FM19 new player roles?

[yonko]

5 hours ago, FlairRA said:

He is pretty clean, not perfectly clean though 

I think Messi lost his balance bracing for/expecting the contact. He got up right away after falling down and wasn't asking for any call.

[FlairRA]

1 hour ago, yonko said:

Just like I thought. You're not sure how it will play out on the field/in the ME but you want the customization. That's not enough reason, for me. Neither is the fact that we have WM and CM vanilla roles. We do not need vanilla ST role because strikers are different than midfielders.

So basically instead of a new role, SI can just tune the AF differently and there you go. See, no need for new role. Just refine the ones we have. SI should remove some preselected instructions from the AF (dribble more, move into channels) and DLF roles (Hold the Ball, More Risky Passes), then users like you should be happy.

Tuning AF and DLF would be pretty useful for users like me, yes!

[FlairRA]

1 hour ago, yonko said:

I think Messi lost his balance bracing for/expecting the contact. He got up right away after falling down and wasn't asking for any call.

I don't think he would have complained if the penalty was called either, or asked for the penalty not to be given, which is just as bad imo.

[Carlos92]

You should only be allowed to select a false 9 if you are playing with one up front.

I would also like the ability to select look for the underlap on one side and look for the overlap on the other side

[Jean0987654321]

2 hours ago, Carlos92 said:

You should only be allowed to select a false 9 if you are playing with one up front.

I would also like the ability to select look for the underlap on one side and look for the overlap on the other side

No...

[Carlos92]

2 hours ago, Jean0987654321 said:

No...

Why no?

I don't think you should be able to play with 2 false nines, let alone 3 or 4

[Cleon]

30 minutes ago, Carlos92 said:

Why no?

I don't think you should be able to play with 2 false nines, let alone 3 or 4

This.

If the game wants to become more realistic tactically then more and more roles need to be unique and have tactic restraints attached to them. No-one in world football uses two F9's together.

[herne79]

17 minutes ago, Cleon said:

If the game wants to become more realistic tactically then more and more roles need to be unique and have tactic restraints attached to them.

100% agree.

Personally I don't want to see any new roles in the game for now but rather time and effort spent on this area instead.  Sure it might be fun to play with 3 AF's, 2 F9s, 2 SVs, Carrileros with wingers or whatever and I can see the argument for that, but these things don't really fit with a game which prides itself on being a simulation.  I'm a great advocate on the freedom of player choice but that choice still needs to be based on real world principles, especially when the AI is nowhere near capable of making similar choices to the human manager.

[Keyzer Soze]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

100% agree.

Personally I don't want to see any new roles in the game for now but rather time and effort spent on this area instead.  Sure it might be fun to play with 3 AF's, 2 F9s, 2 SVs, Carrileros with wingers or whatever and I can see the argument for that, but these things don't really fit with a game which prides itself on being a simulation.  I'm a great advocate on the freedom of player choice but that choice still needs to be based on real world principles, especially when the AI is nowhere near capable of making similar choices to the human manager.

This is the key point for me.

I would prefer if the AI would improve so that, for example, a AI manager would play 2 F9's or a 3 striker tactic with 3 AF, if they "want", then having limitations in the ME that wouldn't allow us to pretty much let us do whatever we want.

IRL this kind of unpredictability is what turns, sometimes, a good manager into a great manager, so i would like to see that in AI managers.

[Carlos92]

I'd like to see the game reward you for real tactical knowledge. For example, team shape and mentality should be dictated by team instructions and not the other way round

 

[noikeee]

5 hours ago, Cleon said:

This.

If the game wants to become more realistic tactically then more and more roles need to be unique and have tactic restraints attached to them. No-one in world football uses two F9's together.

I don't agree at all.

Nobody uses 2 F9s together because it's tactically a bad idea. Users should be allowed to try tactical bad ideas, just like they can pick a tactic with 0 defenders or every player on an attack role, etc. If the match engine isn't robust enough to handle this and 2 F9s play like an exploit, then fix the underlying cause for the exploit (are defenders tracking them too deep? is a player dropping deep to link up too effective?), and progressively the ME will get better and better. I realise this can be harder to deal with from the coding side, because the number of possible combinations increase exponentially, but we need more freedom, not less freedom.

If FM is a serious simulation game, then it should focus on making an ever more robust representation of how football works, as a blank canvas where bad ideas on the pitch are punished, not restrict users to ever tighter ideas of how football should be played, according to you or to SI or whoever.

By the way I have a tactic that uses a MCR Carrilero together with a AMR - the idea is that he should cover for the AMR which is a wide Trequartista hence a lazy/free role that might sometimes go amiss when defending the wing. This is an example of creative tactical thinking, that would not be possible under your idea of tighter restrictions. What the ME should do is, evolve in order so that the AI can exploit the downsides of supposedly bad choices like this - since I'd be leaving a hole in the middle by using a winger + a midfielder that leaves the middle to move to the wing, maybe they could then cunningly attempt to exploit that space.

The double SV exploit is an even more glaring "bad tactical idea" - an evolved, clever AI would just leave a player sitting in the hole (AMC) to exploit that nice enormous space that has been opened up for the counter. This is what would happen in a real match if a manager told their 2 DMs to rush forward - the opposition would love that! And use it accordingly. Adding this level of inteligence would be benefitial for the game. Instead you just want to forbid it from happening in the first place.

To some extent I can imagine forbidding more and more cases like this, actually being harder to code (on the long term). Instead of writing difficult and advanced but generic functions that deal with generic cases like, "if a space on the pitch opens up to be used, then exploit it", you guys want SI to hardcode and hardcode and hardcode specific behaviours and roles and restrictions. These might look easier to understand, but over time pile up on each other and make code ever harder to maintain. I know the intention is good and on the short-term it can probably help the game by allowing only nice realistic, controlled scenarios, but on the long term surely this restricts the evolution of a more advanced, freer engine.

[Cleon]

Quote

The double SV exploit is an even more glaring "bad tactical idea" - an evolved, clever AI would just leave a player sitting in the hole (AMC) to exploit that nice enormous space that has been opened up for the counter. This is what would happen in a real match if a manager told their 2 DMs to rush forward - the opposition would love that! And use it accordingly. Adding this level of inteligence would be benefitial for the game. Instead you just want to forbid it from happening in the first place.

I never said I wanted stuff like this forbidden, your making stuff up that wasn't said. Some roles though should come with restraints though imo. The carrilero is the perfect example, it's a role both in real life and in the game that is based on having no wide players at all. The role only exists without wide players. With wide players it's just a CM support because the role cannot function correctly. It's silly to have it be able to be selected when it shouldn't be possible. It's coded to play a specific way and this includes no wide players at all in the midfield areas.

It's also kind of ironic as you think the carrilero example is fine yet for FM17 reported/moaned about the behaviour of the IWB's and how they behaved differently when they had wingers ahead of them 

And just so you know, teams in real life do use 2 SV's often, in fact its not uncommon to use 3 at once for some Brazilian sides.

Also the reason teams don't use 2 F9's together isn't that it doesn't work. It's that the role only exists/functions when there is one striker. That's the whole point of the role, to be the sole striker. 

Quote

Nobody uses 2 F9s together because it's tactically a bad idea. Users should be allowed to try tactical bad ideas, just like they can pick a tactic with 0 defenders or every player on an attack role, etc. If the match engine isn't robust enough to handle this and 2 F9s play like an exploit, then fix the underlying cause for the exploit (are defenders tracking them too deep? is a player dropping deep to link up too effective?), and progressively the ME will get better and better. I realise this can be harder to deal with from the coding side, because the number of possible combinations increase exponentially, but we need more freedom, not less freedom.

I've not seen you post anything like this about the restrictions that already happen in game like the half back, the positions you can select a mezzela, Sv from etc.

Quote

If FM is a serious simulation game, then it should focus on making an ever more robust representation of how football works, as a blank canvas where bad ideas on the pitch are punished, not restrict users to ever tighter ideas of how football should be played, according to you or to SI or whoever.

Eh? You already play a game based on what SI think the representation of football is. Even with a more robust ME you'd still be playing someones interpretation of what football should be. So what you said here makes no sense at all. It's a game, someone has to decide what the game classes/interprets as football because it's all coded. That's what sport games are, simulations of peoples ideas of how it should function in a gaming environment. In this case it's SI's idea.

Quote

By the way I have a tactic that uses a MCR Carrilero together with a AMR - the idea is that he should cover for the AMR which is a wide Trequartista hence a lazy/free role that might sometimes go amiss when defending the wing. This is an example of creative tactical thinking, that would not be possible under your idea of tighter restrictions. 

No. What the game should do is give you a role/customisation to allow this. And shouldn't allow you to use a role that is specifically coded to act in a specific manner without any wide players. There is a big difference here. I never said you shouldn't be able to do what you want. 

Quote

To some extent I can imagine forbidding more and more cases like this, actually being harder to code (on the long term). Instead of writing difficult and advanced but generic functions that deal with generic cases like, "if a space on the pitch opens up to be used, then exploit it", you guys want SI to hardcode and hardcode and hardcode specific behaviours and roles and restrictions. These might look easier to understand, but over time pile up on each other and make code ever harder to maintain. I know the intention is good and on the short-term it can probably help the game by allowing only nice realistic, controlled scenarios, but on the long term surely this restricts the evolution of a more advanced, freer engine.

You do realise it doesn't actually restrict the freedom right? Roles/tactical instructions etc can have restraints without stunting development. There are plenty of stuff in the game that is already restricted to certain mentalities, certain positions and roles already. You're over reacting and making out we've asked/discussing stuff that doesn't already exist. It's like you didn't know this already happens in game.............

 

 

[noikeee]

I think you've read something else in my post that wasn't there, or thought it was a personal attack on you or whatever. It's just slight differences of opinion. I agree with some restrictions and others not, generally tend to side with as little as possible but it doesn't mean sometimes I can't agree with some, as they do make sense.

20 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I never said I wanted stuff like this forbidden, your making stuff up that wasn't said. Some roles though should come with restraints though imo. The carrilero is the perfect example, it's a role both in real life and in the game that is based on having no wide players at all. The role only exists without wide players. With wide players it's just a CM support because the role cannot function correctly. It's silly to have it be able to be selected when it shouldn't be possible. It's coded to play a specific way and this includes no wide players at all in the midfield areas.

And just so you know, teams in real life do use 2 SV's often, in fact its not uncommon to use 3 at once for some Brazilian sides.

I thought I read earlier you didn't want 2 SVs to be allowed to be played together (if I read that wrong I apologise, or maybe that was another user sorry), to me that's a restriction that shouldn't be there.

Don't see what's wrong with having a Carrilero + a winger, sure that's not something we see in real life, but if he drifts so far out wide that he goes out to hold hands with the winger then that's the manager's problem. I imagine a Carrilero next to a Winger as a midfielder that's a little more willing to cover wide than a normal midfielder.

22 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I've not seen you post anything like this about the restrictions that already happen in game like the half back, the positions you can select a mezzela, Sv from etc.

I don't understand why in the current ME you cannot pick a central SV (wouldn't he just rush forward as DMCLs and DMCRs do? what's wrong with that?). I do understand why you can't pick central Carrileros or Mezzalas, because they can drift wildly wide, if they're starting from a perfectly central position then the game can't know which wing you want them to drift to.

23 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Eh? You already play a game based on what SI think the representation of football is. Even with a more robust ME you'd still be playing someones interpretation of what football should be. So what you said here makes no sense at all. It's a game, someone has to decide what the game classes/interprets as football because it's all coded. That's what sport games are, simulations of peoples ideas of how it should function in a gaming environment. In this case it's SI's idea.

The ME can be more restrictive or less restrictive. The more restrictions, the more it corners managers in the visions for the roles and the instructions that the designers of the ME imagined. The less restrictions, the more it allows for creativity and thinking outside the box. I believe the way the roles are designed could side slightly more with the later, that's all there is to it. Of course there's still a degree up to which everything is limited because it's a computer game, doesn't mean we can't make it as abstract and free as possible.

31 minutes ago, Cleon said:

No. What the game should do is give you a role/customisation to allow this. And shouldn't allow you to use a role that is specifically coded to act in a specific manner without any wide players. There is a big difference here. I never said you shouldn't be able to do what you want. 

If they give us a PI to tell a regular CM to press wider when without the ball, then I'm fine with that and don't need to be allowed to put a Carrilero next to a winger, I agree with that.

The Carrilero was just a example, btw... I'm just generally arguing for a little less restriction, not necessarily this specific restriction or that one... It's the same discussion we had so many times in this board as to why do so many roles have so many PIs hardcoded, let us tweak them a little more.. some roles will need them yes, others it's a little more dubious.

34 minutes ago, Cleon said:

You do realise it doesn't actually restrict the freedom right? Roles/tactical instructions etc can have restraints without stunting development. There are plenty of stuff in the game that is already restricted to certain mentalities, certain positions and roles already. You're over reacting and making out we've asked/discussing stuff that doesn't already exist. It's like you didn't know this already happens in game.............

Look, I don't want to play the "I'm a coder" card because that doesn't make me better than anyone, but I was simply thinking from the perspective of what I was taught about, and from my experience developing things, that the more hardcoded scenarios you add, the more difficult development becomes on the long run. Whereas an abstract generic function will be an absolute unpredictable pain to code, but might be much more benefitial in the long run. This seems to me even more true when it comes to a simulation and to such an abstract thing as a match engine simulating football.

I know that some of those things are already in game and I think some of those are wrong. I don't want even MORE of those things. I ended up writing all of this purely because I think going in the direction of, and influencing SI to add even more restrictions such as, "forbid users from picking 2 false nines" is wrong.

[noikeee]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

It's also kind of ironic as you think the carrilero example is fine yet for FM17 reported/moaned about the behaviour of the IWB's and how they behaved differently when they had wingers ahead of them 

I missed this, I dunno what did I write that is ironic, as I'm pretty sure I asked then for ideally having the freedom to have both different behaviours available to us regardless if there's wingers or not.

Which would be consistent with my stance that I just want as much freedom on the tactics board as possible.

[FMunderachiever]

Should be a new team instruction to close out games....."take ball into corner flag area" and corners become short corners when ticked.

Hatchet man should also be a role. He should focus on winding up the opposition into doing something silly and making cynical fouls. 

Think of him as the dark arts ball winning midfielder.

[herne79]

@noikeee  We also need to be cognisant of AI managers.  I'm all for freedom of choice but as human managers we hold all the cards against the AI - we're capable of the "creativity and thinking outside the box" as you put it but the AI isn't really (and if it ever was imagine the outcry on the forums about an impossible to beat AI).

So if we start using roles which aren't really the intended function because SI haven't coded in the "restrictive" behaviour (or the "real life" behaviour) suddenly we have yet another advantage.  ok, some of the time we'll try something "creative" and fall flat on our faces but other times...well you just have to have a quick glance at tactic downloads for 3xAFs or whatever the current favourite "exploit" is.

btw it was me not Cleon who mentioned 2 x SVs above simply because it's perhaps more common to see one paired with an anchor man type rather than 2 or 3 together (although I'm by no means an expert on Brazilian football) and iirc was part of the discussion during beta testing.

[noikeee]

37 minutes ago, herne79 said:

@noikeee  We also need to be cognisant of AI managers.  I'm all for freedom of choice but as human managers we hold all the cards against the AI - we're capable of the "creativity and thinking outside the box" as you put it but the AI isn't really (and if it ever was imagine the outcry on the forums about an impossible to beat AI).

So if we start using roles which aren't really the intended function because SI haven't coded in the "restrictive" behaviour (or the "real life" behaviour) suddenly we have yet another advantage.  ok, some of the time we'll try something "creative" and fall flat on our faces but other times...well you just have to have a quick glance at tactic downloads for 3xAFs or whatever the current favourite "exploit" is.

btw it was me not Cleon who mentioned 2 x SVs above simply because it's perhaps more common to see one paired with an anchor man type rather than 2 or 3 together (although I'm by no means an expert on Brazilian football) and iirc was part of the discussion during beta testing.

The AI argument is valid but I believe a bit overestimated.. the AI doesn't need to learn how to use 2 SVs or 2 F9s if these are deemed to be "illogical" setups, much like the AI hasn't learnt to use 0 defenders just because we can. 

What the AI would have to learn, is how to counter these setups and exploit their large flaws. In there yes there's some development, but some knowledge also overlaps with other things that are already allowed by the ME: for example knowing how to play against 2 SVs isn't very different from knowing how to play against 2 CM/As, or 2 F9s from playing against 2 DLFs. Ultimately while this adds perhaps a few more scenarios that could escape testing/preventing, it's still largely the same footballing concepts as all other valid tactical options that exist in the game and should be balanced to avoid/minimize exploits, just a bit more extreme.

[ajsr1982]

35 minutes ago, herne79 said:

@noikeee  We also need to be cognisant of AI managers.  I'm all for freedom of choice but as human managers we hold all the cards against the AI - we're capable of the "creativity and thinking outside the box" as you put it but the AI isn't really (and if it ever was imagine the outcry on the forums about an impossible to beat AI).

So if we start using roles which aren't really the intended function because SI haven't coded in the "restrictive" behaviour (or the "real life" behaviour) suddenly we have yet another advantage.  ok, some of the time we'll try something "creative" and fall flat on our faces but other times...well you just have to have a quick glance at tactic downloads for 3xAFs or whatever the current favourite "exploit" is.

btw it was me not Cleon who mentioned 2 x SVs above simply because it's perhaps more common to see one paired with an anchor man type rather than 2 or 3 together (although I'm by no means an expert on Brazilian football) and iirc was part of the discussion during beta testing.

I agree with this. The reality is that the AI plays a finite number of systems, and will never come up with something as wacky as two F9s. I understand @noikeee and the clamour for more freedom to try things, and I'm not a software developer, but I would imagine the focus is on getting the game to calibrate/perform well for the most commonly used systems, and I think that's what the game is all about really - making the best 4-4-2 or 3-4-3 that you possibly can, based on something that you would realistically expect to see in the real world. I'm guilty of it myself at times, that even with the existing level of freedom we have, I get lured into trying something a bit crazy, and then wonder why the hell it's not working! Sometimes less is more, and these boards might be a less frustrated place if we were guided by the game towards building something more simplistic. 

I wouldn't expect this to be popular, but I wonder if having to level up your manager would be a good way to go. Some way of demonstrating good use of roles and duties in basic formations before you get to play around with false 7s and such like. Not well thought out, of course, but just the embryo of an idea.

Anyway, I think something that often gets lost in this particular forum is that tactics are just one of the things that make a football club successful. Training, recruitment, player happiness and financial health all play a large role, and we need to be wary of unbalancing the game by having an overpowered tactics creator.

[yonko]

17 hours ago, FlairRA said:

Tuning AF and DLF would be pretty useful for users like me, yes!

So you see, we don't need new role. SI just needs to retune certain existing roles. That's all.

17 hours ago, FlairRA said:

I don't think he would have complained if the penalty was called either, or asked for the penalty not to be given, which is just as bad imo.

That's not the point. Messi fell and didn't ask for penalty. He got up and continued playing. 

[FlairRA]

12 minutes ago, yonko said:

So you see, we don't need new role. SI just needs to retune certain existing roles. That's all.

That's not the point. Messi fell and didn't ask for penalty. He got up and continued playing. 

As many people in this thread have discussed, improving existing roles would be great, and then possibly we could look for more "generic roles"!

And I'm pretty sure those Inter defenders would disagree if the referee had given a penalty 

[Sneaky Pete]

I have to strongly second the call for either a generic wide AM role, or the removal of restrictions on current roles like the Winger, WB, and IF roles. It's entirely too onerous to create the sort of gameplay you want right now because certain roles are hard-coded into specific behaviours that often run entirely contrary to the overall tactical setup. Among other things, certain roles being locked into dribbling more often is absolutely infuriating, as is wingers and certain breeds of full-back being locked into crossing all the time. There are a multitude of tactical systems that employ these exact roles to stretch the defense laterally without bombarding the box with crosses.

Some systems require movement from players that's best emulated with roles like WB(A), but want no part of said players hoofing it into the box at the first given opportunity or turning into Adama Traoré the second they have the ball at their feet. It should not require the jumping through of multiple hoops to create these systems - instead, it ought to be as simple as simply telling them not to do so.

 

[FMunderachiever]

what you want really, is a whole team of generic players that you can just tell what to do.

I realise thats not going to happen.

But players with loads of inbuilt instructions you cant change, thats pointless.

[Carlos92]

Maybe the problem isn't so much the roles, more the built in instructions

[Rashidi]

I can understand why people want more customisation, in fact, those who remember my input from the early days will remember how i was screaming for more customisation. And how removing this customisation was robbing me of playing the game the way I wanted. Well I am older now, and its been nearly 10 years since I raised that, and with all the new roles that have been added with the depth of customisation we currently have, this AI will never be as creative as a human manager, and for that reason alone, I just want no more roles. Lock everything down, and perfect the AI manager.

Its akin to adding more ingredients to a dish, I can eat this pasta with whats inside, just cook it perfectly, I don't need to add lobster meat to my crab meat.

[russell9]

We need more tactical freedom not restrictions. Something haven't used in real life doesn't means it won't work at all. Look at google's alphago it was using strange tactical moves that human go players cannot understand but it actually works. 

[dannysheard]

The key would be whether this could be done without making the game easier. It is already waaaaaaaaaaay too easy to overperform, so if this made it even easier because the AI couldn't cope, that would be bad.

[noikeee]

7 hours ago, Rashidi said:

I can understand why people want more customisation, in fact, those who remember my input from the early days will remember how i was screaming for more customisation. And how removing this customisation was robbing me of playing the game the way I wanted. Well I am older now, and its been nearly 10 years since I raised that, and with all the new roles that have been added with the depth of customisation we currently have, this AI will never be as creative as a human manager, and for that reason alone, I just want no more roles. Lock everything down, and perfect the AI manager.

Its akin to adding more ingredients to a dish, I can eat this pasta with whats inside, just cook it perfectly, I don't need to add lobster meat to my crab meat.

Tbh and to go back to the original topic, I don't think I want more roles neither, there's already so many of them it's confusing for the common user. Maybe a new generic/customizable one for AMR/AML (as everyone else said, the equivalent of wide midfielder but slightly further up), but that's it.

"Wide forward" as someone else suggested, sounds like a good name for that one.

[westy8chimp]

I'd remove 90% of roles.

GK

FB

CB

WB

DM

CM

Wing

AMRLC

CF

Are the only roles in football.. everything else is an instruction or player trait. Would make it more key to buy the right type of player... if you want a passing DLP Sign Xhaka as DM, if you want a combative ball winner in DM sign Cattermole.

the roles are basically a way of FM giving basic users some hard coded roles. Unfortunately the hard coded instructions often don't make sense and or don't behave as expected I..e the Carilerro/HB/IWB over the past few years.

I would like the 'free role' brought back though to try and get a Bergkamp type movement (complete roaming of opposition half)

 

[Cleon]

2 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

I'd remove 90% of roles.

GK

FB

CB

WB

DM

CM

Wing

AMRLC

CF

Are the only roles in football.. everything else is an instruction or player trait. Would make it more key to buy the right type of player... if you want a passing DLP Sign Xhaka as DM, if you want a combative ball winner in DM sign Cattermole.

the roles are basically a way of FM giving basic users some hard coded roles. Unfortunately the hard coded instructions often don't make sense and or don't behave as expected I..e the Carilerro/HB/IWB over the past few years.

I would like the 'free role' brought back though to try and get a Bergkamp type movement (complete roaming of opposition half)

 

Free role is still in the game, it was only renamed. It's 'roaming' in new money but still does exactly the same as the old free role.

[ajsr1982]

@westy8chimp - there's a certain allure to paring it back in that sort of manner, and I think it could potentially work very well if PIs and PPMs were revamped. It would force managers to understand and develop their players more intimately, rather than playing 'manage by numbers' with red/orange/green dots.

[westy8chimp]

5 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Free role is still in the game, it was only renamed. It's 'roaming' in new money but still does exactly the same as the old free role.

I find the roaming option still works within a boundary of the initial position. Like a roaming CM will roam between dm, cm, mcr, mcl, am ... but not into the box or to the touchline etc. But I guess maybe free role didn't either... was harder to analyse in the Champ Man days.

[juusal]

2 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

I'd remove 90% of roles.

GK

FB

CB

WB

DM

CM

Wing

AMRLC

CF

Are the only roles in football.. everything else is an instruction or player trait. Would make it more key to buy the right type of player... if you want a passing DLP Sign Xhaka as DM, if you want a combative ball winner in DM sign Cattermole.

the roles are basically a way of FM giving basic users some hard coded roles. Unfortunately the hard coded instructions often don't make sense and or don't behave as expected I..e the Carilerro/HB/IWB over the past few years.

I would like the 'free role' brought back though to try and get a Bergkamp type movement (complete roaming of opposition half)

 

 

Also, I strongly disagree. Those are positions but there are actual instructions that define the way a player plays, not just player types. No top level managers (hopefully) just tell their players "Right, you are the defensive midfielder today, do your thing". No, clearly managers give different instructions in terms of movement, passing, etc. In real life you often see the same player played in the same position but given a different role altogether. De Bruyne often plays in a more advanced role and in the half spaces when Sterling plays wide on the right but when Bernardo Silva comes in KDB plays deeper, Silva comes inside to the half spaces and Walker is more aggressive down the flank.

[ferrarinseb]

I agree with Rashidi we need roles only when we get fixed most of the Tactical instructions and a bit more fine tuning the roles. We also need AI to be better so that it can use the current roles better and able to make better decisions than now. 

[westy8chimp]

7 minutes ago, juusal said:

 

Also, I strongly disagree. Those are positions but there are actual instructions that define the way a player plays, not just player types. No top level managers (hopefully) just tell their players "Right, you are the defensive midfielder today, do your thing". No, clearly managers give different instructions in terms of movement, passing, etc. In real life you often see the same player played in the same position but given a different role altogether. De Bruyne often plays in a more advanced role and in the half spaces when Sterling plays wide on the right but when Bernardo Silva comes in KDB plays deeper, Silva comes inside to the half spaces and Walker is more aggressive down the flank.

Sounds like you agree. I've said we need instructions. Just don't need it handed to us on a plate with predefined roles. KDB still plays the same position (central midfield)... just with different behaviour i.e. different instructions.

I'm saying every position/role should just be generic ... let us apply our own PI. As someone else mentioned why is F9 fixed to move into channels? That's not what majority of players think an F9 is. I'd rather pick a Generic CF and give them instructions to drop deeper and find a player that 'plays one twos' for example.

[noikeee]

Nah, getting rid of roles seems like a backwards step, to the days we had to painstankingly go player per player and set everything up to the tiniest degreee. The roles are a good way to quickly get a preset of instructions without having to tick 6 buttons. Plus it helps the AI.

The problem is that the roles also come attached to certain behaviours and positioning patterns (under the hood still largely affected by mentality), and sometimes you want to alter it slightly and the roles doesn't allow you to.

[kingjericho]

I believe that currently there are enough options to let the user use the roles as they are by default, and also to customise as intended. For example, roles like the central midfielder and wide midfielder can be entirely customised to fit the user's wishes. Some other roles have restrictions but they're inherent to the role.

Regarding the demand for a generic winger role, I understand the point but my question is: what exactly do the people want to do with this role? Who are real life examples of this? The first name to pop in my mind is always James Milner, but I'd always put him as a WM and not in the AMR/L slot. I'd say that a choice between winger/inside forward/advanced playmaker/defensive winger should cover all the options wanted in this position. I think any player who plays there will do some of the things inherent to these roles, and any small details can be customised via PIs.

[FMunderachiever]

Utopia would be to put a player in position...say left midfield.

And you tell him what you want him to do. 

Hes not a preset winger or wide playmaker...you choose how he behaves with no defaults

[warlock]

4 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

Hes not a preset winger or wide playmaker...you choose how he behaves with no defaults

Back to sliders, then?

[russell9]

15 minutes ago, warlock said:

Back to sliders, then?

What's that has to do with sliders? It would be just a generic role like CM-Su or CM-Au where there are no hard coded preset instructions.

[warlock]

15 minutes ago, russell9 said:

What's that has to do with sliders? It would be just a generic role like CM-Su or CM-Au where there are no hard coded preset instructions.

 

42 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

And you tell him what you want him to do. 

 

[ajsr1982]

55 minutes ago, warlock said:

Back to sliders, then?

I saw this more as the application of PIs, rather than changing a tendency to dribble from 10 to 11.

[noikeee]

4 minutes ago, ajsr1982 said:

I saw this more as the application of PIs, rather than changing a tendency to dribble from 10 to 11.

You never had a 1-20 scale for every PI, you had that only for mentality, creative freedom and pressing. The PIs had 3 settings: rarely/sometimes/often.

[warlock]

8 minutes ago, ajsr1982 said:

I saw this more as the application of PIs, rather than changing a tendency to dribble from 10 to 11.

Fair enough, but it seems to me that we're diving into a bottomless hole. If you look at some of the recent criticisms of the ME - FBs who either defend too narrow or not narrow enough, wingers ditto, forwards who never come deep enough - it's easy to foresee the demands for ever more PIs, that can be modified to rarely/sometimes/often, as Noikee says. Then there's the camp that wants all of that control, but also in explicit defensive and offensive phases - and probably a separate 'transition' phase as well.

And what worries me is that all of these changes will make it even easier for human players, and even harder for the AI. Because, let's be honest, the AI as it stands is in no way 'intelligent'. It can't do simple squad rotation, instead starting a cup semi-final with 11 players who can barely walk onto the field. It can't do player development, which is why 'wonderkids' under AI control never get close to their potential. And it certainly can't do squad development, preferring to buy an endless procession of superstars, leave them on the bench for a season, and then sell them at bargain basement prices before repeating the process.

The game is already far too easy, it doesn't need to be easier.

[ajsr1982]

15 minutes ago, warlock said:

Fair enough, but it seems to me that we're diving into a bottomless hole. If you look at some of the recent criticisms of the ME - FBs who either defend too narrow or not narrow enough, wingers ditto, forwards who never come deep enough - it's easy to foresee the demands for ever more PIs, that can be modified to rarely/sometimes/often, as Noikee says. Then there's the camp that wants all of that control, but also in explicit defensive and offensive phases - and probably a separate 'transition' phase as well.

And what worries me is that all of these changes will make it even easier for human players, and even harder for the AI. Because, let's be honest, the AI as it stands is in no way 'intelligent'. It can't do simple squad rotation, instead starting a cup semi-final with 11 players who can barely walk onto the field. It can't do player development, which is why 'wonderkids' under AI control never get close to their potential. And it certainly can't do squad development, preferring to buy an endless procession of superstars, leave them on the bench for a season, and then sell them at bargain basement prices before repeating the process.

The game is already far too easy, it doesn't need to be easier.

Of course there's a balance to be had. I certainly wouldn't welcome a return to the micro-management of sliders and such. However, I would like the opportunity to pass on instructions to players as a manger would. Something that looks like a verbal instruction, and has an effect in the ME, without the ability to precisely control everything. What would be interesting is if players had varying interpretations of those instructions, or if the instructions given clash with the natural inclinations of the player, with that having an effect on the player/manager relationship. 'Why are you asking me to defend, boss?'

So yes, you may still be left with forwards who never come deep enough, and there's nothing you can do about it. Maybe you have to gradually train these tendencies out of them. Maybe that's too difficult to include, but I think it would be fun.

[FMunderachiever]

3 hours ago, warlock said:

Back to sliders, then?

What? It obviously isnt is it

[FMunderachiever]

1 hour ago, warlock said:

Fair enough, but it seems to me that we're diving into a bottomless hole. If you look at some of the recent criticisms of the ME - FBs who either defend too narrow or not narrow enough, wingers ditto, forwards who never come deep enough - it's easy to foresee the demands for ever more PIs, that can be modified to rarely/sometimes/often, as Noikee says. Then there's the camp that wants all of that control, but also in explicit defensive and offensive phases - and probably a separate 'transition' phase as well.

And what worries me is that all of these changes will make it even easier for human players, and even harder for the AI. Because, let's be honest, the AI as it stands is in no way 'intelligent'. It can't do simple squad rotation, instead starting a cup semi-final with 11 players who can barely walk onto the field. It can't do player development, which is why 'wonderkids' under AI control never get close to their potential. And it certainly can't do squad development, preferring to buy an endless procession of superstars, leave them on the bench for a season, and then sell them at bargain basement prices before repeating the process.

The game is already far too easy, it doesn't need to be easier.

What a complete load of piffle.

[warlock]

10 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

What a complete load of piffle.

Thank you for that reasoned and well-argued response.

[FMunderachiever]

4 minutes ago, warlock said:

Thank you for that reasoned and well-argued response.

Yeah well it was piffle so deal with it

[juusal]

4 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

Sounds like you agree. I've said we need instructions. Just don't need it handed to us on a plate with predefined roles. KDB still plays the same position (central midfield)... just with different behaviour i.e. different instructions.

I'm saying every position/role should just be generic ... let us apply our own PI. As someone else mentioned why is F9 fixed to move into channels? That's not what majority of players think an F9 is. I'd rather pick a Generic CF and give them instructions to drop deeper and find a player that 'plays one twos' for example.

Well the different roles are just those instructions preset into the game. For a lot of players it is surely better to choose a role according to a description/name of the role than setting up individual instructions.

[Maviarab]

26 minutes ago, FMunderachiever said:

Yeah well it was piffle so deal with it

why not actually disprove what he said?  or...are you not able to?