Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I hope that you spoke with some real manager and that in FM 2022 will be 2 shapes of tactic:

Attack shape

Defend shape

because in real world managers want for example 5-4-1 shape for defending and 3-4-3 for attacking shape, in previous manager this is not been possible.

 

I hope so that you repair ME:

-throw in direct to oposition

-stupid reaction when defenders run away from opposition who run with ball direct to goal

-marking from corners, when is always one opposition player was alone ( i hope that you made available that we can put player where we want in defending position of corner or free kick and not only mark man or near post and so one... why i cant put 3 players attack near post...its not real...

 

I am open to advise you for the game as i said before there is much to be done that the game will be great (FM 2021 was one of the worst in this section i write up in text)

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sporadicsmiles said:

This is already in the game. Your defensive shape is the formation you select (pretty much). Your attacking shape is your formation plus whatever roles or instructions you have set. So my default formation defends like a 4141 and attacks like a 424. 

Except that is really really limited, there are many formations that are really hard / impossible to recreate in FM. Usually you can recreate an offensive formation, and a defensive formation separately, but you can't have them both working at the same time.

Your example is fairly easy to create, 4-1-4-1 into 4-2-4.

What about making your 2 man midfield transform into one DM and one AM where both sit centrally. It's just not possible, and if it is it's really hard to recreate and make it work properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, (sic) said:

What about making your 2 man midfield transform into one DM and one AM where both sit centrally. It's just not possible, and if it is it's really hard to recreate and make it work properly.

Which way round? 2 midfielders central in defence to one DM and one AM in attack, I guess? CM(D) and CM(A) would do the job. The point about making them both more central, however, is a good one, and I'd like to see there be more control over that sort of thing for sure. I'll never argue against improvements, just try to help people do what they can with the current tools. 

I am not a fan of the idea of two different formations though, for two reasons. Firstly, I do not think it is any more realistic than what we currently have. And added to that it will mean you need to add defensive and attacking roles and duties for players. That could work, but it would take something people find complicated already and make it much more complicated. Secondly, people would do weird stuff and expect it to work. 532 to 235 or something, with players moving all over the place in transition, and then wondering why it does not work. And for certain we would get into a mess with people finding exploits for this. Not a big deal really, because people can choose not to use them, but exploits are the sign of a bad ME. 

What we really need is the game to actually tell you properly how things are working with tactics better than is currently achieved. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

Which way round? 2 midfielders central in defence to one DM and one AM in attack, I guess? CM(D) and CM(A) would do the job. The point about making them both more central, however, is a good one, and I'd like to see there be more control over that sort of thing for sure. I'll never argue against improvements, just try to help people do what they can with the current tools. 

I am not a fan of the idea of two different formations though, for two reasons. Firstly, I do not think it is any more realistic than what we currently have. And added to that it will mean you need to add defensive and attacking roles and duties for players. That could work, but it would take something people find complicated already and make it much more complicated. Secondly, people would do weird stuff and expect it to work. 532 to 235 or something, with players moving all over the place in transition, and then wondering why it does not work. And for certain we would get into a mess with people finding exploits for this. Not a big deal really, because people can choose not to use them, but exploits are the sign of a bad ME. 

What we really need is the game to actually tell you properly how things are working with tactics better than is currently achieved. 

 

Yeah, I feel like more movement instructions would be nice, something like move centrally or wider when the team is in possession. I feel like sit narrower kinda does that, but not as much as I feel it should, and it's not available for central positions.

I agree that it would be much more complicated to make and balance, as people could easily exploit that or try unrealistic formations (although if they tried that, players being out of position in transitions should tell them it's not supposed to work). Also a lot of players use plug-and-play tactics so this would just make even more people use them, as not everyone is a nerd about tactics like some of us here. But then again I feel like the current tactics creator isn't that realistic, hell until recently we had no transition instructions. I feel like that area should be expanded even more.

 

Agreed 100% with the last point.

Edited by (sic)
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

Secondly, people would do weird stuff and expect it to work. 532 to 235 or something, with players moving all over the place in transition, and then wondering why it does not work.

There is also the issue of making it work with AI managers. SI would have to predict everything us managers would do and try to code the AI to adapt and I can't imagine how difficult it is.

That's why asymmetric systems are so good when done well, the AI doesn't predict having those players in those positions so they don't know how to deal with them 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...