Roles don't exist

[bosque]

Hello everyone. First of all, I’m far, far, very far away from being an expert and the aim of this post is to have an enlightening discussion.

After reading a lot of guides (with their comments) in the forums I stumbled upon this wise comment a few times: "Roles don't exist". And I thought that it would be very helpful for all of us struggling with damn tactics to have a thread about this, especially because last night I had a little epiphany reading this quote from The Fantasista Experiment:

Cita

The tactical set-up, the player's personal style of play and his general characteristics can result in a variety of interpretations of what is a 'trequartista'. In fact, [in Serie A] so different were the styles of football that different trequartistas employed, that a new term was coined out in order to refer to a particular type of player that derives from the more traditional interpretation of a trequartista: “The Fantasista”.

In real life, coaches and managers don't tell their players to play this or that role. They may tell them to be a Box to Box Midfielder but they are actually giving them instructions on how they want them to play but the player's abilities and traits will define how he plays as a Box to Box Midfielder. For example, if he has good passing, vision, decisions and technique he will be a creative Box to Box Midfielder. Or if he has good bravery, aggression, workrate and tackling he will be a destroyer Box to Box Midfielder.

What I’m trying to say with this is when creating tactics a lot of us think about roles for players like if players were robots that will play exactly like the image we have in our minds about that role. Or sometimes we think the role will do a specific thing but actually doesn’t do it. For example I always thought the Poacher was the most selfish role but he actually links up play a lot even using him as a lone forward.

I feel it is more helpful to think about instructions rather than roles. “I want my right back to go up and down the pitch. I want my right midfielder to cover him and I want my striker to stay in the box”. After you know this, look at which roles have those instructions. And after this, choose the more appropriate player for that role but know that he will play it in X or Y way because of his attributes and traits. Or we can do it the other way around. See what the player has to offer and then give him the instructions but don't forgetting players are not islands and they need to compliment with others.

I think approaching tactics this way is a bit easier to:

• Read the game: because you will know what you want to happen and if it’s not happening then you can troubleshoot if it’s because the player is weak or the opposition is just playing better, or maybe it is just a bad day.
• Have a balanced system: because if you were thinking in instructions and player attributes then you will know if your players are adept for those instructions, or if you have two players in the same space doing the same things, or if you don’t have anyone covering for an attacking minded player, etc.
• Knowing if you need to bring a different or better player whose attributes will make him play those instructions different or better.

But I may be awfully wrong. I would like to read what you guys think.

[Johnny Ace]

Yeah, they're just players instructions with a name tag

Like you pointed out, in it's simplest form, two different players playing the CM(S) will play the role differently depending on their attributes (and PTs). I think I did a thread on it last year where Flair really stood out on a player, you really noticed a difference vs a player with low Flair even though they were playing the same role with zero instructions 

 

[glengarry224]

I heard an interview with @Miles Jacobson- (pinging him because I fear misquoting) - where he said that prior to FM introducing roles, he'd heard many real-life football managers/coaches talking about roles. 

The defined "role" not only tells a player what generally is expected from him, but also alerts his teammates what to expect.  Whether irl, or on FM, it is a shorthand and of course, players will have to react to what they see in real time and will adjust based upon their individual abilities/form/fitness/teammates, etc.  A defined "role" is a very useful shorthand, particularly in-game.

Today, at what age are kids taught roles?

[MrGlenn1337]

They should just remove the roles. It's far from realistic. And a lot of the roles we got aren't even good.

 

 

[HUNT3R]

8 minutes ago, MrGlenn1337 said:

They should just remove the roles. It's far from realistic. And a lot of the roles we got aren't even good.

 

 

Removing roles is a horrible idea. Roles (along with everything else) gives the tactical side some structure.

As said above, roles are really just a bunch of instructions with a name tag. Because of that though, you know what behavior to expect from it. That means you can isolate which attributes can more important for the job he's expected to do. This helps us create tactics easily and create tactics that isn't a complete and utter disaster. More importantly, it creates a structure that helps the AI to create tactics and even make changes based on who they're facing, the types of players they have and how a match is going. Before this, AI tactics were far less dynamic and essentially consisted of 3 pre-made tactics. 

I'm not sure what there is to be gained by removing roles.

[(sic)]

2 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

I'm not sure what there is to be gained by removing roles.

I guess, realism and more options for customization.

The thing is, there's constant evolution in football. When WCB became "popular" in real life, it took 2-3 years for the role to get implemented in FM. We could've created that sort of role ourselves if we had the ability to actually tell players what to do, where to go, when to move, etc. But the thing is, especially due to the way the match engine is built, you can't have that in game. The AI wouldn't know how to react.

There are already around 40 different roles in the game. A lot of them have certain hard-coded behaviors specific to them. In a lot of cases, I can't really go and tell each player on the pitch exactly what to do, and expect them to do it. They are simply hardcoded to behave a certain way, and there's sometimes little variation to it. Instead I often have to compromise, do I want them to do this one thing, or do I want them to do the other thing. In a lot of cases, I can't have the players do both. Rather than having freedom to tell your players how you want them to behave in different phases of play, you instead have presets (aka roles). I might like how one role performs in defense, or in buildup, but dislike how they play in the attack/final third, and vice-versa.

One example could be Wingbacks. In real life in back 3 / 5 systems, they are often acting as wingers who will stay wide to provide width, while also pushing forward earlier, in some cases being in line with strikers. In FM I can somewhat do this, but not by using a player in WB position. Instead I have to use them in ML/MR spots, but then defensively they don't behave as Wingbacks would.

Another example could be the Winger role. While I do like how they hold the width early on, in the final phases of attack, you'd often find them quite narrow. I might not necessarily want that, but I have no choice, as pretty much all roles in AML/AMR spots are hardcoded to come narrow in the final third. In this case a Wingback would provide the width I need, without coming narrow in the final third. But again, the issue is other phases of play where they wouldn't push as high as early as the Winger would.

This can somewhat be influenced by player traits, but not to an extent I'd like to see. Also a lot of player traits should really become player instructions, but that's another topic.

 

I do understand the concerns that there's less structure and that the AI (or even other players) wouldn't be able to cope against players, but that's also solvable and it sounds like an excuse. We've had this ME for how long now? I think it's time to move on and make something new and better, but that would require too much time and money, that I feel like SI would rather spend elsewhere.

I also understand this wouldn't work for a lot of players, who simply prefer to load up a tactic, or create something simple themselves by using the preset roles. Or to players who would rather focus on transfers, squad building, and winning stuff, rather than building tactics. But even that is solvable, give players the ability to choose between the simple or the advanced tactical creator. They can still have preset roles that give a general idea of how a player might play.

Edited August 5, 2022 by (sic)

[bosque]

Well, this kind of debate wasn't the idea of the original post but is good to have different points of view 

[glengarry224]

7 hours ago, (sic) said:

I guess, realism and more options for customization.

The thing is, there's constant evolution in football. When WCB became "popular" in real life, it took 2-3 years for the role to get implemented in FM. We could've created that sort of role ourselves if we had the ability to actually tell players what to do, where to go, when to move, etc. But the thing is, especially due to the way the match engine is built, you can't have that in game. The AI wouldn't know how to react.

There are already around 40 different roles in the game. A lot of them have certain hard-coded behaviors specific to them. In a lot of cases, I can't really go and tell each player on the pitch exactly what to do, and expect them to do it. They are simply hardcoded to behave a certain way, and there's sometimes little variation to it. Instead I often have to compromise, do I want them to do this one thing, or do I want them to do the other thing. In a lot of cases, I can't have the players do both. Rather than having freedom to tell your players how you want them to behave in different phases of play, you instead have presets (aka roles). I might like how one role performs in defense, or in buildup, but dislike how they play in the attack/final third, and vice-versa.

One example could be Wingbacks. In real life in back 3 / 5 systems, they are often acting as wingers who will stay wide to provide width, while also pushing forward earlier, in some cases being in line with strikers. In FM I can somewhat do this, but not by using a player in WB position. Instead I have to use them in ML/MR spots, but then defensively they don't behave as Wingbacks would.

Another example could be the Winger role. While I do like how they hold the width early on, in the final phases of attack, you'd often find them quite narrow. I might not necessarily want that, but I have no choice, as pretty much all roles in AML/AMR spots are hardcoded to come narrow in the final third. In this case a Wingback would provide the width I need, without coming narrow in the final third. But again, the issue is other phases of play where they wouldn't push as high as early as the Winger would.

This can somewhat be influenced by player traits, but not to an extent I'd like to see. Also a lot of player traits should really become player instructions, but that's another topic.

 

I do understand the concerns that there's less structure and that the AI (or even other players) wouldn't be able to cope against players, but that's also solvable and it sounds like an excuse. We've had this ME for how long now? I think it's time to move on and make something new and better, but that would require too much time and money, that I feel like SI would rather spend elsewhere.

I also understand this wouldn't work for a lot of players, who simply prefer to load up a tactic, or create something simple themselves by using the preset roles. Or to players who would rather focus on transfers, squad building, and winning stuff, rather than building tactics. But even that is solvable, give players the ability to choose between the simple or the advanced tactical creator. They can still have preset roles that give a general idea of how a player might play.

Well, certainly the game FM22 is not anywhere as complex as irl football.  There is not enough computing power in the world to even begin to simulate irl. 

Even withing current computing power, I agree that we are limited.  I can't tell my RWB:  "generally after transition into the final third, stay wide but no closer than 30 meters from the endline but if we have the ball on the opposite flank and you see the opposition LB cheating out to mark our AMR-IF and their LCB drifting too far the other side, then invert and make a run inside, but only if our CM has not already made that run.....and tell our DM:  if our RWB makes an inside run, switch 10 meters wider to cover his flank defensively," etc etc etc.  But all that would make the game way too complex for all but a few players.

IRL, managers and coaches and players do use roles as a shorthand for an expected set of behaviors, and young players are now brought up learning roles.  They do modify those roles, depending upon the ability of each player to handle that.  Maybe more modification should be available. 

[glengarry224]

I have only a fuzzy idea about what is the difference between playing a "Roaming Playmaker" at CM, which has hardcoded PIs 'roam from position' and 'take more chances' versus playing a CM(s) and manually ticking the same two PIs.  The game itself indicates behaviors for roles beyond just the PIs which we can see?

Some places indicate that there are other behaviors hard coded into roles.   For example, guidetofm states for Roaming Playmaker:

That makes sense to me.  But guidetofm is an unofficial source.

But in other unofficial sources (videos, posts and maybe in these forums), I've heard that there is no difference, maybe so long as you train the same PIs.

I play the game as if there are other behaviors hard coded which correspond to the game description of each role versus just choosing the role with no hard-coded PIs, or the fewest PIs, and ticking the PIs I want.

Edited August 5, 2022 by glengarry224

[robot_9x3]

Just to add what @glengarry224 already said, there are hidden instructions you can notice one of them really well with playmakers. You can most of the time infere them by reading the role description. A B2B Role Midfielder behaves noticeably different to a CM-Su even when you match the instructions.

While you ( @bosque ) are right that Coaches in reality don't say "you play as a box to box midfielder", when I played (amateur football) there was a focus to bring everyone up to speed what player x will do in the position as well as what is expected from him. 
So the Instructions and hidden Instructions.  What is expected of the player and how should the team incorporate him. Obviously geared towards the player who will play.
 
E.g. if the small slow but deceptively agile, balanced and technical Midfielder was deployed on the wing it was mentioned explicitly to play him into feet because "with the ball at his feet he can do everything, if he has to chase the ball he will do nothing".
In short basically having a Playmaker out wide not a Winger, how would we make such distinctions(team instructions) without roles?

If that was to abstract a hopefully simpler Example with real footballers:
Juan Mata on the Wing is something else than Sancho.
Mata in his later years lacked the speed to be any "Winger" on the Wing. So as you said he will fill the position differently.
But the team around him still has the instructions to see him as a "winger" eventhough the player who is there can't perform that role well.

If Roles were removed you lose the ability to tell the Team "hey  Mata is on the wing play him into feet" e.g. set his role to a playmaker role or something else not speed focused.
Or you lose the option to force the team and player to try to play the same way eventhough there is now another player.

Unless we want to be able to set the so far hidden-instructions our selfes. But than we get even more complexity.

What I will grant you though, while Roles can have a noticeable impact. For a beginner it is not as important to know the roles inside out.
A tip I read when I started with FM a few years ago was to set up tactics with the basic roles instead of making them complex right away, use KISS (Keep it simple stupid or Keep it stupidly simple... I don't know what Kiss means anymore).
So you want to play a 4-3-3 you the basic roles GK, FB, CB, CB, FB, DM, CM, CM, W, W, AF and play around with the duties afterwards try to incorporate one Role at a time so you notice what changes from game to game.  Only after you have  the movement you want you slowly add Team Instructions.

After i have gotten this out of the way now to your example:

Am 18.6.2022 um 18:04 schrieb bosque:

I feel it is more helpful to think about instructions rather than roles. “I want my right back to go up and down the pitch. I want my right midfielder to cover him and I want my striker to stay in the box”. After you know this, look at which roles have those instructions. And after this, choose the more appropriate player for that role but know that he will play it in X or Y way because of his attributes and traits. Or we can do it the other way around. See what the player has to offer and then give him the instructions but don't forgetting players are not islands and they need to compliment with others.

I think approaching tactics this way is a bit easier to:

• Read the game: because you will know what you want to happen and if it’s not happening then you can troubleshoot if it’s because the player is weak or the opposition is just playing better, or maybe it is just a bad day.
• Have a balanced system: because if you were thinking in instructions and player attributes then you will know if your players are adept for those instructions, or if you have two players in the same space doing the same things, or if you don’t have anyone covering for an attacking minded player, etc.
• Knowing if you need to bring a different or better player whose attributes will make him play those instructions different or better.

Maybe it's just me but when I read "I want my Striker in the box" I think "Poacher" so the Role. Because a Role is just a shorthand for a bunch off instructions (including the hidden ones) or behaviours you can read from the description.
If I don't know the Game yes I have to look what the game offers me and read(boring I know) the description to get an understanding what each collection of instructions (role) does. For a beginner that is probably a lot nicer than having a blank slate and being able to apply all the instructions yourself or have just the players attributes decide.

With your player choices and their interplaying instructions you are at a way more advanced tactical setup level than most beginners should be. You obviously know how attributes can have an influence and what the instructions do and how they interplay.

Now to your first point: Yes If you know what you can expect from your players it's easier to understand why something happens.
The lightning quick but technicaly lacking winger gets alot of through balls but lacks at the end product, while the slow but technical player is less involved because he just gets less balls due to being slow.

Your second Point: Yes if you know a WB-At and a Winger-At have a nearly indentical set of instructions you may catch that both will probaby end up in a relativley similar postion when attacking.  But you could catch that from the role descriptions as well negating you knowing what all the instructions do in detail.

Towards your third point: Again you need to have the knowledge to know which attribute impacts which instruction to decipher this. With Roles and the marked attributes you see at a glance what is most important. With the Star system beginners also get a simple overview although you know that may be not as precise.

Analyzing the System
When analyzing why something did not work it is important to check against who you played you will always struggle as a non league team against a european heavyweight.
If the opposition being too strong is ruled out, inspect was the player incapable? That should be rather easy to catch with the current star system no?
If he was capable but in one game I played a different player to better results, it may be important to check their differences. It can be that differences in attributes or in traits which lead to the behaviour. If I want a DLP to switch play and one of my DLPs has the trait while the other does not, with one of them my system will play better even if he has a weaker star rating. If one is way better in Vision and Passing he may be the better DLP for what I want but maybe I want the one who tackles better. But that would be nuances when perfecting the system. Not when having an obvious flaw.
If something did not work multiple times and you checked your players are capable enough. It is time to check the role duties and what they should do. Had a excurse here into CBs and i spotted in one setup a CB-St can be the soure of unneccessary danger.
If the duties are fine. Well its the roles interplaying. Maybe it's not even the player you think is at fault but one of the others doing something you did not expect. Which you can only fix by focusing on that during friendlies and experimenting.
Unless you know the game inside out like some of the Tactical-Wizards here in the Forum you will need to spend time... no matter if you only think in instructions or in roles.

TLDR: I think Roles are a great way to encapsulate a collection of instructions, and to know what you expect from a player playing there and how the team trys to incorporate him.
Yes we should check if a given player can fill the role we want to use him in and if not think about alternative solutions(different Role/other player). More advanced players can think about traits and attributes enhancing the tactic.
 

[(sic)]

11 hours ago, glengarry224 said:

Well, certainly the game FM22 is not anywhere as complex as irl football.  There is not enough computing power in the world to even begin to simulate irl. 

Even withing current computing power, I agree that we are limited.  I can't tell my RWB:  "generally after transition into the final third, stay wide but no closer than 30 meters from the endline but if we have the ball on the opposite flank and you see the opposition LB cheating out to mark our AMR-IF and their LCB drifting too far the other side, then invert and make a run inside, but only if our CM has not already made that run.....and tell our DM:  if our RWB makes an inside run, switch 10 meters wider to cover his flank defensively," etc etc etc.  But all that would make the game way too complex for all but a few players.

IRL, managers and coaches and players do use roles as a shorthand for an expected set of behaviors, and young players are now brought up learning roles.  They do modify those roles, depending upon the ability of each player to handle that.  Maybe more modification should be available. 

That's the thing, it isn't nowhere as complex, and it can't be. First due to technological limitations, and second, it's a game.

And like you said, even with the current tech, we are limited. There might be a few reasons for this. I think the main reason is that they want the game to be available for everyone, meaning PCs/Laptops that are 10-15+ years old. Second reason is money. I don't think they could get near that level of customization with the current ME, and developing a new one will take a lot of effort, time and money. And it wouldn't be worth it in the end, because the requirements for the game would go up, meaning old computers wouldn't be able to run the game. 

The current ME seems very rigid, and you can clearly see the "if x happens, do y". To me it seems like it takes a lot of effort to develop new roles, because then you have to program a lot of stuff from the scratch. You have to set what the AI will do and how they will react to certain movements. Giving that sort of freedom to a player seems impossible right now.

With your example, that stuff already happens under the hood...at least somewhat. Players that don't necessarily occupy certain areas will, to an extent, look to make runs into space, or cover empty spaces, depending on the roles, duties, instructions, etc. But often that's nowhere near enough to what you want them to do. They AI needs to be smarter, meaning doing all of these things, but better (being more aware of the space, better decisions on when and where to run, etc.).
Even giving some ability for the players to dictate those movements would be possible. Allowing to dictate how a role/player performs in certain phases of the play (the overall addition of In Possession, Out of Possession and In Transition was great, but I don't know why SI haven't expanded upon it more), meaning the buildup, mid third, final third, as well as in defensive transition and in offensive transition. Right now, you have "When team has the ball", "When player has the ball", "When opposition has the ball".  Those should be expanded more, converting certain player traits to instructions, and overall revamping the whole PI screen just like they did with TIs.

Example: You have a double pivot. You'd want one player to act as a playmaker, dropping deeper to pick up the ball, while the other player will push forward. Now that's easily doable in the game right now. But, if you want to fine tune it a bit, it's where it becomes hard/impossible. I might want the player dropping deep, to drop right in the middle and occupy that space while our team has the ball. The player pushing forward should also push forward and occupy the central areas as a No.10 would. But instead you end up with something lopsided, where none of them really occupy the centre, but instead the side of the field they were positioned originally. 

Another example would be the Inside forward/Inverted winger. What if I wanted them to defend wide, like in a 4-4-2, but then in possession they should be narrow and act as two No.10s (A lot of managers that use 4-2-4/4-4-2 do this). They will simply be too wide, until they get to the final third. Yes, you can make something similar to this in game, but it's never going to be exactly the same thing.

 

10 hours ago, glengarry224 said:

I have only a fuzzy idea about what is the difference between playing a "Roaming Playmaker" at CM, which has hardcoded PIs 'roam from position' and 'take more chances' versus playing a CM(s) and manually ticking the same two PIs.  The game itself indicates behaviors for roles beyond just the PIs which we can see?

Some places indicate that there are other behaviors hard coded into roles.   For example, guidetofm states for Roaming Playmaker:

That makes sense to me.  But guidetofm is an unofficial source.

But in other unofficial sources (videos, posts and maybe in these forums), I've heard that there is no difference, maybe so long as you train the same PIs.

I play the game as if there are other behaviors hard coded which correspond to the game description of each role versus just choosing the role with no hard-coded PIs, or the fewest PIs, and ticking the PIs I want.

The hidden instructions (aka the hardcoded behaviors) absolutely do exist, but I'm not sure if we can 100% be sure of what they are. Those unofficial sources are probably true in most cases I'd say.

Edited August 6, 2022 by (sic)

[MrGlenn1337]

On 05/08/2022 at 12:01, HUNT3R said:

Removing roles is a horrible idea. Roles (along with everything else) gives the tactical side some structure.

As said above, roles are really just a bunch of instructions with a name tag. Because of that though, you know what behavior to expect from it. That means you can isolate which attributes can more important for the job he's expected to do. This helps us create tactics easily and create tactics that isn't a complete and utter disaster. More importantly, it creates a structure that helps the AI to create tactics and even make changes based on who they're facing, the types of players they have and how a match is going. Before this, AI tactics were far less dynamic and essentially consisted of 3 pre-made tactics. 

I'm not sure what there is to be gained by removing roles.

What's to be gained is more realism to the game. The game would be more fun if I had the chance to create a different role. 'Cause as it is now it's really hard to recreate real life tactics.

We can take Pep's City for example and Walker is a prefect example. The guy can go from forming a back 3, then go to a IWB position and then playing ans an WB during the same game. That's impossible to do in FM at the moment. The same thing with Cancelo. He clearly plays as an IWB, but he tends to go wide also sometimes. And just the way City plays can't be recreated with the roles we got in FM atm. I've tried and I've gotten the shape to look like a bit similar to Pep's inverted pyramid. But my 2 CM's stay to deep all the time, they hardly occupy  any advanced spaces. The IWB's sometimes even goes in front of the CM's even if I have attack duty on whether it be as an AP, MEZ, or CM on attack. Also the IW's cut inside way too early plenty of times, and if I try wingers then they won't cut inside at all, so that role doesn't suite what I'm looking for. 

And sometimes, and this really annoys me, certain roles bump in to each other. Can't be that hard to code the game and tell roles to stay far apart and not hug each other.

And we have Ten Hag and Nagelsmann that tends to use on of the fullbacks to create a back 3 in build up. You can't get an fullback to act as a CB or BPD. 

The way Ten Hag used Frenkie is impossible to recreate as well. You could say that he played as a halfback, but he never dropped in-between the the 2 CB's. Instead he dropped down and played as the left CB and De Light played central.

 

I'd like it if SI just gave us more freedom then we have now. Because what we have now just isn't fun, imo. Some roles are just straight up useless and we don't even have roles that give us any option of recreating they way certain teams play. 

[Jack Sarahs]

3 hours ago, MrGlenn1337 said:

What's to be gained is more realism to the game. The game would be more fun if I had the chance to create a different role. 'Cause as it is now it's really hard to recreate real life tactics.

We can take Pep's City for example and Walker is a prefect example. The guy can go from forming a back 3, then go to a IWB position and then playing ans an WB during the same game. That's impossible to do in FM at the moment. The same thing with Cancelo. He clearly plays as an IWB, but he tends to go wide also sometimes. And just the way City plays can't be recreated with the roles we got in FM atm. I've tried and I've gotten the shape to look like a bit similar to Pep's inverted pyramid. But my 2 CM's stay to deep all the time, they hardly occupy  any advanced spaces. The IWB's sometimes even goes in front of the CM's even if I have attack duty on whether it be as an AP, MEZ, or CM on attack. Also the IW's cut inside way too early plenty of times, and if I try wingers then they won't cut inside at all, so that role doesn't suite what I'm looking for. 

And sometimes, and this really annoys me, certain roles bump in to each other. Can't be that hard to code the game and tell roles to stay far apart and not hug each other.

And we have Ten Hag and Nagelsmann that tends to use on of the fullbacks to create a back 3 in build up. You can't get an fullback to act as a CB or BPD. 

The way Ten Hag used Frenkie is impossible to recreate as well. You could say that he played as a halfback, but he never dropped in-between the the 2 CB's. Instead he dropped down and played as the left CB and De Light played central.

 

I'd like it if SI just gave us more freedom then we have now. Because what we have now just isn't fun, imo. Some roles are just straight up useless and we don't even have roles that give us any option of recreating they way certain teams play. 

 

Thanks for the feedback @MrGlenn1337

[FJW]

9 hours ago, MrGlenn1337 said:

What's to be gained is more realism to the game. The game would be more fun if I had the chance to create a different role. 'Cause as it is now it's really hard to recreate real life tactics.

We can take Pep's City for example and Walker is a prefect example. The guy can go from forming a back 3, then go to a IWB position and then playing ans an WB during the same game. That's impossible to do in FM at the moment. The same thing with Cancelo. He clearly plays as an IWB, but he tends to go wide also sometimes. And just the way City plays can't be recreated with the roles we got in FM atm. I've tried and I've gotten the shape to look like a bit similar to Pep's inverted pyramid. But my 2 CM's stay to deep all the time, they hardly occupy  any advanced spaces. The IWB's sometimes even goes in front of the CM's even if I have attack duty on whether it be as an AP, MEZ, or CM on attack. Also the IW's cut inside way too early plenty of times, and if I try wingers then they won't cut inside at all, so that role doesn't suite what I'm looking for. 

And sometimes, and this really annoys me, certain roles bump in to each other. Can't be that hard to code the game and tell roles to stay far apart and not hug each other.

And we have Ten Hag and Nagelsmann that tends to use on of the fullbacks to create a back 3 in build up. You can't get an fullback to act as a CB or BPD. 

The way Ten Hag used Frenkie is impossible to recreate as well. You could say that he played as a halfback, but he never dropped in-between the the 2 CB's. Instead he dropped down and played as the left CB and De Light played central.

 

I'd like it if SI just gave us more freedom then we have now. Because what we have now just isn't fun, imo. Some roles are just straight up useless and we don't even have roles that give us any option of recreating they way certain teams play. 

What’d be a cool idea is if we had a “with the ball” and “without the ball” screen, where we could position the players in a way that we would like them to act during a match…

[DementedHammer]

One thing that I said on day one of the new tactics creator being released in its current form was that, it would be nice if there was the ability to load and save our own roles. I'm not against the existing roles, and I think they are a massive improvement over the old slider system, especially if I want to make tweaks mid-match.

However, it would be incredibly useful to be able to save our own roles, and have them show up in the role selection lists. (Even if the custom roles were based on an existing role within the game, it would still be useful to be able to tweak them slightly and save them for future use.)

Edited August 10, 2022 by DementedHammer

[Christopher S]

10 hours ago, DementedHammer said:

One thing that I said on day one of the new tactics creator being released in its current form was that, it would be nice if there was the ability to load and save our own roles. I'm not against the existing roles, and I think they are a massive improvement over the old slider system, especially if I want to make tweaks mid-match.

However, it would be incredibly useful to be able to save our own roles, and have them show up in the role selection lists. (Even if the custom roles were based on an existing role within the game, it would still be useful to be able to tweak them slightly and save them for future use.)

This is an excellent suggestion imo - maybe @Jack Sarahs can bring along as well? 

[HUNT3R]

If there are feature suggestions, it's best to post in the feature request section here: https://community.sigames.com/forums/forum/353-football-manager-feature-requests-pcmac/

SI keep an active eye on that section and review the threads from time to time during the year.

Creating a role isn't something I can personally see happening because the AI won't be able to use it. I've mentioned before that the roles etc gives the tactic creator some structure and that helps the AI to set up tactics and select players for roles.

There have been calls for a generic role in each position, which can be tweaked more than others, which is fair enough. A role like a CM/S would be the main one I can think of. There were other roles intended to be generic roles as well. The problem is that not every position has this type of role - AML/AMR being the main ones, imo. Realistically (again, IMO) that's possible and it would be something the AI can use too.

Keeping roles but giving us all the freedom in the world will open it up to massive exploitation against the AI for one thing; part of the reason wib-wob was removed. It gives us even more of an advantage than we have already, if we have tools the AI cannot use. Having the roles also makes things easier to code and we can have a more balanced ME.

Regardless of my views, if anyone has suggestions, it's best to post in the area I linked in the beginning of the post. This section is great for tactical discussion, but if you want to make sure SI sees and reviews an idea, post there, please.

[EnigMattic1]

1 hour ago, HUNT3R said:

If there are feature suggestions, it's best to post in the feature request section here: https://community.sigames.com/forums/forum/353-football-manager-feature-requests-pcmac/

SI keep an active eye on that section and review the threads from time to time during the year.

Creating a role isn't something I can personally see happening because the AI won't be able to use it. I've mentioned before that the roles etc gives the tactic creator some structure and that helps the AI to set up tactics and select players for roles.

There have been calls for a generic role in each position, which can be tweaked more than others, which is fair enough. A role like a CM/S would be the main one I can think of. There were other roles intended to be generic roles as well. The problem is that not every position has this type of role - AML/AMR being the main ones, imo. Realistically (again, IMO) that's possible and it would be something the AI can use too.

Keeping roles but giving us all the freedom in the world will open it up to massive exploitation against the AI for one thing; part of the reason wib-wob was removed. It gives us even more of an advantage than we have already, if we have tools the AI cannot use. Having the roles also makes things easier to code and we can have a more balanced ME.

Regardless of my views, if anyone has suggestions, it's best to post in the area I linked in the beginning of the post. This section is great for tactical discussion, but if you want to make sure SI sees and reviews an idea, post there, please.

This got me thinking and I'm not sure if you would know the answer. Does the AI give player instructions? For example, tell a FB to "Stay Wider" or a CM to "Move into Channels".

On the other hand, if there was a blank "role" (CM/S for example), do you think the option to "save" that role with individual player instructions, similar to how you would save a tactic, be a viable option?

[HUNT3R]

45 minutes ago, EnigMattic1 said:

Does the AI give player instructions?

I don't know, unfortunately. I don't get advice from the assistant about it, so based on that, I would assume the AI doesn't use PIs, but that's just a guess.

47 minutes ago, EnigMattic1 said:

do you think the option to "save" that role with individual player instructions, similar to how you would save a tactic, be a viable option?

Roles are fairly open as it is already, I think, but at AML/AMR you don't have that much freedom. That's the one position that I think needs attention. But saving customised roles is a more realistic/viable request, imo, yes. Question is, will it affect other areas/modules and how?

Do any roles come to mind for you? Roles you always modify/use in the same way? I often use the same roles, but the PIs usually differ based on what I'm creating as it's always based on the players I have and the team's stature/prediction. I'm not sure it's something that I'd use much, if at all. That's why I am curious as to how often you'd use it.

If you're saving a modified role, it could rely on different attributes so recruitment meetings may be impacted as the recommendations could be off. Tbf, the same can be said for customised roles as it is already. Those meetings could be expanded a little (along with a few other areas) to make it make more sense. Have a look at the CM/S role's key and preferable attributes. If I ask that role to dribble more, Dribbling (and possibly Agility/Balance) would now become more important, yet it's not listed for the role. If the preferable and key attributes update with your PI selections, other modules could pick up on it.

Saving a modified role would surely also have you save it with your own label/name. Imagine how confusing it's going to be if you see someone posting their tactic, either for download or wanting advice.

While I think it's possible to implement, it needs to be fleshed out a little more. I'm not sure how often it would be used though.

 

 

[axelmuller]

Although Modern Football has evolved towards universality, roles do exist in some sense -- in a 433 formation, a DMC man can be either a Pirlo-esque playmaker or a Anchor Man Anchor Person type of player. To keep the tactic balanced, other players' roles should be adjusted accordingly, in combination with the DMC role.

On the other hand, the preferred role clause when loaning a player is utterly ridiculous. For example, Middlesbrough loaned Alex Mowatt from West Brom earlier today. I highly doubt that during negotiations, Steve Bruce said to Chris Wilder that Mowatt must play as an Attacking Playmaker with an Attack Duty or else you must pay a monthly fee of 2 million.

[DarJ]

The problem with getting rid of roles and just having the instructions seems like a good idea however when you consider that this is a single player game and you play against the AI, you also have to think about how the AI would exploit this and how the AI would be exploited by this. As human hangers we have the option to be creative with it but the AI has to be programmed within certain parameters so they will never be creative and they won't be able to defend against some of the things we humans will throw at it.

This is the reason why when people ask that for set pieces they want to be able to place their players wherever they want, it makes be laugh because it would be a disaster. We already complain that corners are very easy so imagine what would happen if the AI has to defend corners where you have the ability to place your players anywhere.

 

[MrGlenn1337]

3 hours ago, DarJ said:

The problem with getting rid of roles and just having the instructions seems like a good idea however when you consider that this is a single player game and you play against the AI, you also have to think about how the AI would exploit this and how the AI would be exploited by this. As human hangers we have the option to be creative with it but the AI has to be programmed within certain parameters so they will never be creative and they won't be able to defend against some of the things we humans will throw at it.

This is the reason why when people ask that for set pieces they want to be able to place their players wherever they want, it makes be laugh because it would be a disaster. We already complain that corners are very easy so imagine what would happen if the AI has to defend corners where you have the ability to place your players anywhere.

 

The game worked fine before the roles ever existed and I assure you it would work fine if they got removed.

[kepz]

I think they could overhaul the roles a bit to better define what they do. like, I understand in FM the difference of an IW and IF, but to imagine Klopp explaining to Dias whether he plays as an IF or IW is absurd. it should be more how the role of an opposite footed winger is interpreted by the player in the position and their attributes that determine an IF vs IW. like SI made up a role to suit Thomas Muller’s play style — it’s a bit silly.

 

Roles should be more transparent and descriptive of what they actually accomplish on the pitch. B2B and anchor are two examples of well-names roles that don’t require too much thought to understand what they do, whereas people still debate IW vs IF. 

 

Or maybe that piece in The Athletic is just too fresh in my mind at the moment. 

[DarJ]

47 minutes ago, MrGlenn1337 said:

The game worked fine before the roles ever existed and I assure you it would work fine if they got removed.

I disagree. Before the introduction of roles you had all these super tactics you could use and go on a win every game.

You would argue that it's still the case now but it's not ad easy as it used to be 

[MrGlenn1337]

7 hours ago, DarJ said:

I disagree. Before the introduction of roles you had all these super tactics you could use and go on a win every game.

You would argue that it's still the case now but it's not ad easy as it used to be 

Not as easy? Okey. All those Knap-tactics disagrees with you.

[DarJ]

6 hours ago, MrGlenn1337 said:

Not as easy? Okey. All those Knap-tactics disagrees with you.

We will have to agree to disagree 

[CARRERA]

The game, as long as it’s AI driven, will properbly always be relatively easy. However, I think there could be some more flexibility in terms of roles.

 Why not make certain PPMs available as a PI. 

[Jack Sarahs]

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to reach out and respond to some of the points made in this thread and on that particular note thank you all for your contributions to this thread!

 

There has been lots of comments on these topics recently such as not being able to create certain roles or shapes in line with real life teams. In addition to these comments I’ve seen a few comments in other threads of people thinking that SI aren’t listening or reading feedback on these and other issues and I just want to assure and explain to everyone that this isn’t the case.

 

On the note of comments ideas and comments being read or acknowledged.

Some of you may or may not know previously to joining Sports Interactive I was very active on these forums as a user, fan of the game & content creator. I’m still very much involved in the FM community and read as much feedback as I can because I know what it’s like to be on this side of the fence. I feel very privileged to be in the position I am, and I make sure I give back my own way by going above and beyond my role by still being very much apart of these forums ( I don’t have to be ). We have a brilliant dedicated team that specifically look after the forums along with our brilliant moderators. Even with that being the case I still go out of my way to be apart of these forums because I know the brilliant ideas/Discussions they can bring and also know the feeling that people feel like when they’re not being listened to, versus when they know they are.

 

I want everyone to know that your ideas and posts are being read and listened to and the best way to make sure they’re seen by the correct people & put into a process of them being considered is via our bug tracker or feature request section of the forums as @HUNT3R posted earlier in the thread.

 

Future Tactical ideas

I simply can’t go into specifics here the communications team will never let me post again!  I myself am a UEFA B Licenced football coach. We have some brilliant people in our team who have some fantastic ideas for where to improve the game in this area in the next few years and versions. There are some new trends over the last few years with specific and unique playing styles or player roles and rest assured just because it doesn’t appear right now doesn’t mean we haven’t acknowledged it and don’t have plans for it to be implemented at a later date.

 

I’m extremely exited at what the next few years will bring and in short I just want to reassure everyone in here that these issues discussed haven’t gone unnoticed and because they aren’t confirmed publicly, doesn’t mean we don’t have them noted down or don't have things in process to improve this great game we all love. All I’m asking personally on behalf of myself is be patient. It might not be right away, but we will review everything in time I promise to continue to work as hard as I can to help improve our game & maintain openness on the forums. I just ask if you don’t see the changes you think are needed immediately just stay patient give this process a chance and hopefully we will get there together.

 

Thanks everyone

 

Jack

[Christopher S]

On 14/08/2022 at 12:47, DarJ said:

We will have to agree to disagree 

I'm sorry, but this isn't a matter of agreement or not. You argued that previous to roles being introduced there were super tactics that would win you every game. That hasn't changed, not even slightly. Whether you are aware or not, or dislike it - it doesn't matter. But your argument is absolutely null and void.
There is an abundance of plug&play tactics that will put the game on auto pilot for you, and there has been for every version of the game since roles were introduced. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Christopher S

[Andrew Marines]

7 ore fa, Christopher S ha scritto:

There is an abundance of plug&play tactics that will put the game on auto pilot for you, and there has been for every version of the game since roles were introduced. 

If you play offline, i agree with you. However, if you play online, those tactics can be countered pretty easily