Risk vs Roles

[djsmiley]

I have been playing around with mentality and roles trying to figure out how often will certain things happen in a match when using different roles and mentality.

Let's say am using Counter mentality and plus very wide TI and in midfield I have gone for 2 roles with a hardcoreded PI of risky passes, basically since mentality equals risk are these 2 roles gonna play risky passes often when using Counter or will Counter mentality come into effect and tell those roles to play risky passes sometimes since Counter actually tells my players not to take huge risk with the ball.

I just hope some of the big guns here understand my question cause I feel that's where most of us get confused when choosing Mentality and roles... Not Duties.

 

[Cleon]

The mentality changes the base of the roles you use and the settings they come with, so when you speak about mentality equalling risk, it changes the individual roles/duties. It doesn't come with its own risk attached to it. That's the most important thing to remember and something that 90% of people seem to ignore on these forums. Regardless of what mentality you use, the frequency of these type of passes (or anything else for that matter) is mainly down to the individual themselves and the attributes they have. If a role has something hardcoded though, they they'll attempt those things more regular no matter what mentality or other settings they have. That's the whole point of hardcoded things, you can't change/influence them. 

I'm not sure why people discuss mentality vs risk vs roles, risk on FM is the roles. They aren't separate things. Mentality = what settings the roles have. Mentality as a standalone does nothing. 

[djsmiley]

15 minutes ago, Cleon said:

The mentality changes the base of the roles you use and the settings they come with, so when you speak about mentality equalling risk, it changes the individual roles/duties. It doesn't come with its own risk attached to it. That's the most important thing to remember and something that 90% of people seem to ignore on these forums. Regardless of what mentality you use, the frequency of these type of passes (or anything else for that matter) is mainly down to the individual themselves and the attributes they have. If a role has something hardcoded though, they they'll attempt those things more regular no matter what mentality or other settings they have. That's the whole point of hardcoded things, you can't change/influence them. 

I'm not sure why people discuss mentality vs risk vs roles, risk on FM is the roles. They aren't separate things. Mentality = what settings the roles have. Mentality as a standalone does nothing. 

It makes sense Cleon thanks a lot for taking the time to respond

[thizaum]

I understood what Cleon said and while it makes sense, I thought the OP was asking something a little different: if the PIs are absolute or relative in relation to the team mentality.

And I understand that they’re relative.

A CM(A) on Overload will have a higher mentality than the same role and duty on Contain.

When you ask about the risky passes, though, I don’t think the “risk” that people say about the mentality here has anything to do with this. I think the role trying risky passes is not influenced by the team mentality (but I may be wrong).

It is influenced, however, by other things like Cleon said.

[Cleon]

I’m not sure he was asking something else in all honesty. Maybe it’s a translation thing? But he gave a specific example and specifically mentioned hardcoded PI’s. Which I answered. 

[Robson 07]

Now I'm not clear .  Can I attempt the question?

A player has the PI "more risky passes".  That instruction can be hardcoded, as it is say for a ball playing defender.  Or it can be selected by the manager, for example the central defender role.  And for clarity, we're saying a more risky pass is effectively a 'pass into space', yes?

So then we (or if I understand Cleon correctly) are saying that the player with this particular PI will attempt passes into space just as often when part of a Defend team mentality, as often as he would if part of an Attack team mentality?

If that is the case, and we go on to speculate that a pass into space could more readily lead to a turnover in possession as by definition it is more "risky".   Are we then reaching the conclusion of saying it would be foolish to use Ball Playing Defenders, as an example, when using Contain/Defend/Counter.

Not intentionally trying to twist this or play on people's words.  Just trying to clear it up.

[Cleon]

Quote

A player has the PI "more risky passes".  That instruction can be hardcoded, as it is say for a ball playing defender.  Or it can be selected by the manager, for example the central defender role.  And for clarity, we're saying a more risky pass is effectively a 'pass into space', yes?

Essentially its just a fancy name for a through ball, so yeah.

Quote

So then we (or if I understand Cleon correctly) are saying that the player with this particular PI will attempt passes into space just as often when part of a Defend team mentality, as often as he would if part of an Attack team mentality?

More or less yes as it's part of the role. There shouldn't be much difference. What you might see is, the player playing the ball in a more risky style though. By that, I mean he could (it's not definite as it depends on the players attributes) possible at times play it into tighter areas than normal the more aggressive his mentality is. But the actual frequency should be the same as it's all attribute related.

Quote

If that is the case, and we go on to speculate that a pass into space could more readily lead to a turnover in possession as by definition it is more "risky".   Are we then reaching the conclusion of saying it would be foolish to use Ball Playing Defenders, as an example, when using Contain/Defend/Counter.

Not really no. It still depends on why you're using those mentality settings and what you are expecting. For example I wrote about playing on a defensive mentality and making it really aggressive and being more attacking than a attacking mentality.

However it can be a mistake using a BPD in a possession based tactic due to them hitting it long and bypassing the midfield at times. But again, it comes down to what you want. It can be a good or bad thing. Everything needs context to it, to make any sense.

[thizaum]

Well, then I think I got the “risky passes” thing wrong.

Imagine a player has 3 passing options: a close unmarked player (easy pass), an unmarked player a little further (medium pass), and a marked player making a run (hard pass). It’s easy to put these 3 in order of difficulty and, therefore, riskness, but also how rewarding each might be. I thought “play simpler” would balance the scale of the player’s choice towards the easier ones and “risky passes” the opposite. I’m simplying quantifying the player’s mind and choices, in a logical way.

On the other hand, pass into space would be a general instruction to “not pass into feet”, generating more movement. I’m not talking about forward only through ball, but every kind of pass into open spaces. In fact, under some circumstances the pass into space might even be safer.

Again, I might be wrong, but that’s how I understood them. I myself usually have “pass into space” on and “risky passes” off. My goal is to keep the ball without being too static. I may use risky passes for a player that I want to pass more like a playmaker but without the magnetic movement. Same thing with simpler passing for centrebacks or defmids. But doesn’t change the fact the I want the team to generally pass into space and have more movement.