposed to better explain what the inferace commands do, the most usual objection I receive is that "the game shouldn't explain you everything".

Misleading and incorrenct in-game informations are a good idea in game design only when the game mechanics are based on that concept. Otherwise it's the worst thing you can do design-wise.

Telling your players what you want from them should be simple. The fun is finding out if what you want can work with the players at your disposal, and if not what else you can do.

As it is, FM is like training soccer in a foreign country and you don't know the language.
You tell the players "ACHGONTILONG!" (a term I just came up with), they say "ok", they go playing and do the complete opposite of what you intended, and you're left wondering if they're doing it to spite you or if you used the wrong word.

[HUNT3R]

@Muja We've already established that the descriptions and even the names should change. No one is opposing this idea.

[Muja]

1 hour ago, lemeuresnew said:

that does not exist in a competitive league where every team has different strengths and styles. if you fail to adapt, that is when you drop points. 

Juve has won six series A in row by changing team shape and style only ONCE in six years (moving from Conte's 3-5-2 to Allegri's 4-2-3-1).
Conte's Chealsea won the Premier League by prevalently playing a 3-4-3. He didn't "adapt", he found an identity for the team and pushed it forward. That's consistency.

And if I'm not mistaking, he beat the Premier's record of points in a single season, am I wrong?

You only adapt to the opponent when he's way stronger than you. Otherwise, you prevalently use the team's strenght with the style of football you want in order to be as consistent as possible.

Just because most english teams do what you say, it doesn't mean that's the most efficient way to do things. I think I have enough proof of the contrary.

[Muja]

11 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

@Muja We've already established that the descriptions and even the names should change. No one is opposing this idea.

What I'm saying is that this has created a lot of confusions in the forums too. Here, tiki taka's style is considered "defensive" because that's how it can (almost) be recreated inside a videogame.

We're getting further and further away from the REAL game.

This is just to reinforce my opinion that Tactics Creator uses an absurd logic, not just the wrong terms, and should be revolutionized.

[lemeuresnew]

17 minutes ago, Muja said:

Just because most english teams do what you say, it doesn't mean that's the most efficient way to do things. I think I have enough proof of the contrary.

not really. you are just showing a tactical simplicity due to the different standards of the teams in different countries

Contte did change last season, from something more like a 4-1-4-1 to the 3-4-3 you mentioned. that being said, since winning the league he has lost 2 finals, hardly a dominant unbreakable system

history is full of changes and revolutions in football. from the Scottish cheating and starting to pass the ball, to Italian teams ruining all the fun and using sweepers. sweeper keepers that excite, to midfielders that are too good to break a sweat and dictate play without leaving the center circle

then you have the players that are almost god like... if you play a 3-4-3 against a player like Suarez for instance, you do not have enough men back before he even thinks about passing the ball. you give away a free kick 35 yards from goal, and a player like Le Tiss will score all day for fun. you HAVE to tell your defense to stay on there feet if you want to stop him, and even then hope for the best. how do you stop Ibrahim, do you just hope your team are up to it on the day? all these different types of player have to be treated differently, or they will beat you. EVERY team in England has a match winner you should try and adapt to

[HUNT3R]

1 minute ago, Muja said:

What I'm saying is that this has created a lot of confusions in the forums too. Here, tiki taka's style is considered "defensive" because that's how it can (almost) be recreated inside a videogame.

We're getting further and further from the REAL game.

This is just to reinforce my opinion that Tactics Creator uses an absurd logic, not just the wrong terms, and should be revolutionized.

If someone were to call it "defensive", I wouldn't necessarily disagree. I'd call it risk-free or something similar. Keeping the ball so that the opposition cannot get it, "resting" in possession to save energy for closing down without the ball, safe passes to feet, forward runs only at the right times etc. These are all elements of safety.