FM vs RL

[HUNT3R]

9 minutes ago, masno said:

No,I created it.

And the system was good,Messi was playing a lot,Suárez was scoring many goals, my midfield was dominating the game, but thos second game was ridiculous,my defence was solid against Bayern and Real on the first game,and in the second one my defenders didnt even tried to play.

My tactic could definitely have some mistaked that could lead to 2-3 goals,but 9? I don’t think so. 

I'd be interested to see this tactic. Did you do anything when 2 or 3 starting going in? 

Keep in mind that teams line up differently home and away and that they probably would have been quite attacking from the start to turn the 6-1 around.

[masno]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

I'd be interested to see this tactic. Did you do anything when 2 or 3 starting going in? 

I got a 4-1-3-2 DM

Ter stegen - Sweep keeper

Pique - Ball playing defender

Umtiti - Central defender

Roberto - Full back - support

Alba - Complete - support

Busquets - Anchor

Iniesta - AP - support 

Rakitic - CM- support - hold position

Paulinho - Mez - Sup - Wide with Ball

Messi - F9

Suárez - DLF attack or CF attack

Alba tracked balé,Busquets tracked Marcelo, Messi tracked carvajal, Roberto tracked Ronaldo

I changed my first XI in the second game,but the plan was the same.

After the second game,I changed my mentality to defend and my defensive line to slighty deeper.

My tempo was lower and my closing down was sometimes,when I used more,my team always lost their shape when someone was pressing. Shape fluid.

If there is anything ultra wrong that I did,tell me please.

[HUNT3R]

Tbf, it doesn't seem horrible. I'm not sure what "tracked" means, unless you mean you had them specifically man mark. So nothing "ultra wrong", but I do wonder if you just invited them to come and attack you. I can see them overloading your flanks and causing chaos.

[masno]

20 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Tbf, it doesn't seem horrible. I'm not sure what "tracked" means, unless you mean you had them specifically man mark. So nothing "ultra wrong", but I do wonder if you just invited them to come and attack you. I can see them overloading your flanks and causing chaos.

It is the best system that barça can play,yes,track means mark specifically. Maybe I invited them, but on the first half I asked them to control the game,it finished 2-1 for them and I asked them to continue focusing on winning the game.

I think was a bug in the ME because in the 6-1 game, real seemed to not having a defense at all, no one on their defense was even trying to play,and in the 9-1 game,the same thing happened to my defensive system,they werent playing the game at all.

My match against Bayern, the same thing,their defensive system seemed to turn off,my players passed everyone one and created a chance, then their team did the same thing.

Maybe it is not a bug,but is strange how defensive systems worked on this 3 games. 

[tacticsdude]

Come on. Unless he specifically was playing horrendous tactics to try to break the ME or had blown up the team's morale on purpose, all of this apologizing "well, if you set to attack on the wings too much you could concede 9 goals" is BS. He is not talking about conceding 9 goals with Real Betis.

And the 4 injuries, "well, if you are too aggressive" is also BS. Every clash between Madrid and Barza during the Mourinho era was essentially an alley gang fight. We saw blood, punches, spitting and eye pokes, but never 4 injuries total on the pitch, let alone on a single side.

The theme is FM vs RL, not things that I've seen happen in FM if I pull the wrong levers. I think Barcelona's worst loss in history was something like 5-0 and you have to go a couple decades into history to find it.

[masno]

1 hour ago, tacticsdude said:

Come on. Unless he specifically was playing horrendous tactics to try to break the ME or had blown up the team's morale on purpose, all of this apologizing "well, if you set to attack on the wings too much you could concede 9 goals" is BS. He is not talking about conceding 9 goals with Real Betis.

And the 4 injuries, "well, if you are too aggressive" is also BS. Every clash between Madrid and Barza during the Mourinho era was essentially an alley gang fight. We saw blood, punches, spitting and eye pokes, but never 4 injuries total on the pitch, let alone on a single side.

The theme is FM vs RL, not things that I've seen happen in FM if I pull the wrong levers. I think Barcelona's worst loss in history was something like 5-0 and you have to go a couple decades into history to find it.

I will be sincere with you,always when I have results like this (6-1), I reload the game.I decided that I wanted to see to return result from this game, and I was shocked, far from boken, and is a thing to worry, a 9-1 result and 4 injuries out of 1 real risk injures,and 2 of them was on the bench. 

Why? Because is broken. I already had a 8-2 result against real on FM17, and I saved a screenshot, and reloaded the game. After this I went 1-0 against then, more realistic to me. I already won 10-3 from bayern on the champions final, and decided to reload the game, I lost 2-1, more realistic. I also already won with wolves 6-2 against chelsea, I also reload it. All this results without broken tactics.
I also reloaded a game that the PSG should get 3 goals,but the offside bug in FM17  didn't let then score.

What I said and agree with you is this match was a huge error by the ME, they simple decided that I needed to lose and made the same team that lost 6-1, win 9-1 and injuried 4 important players, If this wasn't a ME error like others said, then I, as barça adept, don't really wanna watch when this game happen.

 

[masno]

So, I tried FM18 again,and another defensive bug was found!

Sergi Roberto handle to tackle Griezmann,then he decided to run directly to Ter stegen(?) and they both collide,and Gameiro made the easiest goal on his life. Seriously,what is the problem with this game?

Sergi had options, he had space and time,and he decided to run directly to ter stegen.

Every game that I play,I absolutly regret more.

[HUNT3R]

5 hours ago, tacticsdude said:

Come on. Unless he specifically was playing horrendous tactics to try to break the ME or had blown up the team's morale on purpose, all of this apologizing "well, if you set to attack on the wings too much you could concede 9 goals" is BS. He is not talking about conceding 9 goals with Real Betis.

And the 4 injuries, "well, if you are too aggressive" is also BS. Every clash between Madrid and Barza during the Mourinho era was essentially an alley gang fight. We saw blood, punches, spitting and eye pokes, but never 4 injuries total on the pitch, let alone on a single side.

The theme is FM vs RL, not things that I've seen happen in FM if I pull the wrong levers. I think Barcelona's worst loss in history was something like 5-0 and you have to go a couple decades into history to find it.

If you're referring to me, please read what I wrote again.

[HUNT3R]

4 hours ago, masno said:

What I said and agree with you is this match was a huge error by the ME, they simple decided that I needed to lose and made the same team that lost 6-1, win 9-1 and injuried 4 important players, If this wasn't a ME error like others said, then I, as barça adept, don't really wanna watch when this game happen.

 

I know it's easy to blame something else, but did you not consider what I said at all?

[masno]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

I know it's easy to blame something else, but did you not consider what I said at all?

Yes,but look my last post,a horrible defensive mistake.

If was a third division team that did this,I would be ok,but a great fullback like Sergi,is clear that this ME have some defense problems.

I'm not simply saying that my tactic is fine and the game is broken, but this 6-1/9-1 results are more like a FIFA simulation than a FM simulation.

On both games,the away defense was terrible,pratically inexistent, and something was wrong on those games, just to help you imagine the game,the last team to score 6 in a game agaisnt a good team was barça, Real scored 7 goals in the last half,7 goals,and those 7 goals was on barça, not some bad defensive system ,the barça defensive system.

The same for the first game,I scored 6 goals in one half,on Real,not a low class team,was agaisnt Real.

I understand the point you made,but this scores,the 4 injuries and this terrible mistake shows that sometimes the ME have game-breaking issues.

[qDizzy]

 

1 hour ago, masno said:

Sergi Roberto handle to tackle Griezmann,then he decided to run directly to Ter stegen(?) and they both collide,and Gameiro made the easiest goal on his life. Seriously,what is the problem with this game?

Sergi had options, he had space and time,and he decided to run directly to ter stegen.

Every game that I play,I absolutly regret more.

 

im using this qoute as a prime example....LoL

back when i was younger sometimes in the park we would play with a flat basketball (meaning very little air - because we had no other option and wanted to play basketball) so as u can imagine it was very hard to dribble if even possible...

but we made it work...

theres a saying that goes... we're all playing with the same ball...

so yea... maybe it sucks playing with a basketball with no air... but once u get over it, its not that bad...

------

guys i just wanna say, lets try be more optmistic and supportive of the work the guys do at FM - i too would love alot of better features and better gamplay overall and dont think we should stop making mention of it to let FM know what are opinions are... but i'll say this... this game has such depth and detail that i just imagine it took a huge effort to put together, that i think maybe were looking too much of what could be and not being to apprecative the fine work they have been able to do thus far... no, its not perfect - and maybe there some things that might be frustrating - but in my experience even the best games ive played in the past all had some "are you kidding me" stuff going on.. and some of the best games ive ever played thus far made me feel like "im really thinking about throwing this contoller somewhere"...  only to come back for more the next day, that to me is a hallmark of a great game - even with its inperfections and things that frustate u, u suck it up work around it and keep playing bcuz its a great game.. perhaps even angry faced as u turn the thing on 

-----

furher more guys im sure ure all familair with tech... so taking tech as an example - maybe we can even use smartphones or game consoles for a more visual representation of this... year to year its hard to see any major changes... but 5 years go by and there will be noticable diffrences, 10 years a good amount of changes, 15,20 years and its probably something totally diffrent..

there will be times when u will see a step backwords: iphone x - with the notch, windows 8 i heard wasnt to well accepetd - google plus, maybe didnt work out as well as one might have thought, apple tv (maybe ahead of its time but theres potential - but considering the thought of it was to be a mainstream product not yet there, its still cool though), - and these are from top tech comps...

sometimes u make major improvements, sometimes u take a step back because u tried something diffrent... it happens

but all in all guys i think we should be happy with FM as it is now..

stuff like sergi robeto bumping into ter stegan for an own goal is the same thing as your comp freezing up... a malfunction, it shouldnt happen.. 

but hey lets hope they work out the kinks and "Cntl+Alt+Del" till then.. and lets try stay optomistc guys..

cheers to all, keep it constructive yall (as best u can if your not fuming from the own goal), and the best of luck gaming to you all...

and remember were all playing with the same ball, lets just try and have some fun! - playing with a flat basketball does offer a level of fun that a basketball with air cant  😊

cheers yall !

 

 

[masno]

33 minutes ago, qDizzy said:

 

 

im using this qoute as a prime example....LoL

back when i was younger sometimes in the park we would play with a flat basketball (meaning very little air - because we had no other option and wanted to play basketball) so as u can imagine it was very hard to dribble if even possible...

but we made it work...

theres a saying that goes... we're all playing with the same ball...

so yea... maybe it sucks playing with a basketball with no air... but once u get over it, its not that bad...

------

guys i just wanna say, lets try be more optmistic and supportive of the work the guys do at FM - i too would love alot of better features and better gamplay overall and dont think we should stop making mention of it to let FM know what are opinions are... but i'll say this... this game has such depth and detail that i just imagine it took a huge effort to put together, that i think maybe were looking too much of what could be and not being to apprecative the fine work they have been able to do thus far... no, its not perfect - and maybe there some things that might be frustrating - but in my experience even the best games ive played in the past all had some "are you kidding me" stuff going on.. and some of the best games ive ever played thus far made me feel like "im really thinking about throwing this contoller somewhere"...  only to come back for more the next day, that to me is a hallmark of a great game - even with its inperfections and things that frustate u, u suck it up work around it and keep playing bcuz its a great game.. perhaps even angry faced as u turn the thing on 

-----

furher more guys im sure ure all familair with tech... so taking tech as an example - maybe we can even use smartphones or game consoles for a more visual representation of this... year to year its hard to see any major changes... but 5 years go by and there will be noticable diffrences, 10 years a good amount of changes, 15,20 years and its probably something totally diffrent..

there will be times when u will see a step backwords: iphone x - with the notch, windows 8 i heard wasnt to well accepetd - google plus, maybe didnt work out as well as one might have thought, apple tv (maybe ahead of its time but theres potential - but considering the thought of it was to be a mainstream product not yet there, its still cool though), - and these are from top tech comps...

sometimes u make major improvements, sometimes u take a step back because u tried something diffrent... it happens

but all in all guys i think we should be happy with FM as it is now..

stuff like sergi robeto bumping into ter stegan for an own goal is the same thing as your comp freezing up... a malfunction, it shouldnt happen.. 

but hey lets hope they work out the kinks and "Cntl+Alt+Del" till then.. and lets try stay optomistc guys..

cheers to all, keep it constructive yall (as best u can if your not fuming from the own goal), and the best of luck gaming to you all...

and remember were all playing with the same ball, lets just try and have some fun! - playing with a flat basketball does offer a level of fun that a basketball with air cant  😊

cheers yall !

 

 

I really liked what you said there, and the Sergi issue is a thing to be reported,he did a weird move without any pressure at all,and he collided on Ter stegen, this is not okay.

When my defender try to pass the ball to the keeper,and a striker grabs before,its ok,its a failure by him. When a keeper pass to a striker and this lead to a chance or a goal,it is a mistake by him, but when a fullback run to the keeper without any given reason,its a bug.

Maybe @HUNT3R is right and the 6-1/9-1 incident was a normal match,FM is a game after all,and maybe I was too salty about it(Sorry about it),but this Sergi incident is definitely a bug.

 

[tacticsdude]

2 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

If you're referring to me, please read what I wrote again.

I meant in general. You and others said something on that side of the argument, many more are thinking similar thoughts without replying. I wanted to represent the other side of that argument.

 

4 minutes ago, masno said:

Maybe @Hunter is right and the 6-1/9-1 incident was a normal match

No, IMO it is not a normal cup tie. Those would be historic outcomes, and you get to them on your first few matches - and it is not a coincidence, this stuff happens too often, people are often playing historic stuff like my 67% possession against a Barza that also didn't put a single shot on target. That's not how a sim should play out. Things should not look & feel unreal so often.

To me it doesn't matter what tactics were being played (although the tactics seemed fair but even if they hadn't been), Barcelona doesn't and should never lose 9-1. They also should never finish a game with only 33% possession.

Also, even FIFA has a hard-coded fail-safe to prevent more than 2 injuries on the same side per match. Why can't FM make a serious effort to be more realistic? Everyone blames games like FIFA for being clearly arcade-y, but here we are going through ridiculous match results & stats, and discussing how it is technically possible for such outcomes to take place instead of looking at the broader picture: The feel of FM (ME/AI) is not realistic. When you look closely at what's happening on the pitch, when you follow Messi around for 30 mins or concentrate on what your wingers are doing, little of it feels real.

[Svenc]

Could also be indidual man marking set. I was send a pkm a few version ago by somebody showing he conceded at alarming rates every time he applied a specific man marking instruction. It would mean the opposing wingers told to be man marked were given massively acceleration space (the player told to mark literally got in FRONT, e.g. opposition goalside, the opposition winger every time the ball was turned over and waited for the winger to accelerate -- they could never catch up with them again). This meant the wingers on both sides would arrive unmarked into the player's box every time during any cycle of opposition possession. And the opposition shot conversion, naturally, going through the roof. It's a thing to be applied with cautious in general, naturally. It's an instruction that's traditionally been followed no matter what the second the ball switches (you could set your centre back to mark the opposition centre back, and he would).

The chances that a 1-9 with Barcelona will plurely be a freak result is highly unlikely, either way. E.g. just every second shot flying in. This will 99% involve some tactical influences and/or bugs, probably triggered by the opposition too. Extremely high scoring games typically involve loads of space opened up for some reason or another either way, and purely player traits typically have very little to do with it. Unless of course, the match is a terrible mismatch between sides tiers apart. It may be something worth reporting to get investigated. You can do that or just rage about it, your choice. It's definitely not normal, and definitely not something to be "just expected". Not on this release, nor on any before.

@tacticsdude such hardcoding is awful and undermines the entire purpose of a simulation, and not only for injuries. FM's never replicated severe (and realistic) injury woes anyways. Setting a hard-coded limit at "2 injuries" per match is also completely not football anyway, as there's matches with 4-5 subbed injured every season in almost any league (the Bundesliga more recent anyways, and such even at the top, e.g. Bayern). It's a question then how often it happens after simulating hundreds/thousands seasons in-game vs football. This also allows for good and worse management to provide better and worse longterm performances. Setting some arbritrary limit places restrictions here. See also my assessment about scoring ratios. There are FM players who have fantastic scoring ratios, their teams converting almost every 5th shot consistently, plus vice versa. Most wouldfall somewhere in between.

[masno]

1 minute ago, Svenc said:

Could also be indidual man marking set. I was send a pkm a few version ago by somebody where he conceded at alarming rates every time he applied a specific man marking instruction. It would mean the opposing wingers told to man mark were given massively acceleration space (the player told to mark literally got in BEHIND the opposition winger every time the ball was shifted and waited for the winger to accelerate). This meant the wingers on both sides would arrive unmarked in the opposition box every time. It's a thing to be applied with cautious in general, naturally. It's an instruction that's traditionally been followed no matter what the second the ball switches (you could set your centre back to mark the opposition centre back, and he would).

The chances that a 1-9 with Barcelona will plurely be a freak result is highly unlikely, either way. E.g. just every second shot flying in. This will 99% involve some tactical influences, probably by the opposition too. Extremely high scoring games typically involve loads of space opened up for some reason or another either way, and purely player traits typically have very little to do with it. It may be something worth reporting to get investigated.

I just man marked when was 3-1,because was ridiculous what was happening,but a 9-1 in RL with the first team defenders and DM is impossible, Ronaldo was on 2 goals completely free on the area,even saying to Mark him,no one was doing it.

[masno]

8 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

I meant in general. You and others said something on that side of the argument, many more are thinking similar thoughts without replying. I wanted to represent the other side of that argument.

 

No, IMO it is not a normal cup tie. Those would be historic outcomes, and you get to them on your first few matches - and it is not a coincidence, this stuff happens too often, people are often playing historic stuff like my 67% possession against a Barza that also didn't put a single shot on target. That's not how a sim should play out. Things should not look & feel unreal so often.

To me it doesn't matter what tactics were being played (although the tactics seemed fair but even if they hadn't been), Barcelona doesn't and should never lose 9-1. They also should never finish a game with only 33% possession.

Also, even FIFA has a hard-coded fail-safe to prevent more than 2 injuries on the same side per match. Why can't FM make a serious effort to be more realistic? Everyone blames games like FIFA for being clearly arcade-y, but here we are going through ridiculous match results & stats, and discussing how it is technically possible for such outcomes to take place instead of looking at the broader picture: The feel of FM (ME/AI) is not realistic. When you look closely at what's happening on the pitch, when you follow Messi around for 30 mins or concentrate on what your wingers are doing, little of it feels real.

I agree that in RL we wouldnt have results like this,but we can't expect too much from a game that don't let us pick our defensive formation,sometimes things like this will happen,what we can do is reload the save,thats all.

[qDizzy]

"Spoon boy:
Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.

Neo:
What truth?

Spoon boy:
There is no spoon.

Neo:
There is no spoon?

Spoon boy:
Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself."

[HUNT3R]

1 hour ago, masno said:

I agree that in RL we wouldnt have results like this,but we can't expect too much from a game that don't let us pick our defensive formation,sometimes things like this will happen,what we can do is reload the save,thats all.

That's basically what your formation is, while roles and especially duties shape the attacking shape.

[JulianStark]

Just to add my two cents to this thread: while I see FM is getting closer to real life with each iteration, it is not something I enjoy in the game. I've played every game from 2006 up until 2017 (minus 2010 and 2015), spending about 400 hours in each, but I've refrained from buying 2018. The last couple of editions I've delegated increasingly more tasks to the backroom staff, mostly because:
- I don't have or want to spend time to study each opposition team to tweak my tactics
- I don't want to deal with repetitive media questions and press conferences ('Yes, for the umpteenth time, it ís probably easier to make a deal with a manager you get along with')
- I don't want to negotiate a gazillion different contract clauses and bonuses
- I've given up on trying to set up training regimes as my players don't seem to react well to them (when I play a passing game and want my 11-passing midfielder to work on it, why does he get to say he wants to work on corners instead?)
In addition I play the same 4-1-2-3 tactic everytime as it seems to work quite consistently and anything else just falls apart.

So on a line from 'game' to 'RL simulation' I'd prefer sticking closer to the 'game' side.

What I do enjoy in these games is old school scouting, developing youngsters and the addition of the RPG-y manager. So I'd like to see more on these in next versions.

[Tony Wright 747]

1 hour ago, JulianStark said:

Just to add my two cents to this thread: while I see FM is getting closer to real life with each iteration, it is not something I enjoy in the game. I've played every game from 2006 up until 2017 (minus 2010 and 2015), spending about 400 hours in each, but I've refrained from buying 2018. The last couple of editions I've delegated increasingly more tasks to the backroom staff, mostly because:
- I don't have or want to spend time to study each opposition team to tweak my tactics
- I don't want to deal with repetitive media questions and press conferences ('Yes, for the umpteenth time, it ís probably easier to make a deal with a manager you get along with')
- I don't want to negotiate a gazillion different contract clauses and bonuses
- I've given up on trying to set up training regimes as my players don't seem to react well to them (when I play a passing game and want my 11-passing midfielder to work on it, why does he get to say he wants to work on corners instead?)
In addition I play the same 4-1-2-3 tactic everytime as it seems to work quite consistently and anything else just falls apart.

So on a line from 'game' to 'RL simulation' I'd prefer sticking closer to the 'game' side.

What I do enjoy in these games is old school scouting, developing youngsters and the addition of the RPG-y manager. So I'd like to see more on these in next versions.

It would appear you don't want to do what most RL football managers do on a daily basis.  Perhaps you don't need to play a Football Manager simulation, but try the number of "games " online

[JulianStark]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

It would appear you don't want to do what most RL football managers do on a daily basis.  Perhaps you don't need to play a Football Manager simulation, but try the number of "games " online

That's a bit unfair, isn't it? I'm just voicing my opinion on the direction the game is going. I'm enjoying the game, while essentially turning off a number of features I don't like. So it would make sense for me to argue for developing the parts of the game I do like.

To briefly react to your first comment: Mourinho won't sit down with a prospective player to decide how much he would earn per goal. On the tactics side I would like to be able to freely develop my own tactics without having to be Wenger myself. This may be an exaggeration, but some more (official) communication or guidance on what instructions and roles do or don't do would be welcome if you don't like going back to simpler times (i.e. earlier FM versions).

[mrbrownsays]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright 747 said:

It would appear you don't want to do what most RL football managers do on a daily basis.  Perhaps you don't need to play a Football Manager simulation, but try the number of "games " online

Not the argument SI will go for if they want to retain and grow player base presumably. I assume football managers also have lots of mundanities to attend to that don't appear in the game for reasons of playability.

[Tony Wright 747]

18 minutes ago, JulianStark said:

That's a bit unfair, isn't it? I'm just voicing my opinion on the direction the game is going. I'm enjoying the game, while essentially turning off a number of features I don't like. So it would make sense for me to argue for developing the parts of the game I do like.

To briefly react to your first comment: Mourinho won't sit down with a prospective player to decide how much he would earn per goal. On the tactics side I would like to be able to freely develop my own tactics without having to be Wenger myself. This may be an exaggeration, but some more (official) communication or guidance on what instructions and roles do or don't do would be welcome if you don't like going back to simpler times (i.e. earlier FM versions).

I totally respect your opinion and I am not particularly happy about the direction the game seems to be going in, however the things you say you don't like are the things that most managers do.  Mourinho probably doesn't do what you say but a lot of managers in the lower leagues would.  I totally agree with you that more information on what instructions and roles do and how they affect the game would be a good thing.  To be honest I enjoy the earlier versions more than the last couple.

[HUNT3R]

3 hours ago, JulianStark said:

Just to add my two cents to this thread: while I see FM is getting closer to real life with each iteration, it is not something I enjoy in the game. I've played every game from 2006 up until 2017 (minus 2010 and 2015), spending about 400 hours in each, but I've refrained from buying 2018. The last couple of editions I've delegated increasingly more tasks to the backroom staff, mostly because:
- I don't have or want to spend time to study each opposition team to tweak my tactics
- I don't want to deal with repetitive media questions and press conferences ('Yes, for the umpteenth time, it ís probably easier to make a deal with a manager you get along with')
- I don't want to negotiate a gazillion different contract clauses and bonuses
- I've given up on trying to set up training regimes as my players don't seem to react well to them (when I play a passing game and want my 11-passing midfielder to work on it, why does he get to say he wants to work on corners instead?)
In addition I play the same 4-1-2-3 tactic everytime as it seems to work quite consistently and anything else just falls apart.

So on a line from 'game' to 'RL simulation' I'd prefer sticking closer to the 'game' side.

What I do enjoy in these games is old school scouting, developing youngsters and the addition of the RPG-y manager. So I'd like to see more on these in next versions.

You can delegate all of this.

[masno]

6 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

That's basically what your formation is, while roles and especially duties shape the attacking shape.

And that is a problem for me. So, if I want to simulate the simeone 4-4-2,I will need to go strikerless? But what about the striker roles?

This doesnt work at all because no one defends on a 4-2-3-1 shape,and some players (like me) don't want to abdicate from some roles.

At least,FM should have defensive roles,because then we could say then where to go,and not just expect then to do something.

[HUNT3R]

1 hour ago, masno said:

This doesnt work at all because no one defends on a 4-2-3-1 shape,and some players (like me) don't want to abdicate from some roles.

This is why a true 4231 is more like something with 2 DMs and a CM + ML + MR. You'll see the German teams lining up this way.

[herne79]

1 hour ago, masno said:

And that is a problem for me. So, if I want to simulate the simeone 4-4-2,I will need to go strikerless? But what about the striker roles?

I'd like to give an alternative view here.  It's possible to suggest there is no such thing as a "strikerless" system.  ie., your "striker" is merely the most advanced / goal facing player in your team, regardless of where we place him on the tactics board.  If we forget positional labels such as STC or AMC for a moment, suddenly we can view things in a different way.  So if we ignore the labels, we can now place a "striker" in an advanced position based on our needs -  to help him either be primarily goal focussed (the "STC" position) or to give us a hybrid between being goal focussed and more useful defensively (ie. the "AMC" position").

Is that realistic?  I don't know and we could probably argue both sides, but it's certainly possible to make it work.  Basically what I'm saying is, it's possible to think outside of the box to achieve certain things and we don't always have to follow what labels dictate to us .

[RBKalle]

41 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

If we forget positional labels such as STC or AMC for a moment, suddenly we can view things in a different way. 

But the game can't do so...

Or will, say, Lewandowski (or, for exaggeration's sake, Jan Koller) be just as effective it my "striker" starts in an AMC/CM position?

[qDizzy]

JulianStark, i personally feel the game developers are still really trying to tidy up gameplay (the existing engine they are using) to get it picture perfect... dont think theyre too far off from making it play the way they invision it to...

IMO maybe 2019 would have sum minor tweeks - 2020 would have pretty nice gamplay (perhaps alot less of serio running into ter steagn kinda stuff  )

FM 2021 - i think they'll make the final touches on gameplay - perhaps i suspect is when they start focusing on all the menu screens - to help avoid less clicks and really have everything nice and organized

FM 2022 - i think will be fascinating! - way easier navigating through screens, solid gameplay

FM 2023 - maybe they'll do something with grapics which i dont really care for but cant say no to sprinkles ona ice cream...

... just my opinion here guys.. no real clue honestly... but i'll say this... theres a reason game consoles come out every 7 years...

i wonder if FM decided to take there time and skip a year, if they could come out with a better product by 2020, than feeling the need to put something out on 2019, - they could just make sum updates untill;  just to patch some things up (some1 else pointed this out earlier also)

JulianStark, i totally hear ya, lots of work having to do this and that.. but IMO by 2022-ish (hopefully sooner - but just my estimate) we'll see far less clicking, way more organization, and it would take alot less work to do those things u mentioned above.. (i think the hard part of doing all those things is navigating in and out tons of screens.. if it was easier to navigate thorugh all those screens maybe it wont be so bad

and for that reason i may suggest to u indivdually - why not go back to a FM u feel most comfortable with where u feel u have the easiest time navigating through those menus (either because ure reallh familar with them or the layout is a bit better in your opinion) - i still play chess and that game's like a thousand years old.. who says u cant play FM 12? 😊

cheers mate.. good luck and enjoyable gaming to ya.. 

 

[masno]

6 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

This is why a true 4231 is more like something with 2 DMs and a CM + ML + MR. You'll see the German teams lining up this way.

 

6 hours ago, herne79 said:

I'd like to give an alternative view here.  It's possible to suggest there is no such thing as a "strikerless" system.  ie., your "striker" is merely the most advanced / goal facing player in your team, regardless of where we place him on the tactics board.  If we forget positional labels such as STC or AMC for a moment, suddenly we can view things in a different way.  So if we ignore the labels, we can now place a "striker" in an advanced position based on our needs -  to help him either be primarily goal focussed (the "STC" position) or to give us a hybrid between being goal focussed and more useful defensively (ie. the "AMC" position").

Is that realistic?  I don't know and we could probably argue both sides, but it's certainly possible to make it work.  Basically what I'm saying is, it's possible to think outside of the box to achieve certain things and we don't always have to follow what labels dictate to us .

What I am trying to say is that isnt so much easier for the old and New players a system that we can choose how we defend? In real life,managers can do this,they don't need to understand how football works to build a defensive system,they just say what players should do,and they do it.

Nowadays,if we want to create a wonderful defensive system,we need to search a lot of threads and manuals to how to build it,and for me is bad to put my players behind their actual position ( a AML on ML for example), I wanted him on that position,why can't we have a system were we can put this player in this position and having him sitting back like a ML on the defensive formation?

[herne79]

16 hours ago, RBKalle said:

But the game can't do so...

Or will, say, Lewandowski (or, for exaggeration's sake, Jan Koller) be just as effective it my "striker" starts in an AMC/CM position?

If the game wasn't able to cope with "strikers" being in the AMC labelled position, then so-called "strikerless" tactics wouldn't be workable.  But my point wasn't really about strikers being effective at scoring goals from deeper positions, it's more about the specific point raised concerning our strikers being more effective when defending.  Is it an elegant solution?  Not really.  Does it even feel natural?  Again not really.  It is however a strategy we can successfully employ if that's how we want our striker(s) to behave.

So what happens if we play somebody out of position?  Out of their position "label"?  They take a bit of a hit to their Decisions attribute.  Arguably there should be more of a hit, but moving somebody from the STC label to the AMC label really isn't much of a move.

10 hours ago, masno said:

 

What I am trying to say is that isnt so much easier for the old and New players a system that we can choose how we defend? In real life,managers can do this,they don't need to understand how football works to build a defensive system,they just say what players should do,and they do it.

Nowadays,if we want to create a wonderful defensive system,we need to search a lot of threads and manuals to how to build it,and for me is bad to put my players behind their actual position ( a AML on ML for example), I wanted him on that position,why can't we have a system were we can put this player in this position and having him sitting back like a ML on the defensive formation?

Yeh, I'm not for a moment trying to suggest what shortcomings there may or may not be surrounding different defensive strategies.  Likewise additional descriptive points in game could also be useful, although there's a fine line between more information and too much information.  That's where this forum (and others) step in to take up the slack, and pretty much every game these days has it's own self help community.

Also, I understand where you are coming from when you say for you it's bad to put your players behind their actual position.  I get that and it's where the game leads us towards.  AML/R vs ML/R positions on the Tactics screen; Natural, Accomplished, etc on the player profile screen; and so on.  The game tells us that a certain player's "best" role might be as an Inside Forward and is a Natural at the AMR position.  That's what the game teaches us - we believe it.  And therein also lies the issue.  We accept these things, we believe the labels given.  But what is not obvious at all is that we are quite free to break these "rules".  To ignore these labels.

So what's the difference between putting someone who's "best" role / position (as defined by the game's labels) is an Inside Forward Attack at AMR and say an Inverted Winger Attack at MR where he might not (according to the game) be quite so accomplished?  Not a lot really.  He'll have a deeper starting position but that's about it.  He'll still run at the defence, he'll take up advanced positions to support the attack, he'll still get into the box.  But he'll also track back a little more.  As such he may not always be quite so advanced as if he used the AMR position (the deeper staring position).  And that's the trade off.  That's the price (albeit a pretty small price) we pay of ignoring the labels and putting the player where we want to in order to give us the result that we want.  But every single position we use is a trade off in some manner.  So if we want an "Inside Forward" who'll also help out defensively there is no reason why we can't use the ML/R position to do so, so long as we don't simply rely on the game's labels.

Of course there are other ways of encouraging players at AMR/L to track back more if you want to persist with using those positions - those "labels".  Use a player with greater work rate.  Use a support duty instead of an attack duty.  Use a lower team mentality.  Alter Team Shape.  One/some/all of the above.  But it comes down to what we want our players to do.  If we want an Inside Forward / Inverted Winger to be primarily goal focussed and not worry too much about defending, then sure use the AML/R position and give him an attack duty.  But if we want him doing more then we have to adjust things accordingly.

And to drag all this back to "RL vs FM", is that realistic?  On balance I think it probably is.  Use the positions to help define how a "real life" player plays to get him into your tactical system.  If you see a RL Inside Forward type of player who just hangs around in advanced positions without tracking back much, use the FM position accordingly.  On the other hand if another RL player does help out defensively often, use a different FM position accordingly - regardless of what the game tells us is best or natural.

[MBarbaric]

37 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

If the game wasn't able to cope with "strikers" being in the AMC labelled position, then so-called "strikerless" tactics wouldn't be workable. 

 

37 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

So what's the difference between putting someone who's "best" role / position (as defined by the game's labels) is an Inside Forward Attack at AMR and say an Inverted Winger Attack at MR where he might not (according to the game) be quite so accomplished?

1

We are talking about two phases of play here. Strikers dropping in the space that normally (in FM terms) would be occupied by an AMC during the defensive phase. The question is, if I chose to do so, how will that player (natural striker) cope during the attacking phase. I can't make him sit in the box as "Poacher role" would allow me if he was in SC slot on tactics screen.

There simply is no role in AM slot that can behave as an out and out striker. On top of that, you have to deal with players versatility which may (or not) basically alter player's decisions as a penalty for playing him out of position.

[herne79]

14 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

 

We are talking about two phases of play here. Strikers dropping in the space that normally (in FM terms) would be occupied by an AMC during the defensive phase. The question is, if I chose to do so, how will that player (natural striker) cope during the attacking phase. I can't make him sit in the box as "Poacher role" would allow me if he was in SC slot on tactics screen.

There simply is no role in AM slot that can behave as an out and out striker. On top of that, you have to deal with players versatility which may (or not) basically alter player's decisions as a penalty for playing him out of position.

I know.  That isn't the point I'm making or to do with the original questions I'm responding to .

If you want to make someone sit in the box as a Poacher, use the Poacher role.  A Poacher doesn't drop deep or help out defensively.  But if you want to make a "striker" drop deep to help out more defensively there are other options, and those other options are what I'm suggesting.  I'm just trying to help people understand there are different ways of being able to go about things beyond FM's labels and so-called "best" roles or positions.  As I said above, they may not be very intuitive - possibly a weakness of in game descriptions - but they can absolutely serve a purpose.

[RBKalle]

So all the red-to-green circles for the plethora of Positions, Roles and Duties combinations are little more than cosmetic indicators?

Why should I even bother to sign a player who fits the bill for a specific role and position if I can just put the best option in my squad, regardless of his role suitability, tactical familiarity etc?!

Fine, in real life, the same striker will play much higher or lower on the pitch depending on plenty of variables, but the same should happen in FM too, and a striker in a strikerless position should work because it's not about how deep or compact the starting formation is, but about the "average position" on the pitch.

A pure striker shouldn't be as effective if put in a AMC position in FM, just like he isn't very good in real life if forced to play 40 yards away from the goal. Moreso, it's the same reason for actual full-backs struggling to play as WB in 3-5-2, and for wingers sucking as tracking back in the same formation.
If in FM the "out of position, out of his element" problem only factors in with a miniman hit to decision making, half of the visual cues in TC are basically pointless...

[herne79]

1 hour ago, RBKalle said:

So all the red-to-green circles for the plethora of Positions, Roles and Duties combinations are little more than cosmetic indicators?

No, they're guides to give you a starting point.  But they're not hard and fast rules that you have to follow.

Edit: perhaps best to add that maybe this could be clearer in game.  The game does tend to lead us down certain paths - a player's "best" role or a player's most "natural" position for example - which can sometimes result in managers making unbalanced selections without understanding why.

[RBKalle]

7 ore fa, herne79 ha scritto:

No, they're guides to give you a starting point.  But they're not hard and fast rules that you have to follow.

Edit: perhaps best to add that maybe this could be clearer in game.  The game does tend to lead us down certain paths - a player's "best" role or a player's most "natural" position for example - which can sometimes result in managers making unbalanced selections without understanding why.

 

You mean I can easily ignore the fact one of my RB/CB is "Unconvincing" in every possible CB role, despite him being an "Accomplished" CB???

This makes absolutely no sense!

Why do we even have those circles and ratings if, in the end, they're a "starting point" and a striker can play, say, AMC even though he's out of position and "Ineffectual" according to the TC? FFS, real-life players have been labelled as flops because they were played out of position or in a formation that didn't play to their strong points (Henry at Juve, Bergkamp and Coutinho at Inter), others turned into world-class players after they got "retrained" into a different role (Bale from DL to AML, Pirlo as DLP/Regista as opposed to AMC), but apparently in FM all we get is a tiny hit to Decisions?

[tacticsdude]

8 hours ago, herne79 said:

If you want to make someone sit in the box as a Poacher, use the Poacher role.  A Poacher doesn't drop deep or help out defensively.

Says FM.

I play that way sometimes in PES/FIFA under legend career mode, if I’m signed as a striker by a big club that aims to control possession using single-striker formations.

I’ll be placed as a sole striker and when we don’t have the ball I’ll play deep as a defensive target man, and as soon as we have the ball I’ll switch my role to poacher to push the offside line up and invite a clever through ball as my team is trying to counter attack.

Example of RL players that are monsters when played this way: Lewandowski, Mandzukic

There is not an FM role for this behavior because FM is not mature enough for modern tactics. The way I describe this role is very simple:
On attacking phase: poacher
On defensive phase: target man with defensive duties
Transition phase: prioritize to facilitate counters

I think real managers think like that. It doesn’t have to be complicated. FM makes it odd and complicated by trying to define all-phase roles that have to encapsulate attack, defense and transition. But if you just break up the phases in the tactics UI then it all becomes beautifully simple.

 

4 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Why do we even have those circles and ratings if, in the end, they're a "starting point" and a striker can play, say, AMC even though he's out of position and "Ineffectual" according to the TC?

I think the UI is trying to convey the expected performance based on current skills, player understanding of the position, and the bias of the coaching team (don't disregard that your coaching staff is made up of people that can and will be wrong about stuff at time, like people do).

It reminds me of Aguero being played at the wings under Mancini. He probably would have been labeled as about 50% for the role. A player of immense quality being played out of position, so he has the speed and some of the dribbling to do something there, but the instincts were off and he is missing some of the passing and crossing skills. Overall his performance was always a bit subpar.

Bale is a good example. You can say that he excels as a forward these days, but it took years to get him there. The first 2 years or so he was going on his physical skills and anticipation, and watching him trying to score with his limited finishing skills was like watching a chimp trying to put together a table puzzle. Same for Neymar on his first year playing all-purpose winger for Barza - yeah, he got good eventually, but there's so much players have to figure out to learn the role. For some it is key skills like Bale's finishing as a forward, for others it is soft skills like Aguero's inability to trick a fullback to go wide, for others it is even softer skills, like Neymar's inability to keep some movement space and a professional working relationship with the opposition defenders (they were constantly trying to teach him a lesson - his irritating personality draws that out of people).

 

[herne79]

10 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

Says FM.

Says real life.

There is no such thing as a Poacher who drops deep to help out defensively.

12 minutes ago, tacticsdude said:

I’ll be placed as a sole striker and when we don’t have the ball I’ll play deep as a defensive target man, and as soon as we have the ball I’ll switch my role to poacher to push the offside line up and invite a clever through ball as my team is trying to counter attack.

That still isn't a Poacher.  That's some sort of hybrid role, just like your Lewandowski example.  If you want a Poacher, look up Gary Lineker.  Not exactly modern day, but the traditional "Poacher" - which is what the FM role is based on - isn't really part of modern football.

But anyway, you're just taking snippets of quotes from me out of context in order to continue with your own points.  My posts were never about what constitutes a Poacher or not.  They're not even about "modern tactics".  They're about labels and how we can use things to our advantage with a little lateral thinking.  Nowhere have I said it's the optimal solution, in fact I actually said it's not very elegant or natural.  But until we have a better solution, the options I suggested are practical and they work.

40 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

You mean I can easily ignore the fact one of my RB/CB is "Unconvincing" in every possible CB role, despite him being an "Accomplished" CB???

This makes absolutely no sense!

I'm not following - he is unconvincing in every possible CB role and an accomplished CB?  You're saying the role is unconvincing but his position is accomplished?  If yes, then what are his attributes like?  Attributes are the most important thing for a player to help him carry out his role.  Just because the game says he is unconvincing in the role doesn't automatically mean he can't carry it out.  You're the manager, take how you have been "guided" by the game and then use your own perception to decide whether to follow that guide or not by looking more closely at the player.  By looking at his attributes.  That's what the game is attempting to guide you towards, making your own decisions - not just blindly following things.

Whether the game succeeds in that or not is perhaps open to debate, but that's certainly the intention of it.  Personally I don't like the role pies (or whatever they are) - not because of my feelings towards them (I never look at them) but because of how they can be interpreted by others.  Worst case they can even mislead people into thinking they're creating a decent tactical system with the end result of those people ending up in the Tactics forum looking for help or getting frustrated with the game.  They're just labels.

[RBKalle]

15 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

I'm not following - he is unconvincing in every possible CB role and an accomplished CB?  You're saying the role is unconvincing but his position is accomplished? 

Yes.

Plenty of players with secondary positions in which they're Accomplished have Orange or Red circles fo ALL the roles and duties of that position... Both original players and newgens...

Attributes aren't stellar, but on par with players in my squad who are Natural and "Green" in that position.

To me, it's downright absure, because if Position > Attributes, at least one role should be at the same level of the positional rating. And if Attributes > Position, it shouldn't be possible for players with lower key attributes to be Natural or Accomplished.

I see those are "guidelines", and as a long-time FM player I'm ready to think "yeah, whatever" and trust attributes and my instinct. But to more casual or inexperienced FM'ers, this can be completely confusing... Upon seeing a plethora of Orange and Red circles, and red zones in the TC screen, he'd probably think his lineup or tactics are all wrong, and he'll likely go on to make unnecessary or downright wrong changes...

P.S. here are two screens of Unconvincing Accomplished players...

 

 

[herne79]

8 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

But to more casual or inexperienced FM'ers, this can be completely confusing... Upon seeing a plethora of Orange and Red circles, and red zones in the TC screen, he'd probably think his lineup or tactics are all wrong, and he'll likely go on to make unnecessary or downright wrong changes...

I agree and is why I said I personally don't like these pies.  Some players will just take one look at the pie, see it's half orange and think "damn he can't play as an Inside Forward (or whatever) I'd better bring in someone that can or change my system".  In that instance, the pie actually discourages that person from thinking more about what they want from the role - so they don't go "hmm, an Inside Forward - I need the player to be able to run with the ball, better take a look at his dribbling, agility and balance then".

Anyway, we're kind of getting further away from the FM v RL topic here, but I do get where you're coming from .

[tacticsdude]

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

That still isn't a Poacher.  That's some sort of hybrid role, just like your Lewandowski example.  If you want a Poacher, look up Gary Lineker.  Not exactly modern day, but the traditional "Poacher" - which is what the FM role is based on - isn't really part of modern football.

That pretty much sums up why we have a difference of opinion. I'm arguing for the now, the age of pressing and single-striker formations with forwards that know how to slide-tackle.

Anyone having an argument about traditional stuff is having a different argument. FM 2018 is not a vintage game. There is no such a thing as a vintage poacher in 2018 - what first div team is going to prefer to play an immobile striker simply because that striker can't bother to develop a bit of speed and some positional intelligence? Mandzukic is a natural poacher, yet the modern game demands so much that he played LM for most of the CL last season and did a great job at it.
When on attack: wide poacher
When on defense: LM in a zonal 4-5-1
When on transition: support play development until the final third

Yes, this is an extreme example, but it shows my point that poachers can do something useful when off the ball. I'm not expecting for FM to support all extreme examples, but in truth even this one is not that complicated. If we had separate screens for attack and defense formations, Mandzukic would be listed as something like support striker on attack, and as LM on defense. Simple. But with the current system of roles, even trying to be super clever, how do you tell your 451 defensive LM to also get in the box and linger for crosses and loose balls?

 

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

They're about labels and how we can use things to our advantage with a little lateral thinking.  Nowhere have I said it's the optimal solution, in fact I actually said it's not very elegant or natural.  But until we have a better solution, the options I suggested are practical and they work.

I don't mean to argue with you specifically. I'm presenting my view going along with the discussion. I think the final answer here is that we disagree to the extent that this stuff works. You think it is fine-ish and at minimum workable with some clever fiddling. I think it is not fine, and in many ways it is not workable regardless of how hard one fiddles.

I think this comment of yours also sums up the problem: the current system of roles that represent all phases simply do not match modern reality. You are suggesting that we come up with clever workarounds to try to hammer out modern tactics out of this roles-based interface. I've spent hundreds of hours trying exactly that on various versions of FM, like trying to play a CAM as a single striker hoping that he'll run into the box to act as a striker when on attack, stuff like that. It is a poor solution at best, and on some pitch positions it is an entirely pointless exercise (like trying to get a winger to play like Pedro at Barcelona - impossible in FM17 regardless of what you do).

Sure, FM can be played with the existing roles, and the matches look like football. But if you look at big teams, anyone from Spurs to Bayern and the Madrids, these modern coaches are playing tactics that are simply well beyond FM's current tactics system. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I want to set my tactics like the big guys, and when I earn my place in the CL and run into Barcelona, Spurs or Atletico Madrid I want to square off against all their tactical might. And FM is currently nowhere near RL, and seems to be drifting further away on each release.

That's the end of my rant. If I haven't made my point by now, I don't think I'll ever make it.

[qDizzy]

sup herne79, hey man ima say this man... i think theres a disconnect between roles and the way games want the players on their team to play..

in all honesty i think the introdution to pre-determined roles is whats causing alot of problems...

futher more i believe a player or manager are the ones who make these roles... i dont believe the role was there before a manager or player decided to play that way, but because a manager or player thought it would be more effective to play that way - hence the creation of the role... 

what i mean to say is i believe we as managers should be allowed that oppurtinity and flexibality to have a player play a certain role or create a new one accorinding to how we see the game... football is art and we should not have to be limited to only be able to use solid colors but as artist mix the colors up and make a new color according to the picuture were trying to paint...

so if we want to play like a poacher on offenese and a defensive foward on defense, i think we should be allowed to do so... just because it hasnt been done before shouldnt limit us to be able to attempt it in our tactics... (heck if i want pique to play as a targrt man late in the game but to come back as a CB if we lose possesion - i feel we should be allowed to do that - ive seen it done in RL)

for instance i personally would like my full backs to play as high up the pitch as possible - so i have a LB and a RB and i noticed that if i make em into a LWB and a RWB (complete foward role) they play higher up the pitch where i would like em to but on defenese they stay way high leaving to much space benind them...

so i have to make em a LB or RB with a CWB role - but i want them to dribble less ... but unfortunaly the role of a CWB comes with dribble more.. so i just had to settle on that...

either way i hope u see what i mean, all in all i think its a good game nonetheless - and i see the reason y FM decided to introduce roles - but i think its hurting the creativity more than helping it...

and on defense for instance barcelona when alex vidal plays RW this year... it becomes a sorta 4-4-2 but in attack its a 433 with luis as a LS messi as somethig like a false 9- at RS and vidal as a RW... but on defense vidal would drop way back even covering for sergi on the right flank should roberto be cuaght out - putting in a huge defensive shift, put on offense pushing way high pratically looking to get behind the defense  (really to give messi some space to operate but also if  no one from the defense picks him up he,ll be get behind the line and get a pass from a teamate that saw him make a well timed run and he well be in a very dangreous postion because of it...

there was a goal from a messi to alba pass that saw alba literally recieve the ball from messi practically in the pen box... alba plays the way i want my fullbacks to play... he rarley plays complecated passes or tries to take on his marker by dribbling.. he plays LB but on offesnse hes as far up as a LW and crosses from the byline..

this kind of stuff is missing in FM i believe...

but in your defense herne79, ima say that all in all FM is a good game and as i mentioned before us as players have to realize nothings perfect and make due the best we can... so to everyone that as made of mention of the lack of verstilaity in the way we are able to use are players... guys first off we gotta know herne79 is gonna stick up for the game because hes a MOD and hes suppose to take the postion of the game is fair and there is ways to play the game more or less close to real life... and im with him on that.. there are limataions, guys like herne79 may agree to them even, but they also are trying to urge us to accepet those lack of limations and work with what we got now, to try and be creative even still.. which is what i kinda made mention of earlier about playing with a flat basketball - i know it doesnt bounce like a regular basketball but because of that the whole game is diffrent and know ure playing a basketall game that encourages way more passing than dribbling... 

same thing as this game - because of the limataions we are now having to try and play something similar to RL soccrer but a little diffrent and its our job to figure out how to best mesh our tactics we would implent in RL and mesh it into FM - all the while learning what may or may not work in FM (iregardless if it would work or not work in RL) and play it like so...  and keep in mind that the opposition is limited too..

guys lets just try and accept that FM is a little bit (maybe a lot bit) away from real life.. and lets not try and go to hard on guys like herne79, hes just trying his best to help and point out that there are ways around certain limitaions - lets just make mention of it... and offer our suggestions and hope for the best... but on the flip side, lets just take our copy of FM that we currently own and have fun with it... 

like the goat once said "Just play. Have fun. Enjoy the game." Micheal Jordan.

cheers to all... hope we all chill out a lil more and have double the fun on our copy of FM by just ignoreing the hic-ups and limitations of the game... 

peace dudes & dudets (just incase)

cheers

[qDizzy]

1 hour ago, tacticsdude said:

That's the end of my rant. If I haven't made my point by now, I don't think I'll ever make it.

you have my friend, you have - many of us have also - the best you could hope for is a nod of agreement, dont think guys like herne79,  and other MODs just gonna flat out agree with ya on this forum... but im sure they'll be lobbying on our part... 

lets just hope for the best and do our best tryna impent our tactics (3D) into the FM engine (2D) and come out with something satisfacory (HD)

☺

best of luck gaming to ya!

cheers m8!

[RBKalle]

@tacticsdude, not that I disagree with you, but your idea is waaaaaaay too ambitious for the current state of FM...

There are still huge limitations in terms of TC-to-ME translation of a rather basic tactic (or at least there's a huge gap between FM-speak and generally accepted football terminology), and it's already combersome enough to reproduce a coherent tactic with the plethora of roles and duties combinations.

While the Attack/Defend positioning would be great, it'd mean twice as many potential pitfalls in both tactical creation and rendition. If now you can "only" screw up on one formation, there you'd end up with TWO completely unbalanced, misconstrued or misrepresented formations.

Also, as annoying as preset roles are, the alternative is a sliders' comeback, with all the potential for more mishaps and exploits. Plus they're even more far removed from real football than the current set of options.

So, while on paper it'd be ideal, we're a long way from the day when it'll be feasible.

P.S. Modern poachers who add nothing to the defensive phase: Mauro Icardi. And maybe Karim Benzema to an extent.

[herne79]

@tacticsdude For the second time, stop quoting me out of context.  You may well believe you are "arguing for the now" and think that we "have a difference of opinion" but I haven't made any comment about that so please stop quoting me for your "argument".  I commented to say what the FM Poacher role is based on, that's all, and have made no comment at all about modern football.

fyi I happen to agree that the ME could be brought more up to date to better reflect some aspects of modern football, but that's the first comment I've made concerning that topic.  Everything else I said relates back to a very specific issue raised and my comments about using labels to our advantage in order to try to help somebody understand some aspects of the game better.  Based on their comments here and in another thread, that seems to be helping. 

Yeh it's a workaround and I even said it isn't exactly elegant, but that's no comment on whether the ME could be improved or not.

8 hours ago, qDizzy said:

in all honesty I think the introduction to pre-determined roles is what's causing alot of problems...

I understand this sentiment completely but there is another side to it that is important to understand.  The AI managers.  If we had complete freedom to design our own roles, that could give us an unfair advantage over the AI managers as they are simply not capable of designing equivalent roles themselves.  ok, that in itself is an issue but until such time as the AI does have a similar capability we'd be stacking the deck in our favour if we had such free reign.  Thus we are currently limited in our options.  We may or may not like that (I don't) but that's where we're currently at.

Alternatively of course, screw the AI we just want to win .

[tacticsdude]

9 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

While the Attack/Defend positioning would be great, it'd mean twice as many potential pitfalls in both tactical creation and rendition. If now you can "only" screw up on one formation, there you'd end up with TWO completely unbalanced, misconstrued or misrepresented formations.

You are probably right. I'm happy to fiddle with it if it means more control and flexibility, but I also understand how many people would not feel the same way. If this ever happens (that we get a more modern and complex tactics UI), IMO it has to come with a simplified version also for all newcomers and people in the transition period.

11 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Also, as annoying as preset roles are, the alternative is a sliders' comeback

The sliders always made sense to me, and FM has them in part for things like closing down (less, more, even more, etc). it is about 5 stops and that makes sense. IRL I would tell the players:
- counter attack fast but don't gift possession frantically (so counter attack tempo at 4/5)
- close down more but don't get too close that you'll get rounded (so closing down 4/5)
- waste time but not so much that the ref is going to get on your case (time wasting 4/5)
- retain possession and play short most of the time (passing risk  2/5)

So a bunch of sliders from 1 to 5 (or so) could accurately represent reasonable verbal team instructions. 

[themadsheep2001]

Karim Benzema is definitely not a poacher FYI , modern or classic. He holds the ball, looks to play in other team mates, and has deep overall position. Deep lying forward without doubt 

[tacticsdude]

6 minutes ago, herne79 said:

For the second time, stop quoting me out of context.

I'm not quoting you out of context. Even if you think the line I picked didn't directly represent your point, overall your views are represented. Look at the poacher thing: you said poachers are X. I said: 'says FM'. You said: 'says life'. So you are arguing with me about the meaning of poacher IRL, not just FM's view on it. So I replied in kind as to the meaning of poacher in 2018.

Regardless, as I said before, I think we've said enough on all sides. I think we honestly have a philosophical disagreement on various aspects. Not just you and me, but the players across the board and even the devs. Some players want the game easier, some players want the difficulty increased while they are happy with the ME. Me and others believe the ME/AI have been going downhill for years, others think FM18 is the best version yet. I think the tactics were better back in the slider days (not perfect, but better), while others can't imagine setting tactics with anything but the roles system.

[tacticsdude]

3 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Karim Benzema is definitely not a poacher FYI , modern or classic. He holds the ball, looks to play in other team mates, and has deep overall position. Deep lying forward without doubt 

Yeah. I didn't want to derail, but Benzema is one of the hardest working strikers in the game. And the way Madrid plays puts him often in an uncomfortable position as a target/playmaker holding him back and preventing him from getting into the box before Ronaldo and Bale blast in there for the finish. Then everyone looks as his goal totals and think he is lagging in goals for a world-class striker, meanwhile the guy works harder than most and finishes a very high percentage of his actual chances.

[JulianStark]

On 4-2-2018 at 14:38, Tony Wright 747 said:

I totally respect your opinion and I am not particularly happy about the direction the game seems to be going in, however the things you say you don't like are the things that most managers do.  Mourinho probably doesn't do what you say but a lot of managers in the lower leagues would.  I totally agree with you that more information on what instructions and roles do and how they affect the game would be a good thing.  To be honest I enjoy the earlier versions more than the last couple.

Thanks, I totally agree.

 

On 4-2-2018 at 14:38, HUNT3R said:

You can delegate all of this.

That's what I mentioned I indeed do.