Most Balanced Match Engine?

[Litmanen 10]

2 hours ago, Rodrigogc said:

 

That is the whole point about the imbalance. I mean, I play football occasionally, attacking is way harder than defending, why is it different in the game ?

This is quite simply true. If you pick a team like Luton at the beginning of the game, it should be quite simple to create a system where you can make things difficult even for the top dogs of the league. On the other hand, it should be impossible to play attacking-styled football and have good results with the current selection of players, no matter how good a tactician you are. 

[Mitja]

On 28/01/2024 at 22:31, Ein said:

Once again, mentality (risk) seems to be superfluous because everything it does can be defined from the in possession, in transition and out of possession tactical screens. 

Small correction risk is already defined by other team and player instructions player roles and duties and having a instruction (mentality) modifying all other brings confusion and imbalance to ME. For example a DLP who takes more risk will behave completely differently on defensive or attacking mentality about taking risk. On some MEs more defensive mentality would mean short passing game which would result in defensive teams out passing much better ones. I used to argue that concept of mentality is holding back advance of ME.

[Rodrigogc]

2 horas atrás, Mitja disse:

I used to argue that concept of mentality is holding back advance of ME.

Interesting.. could you elaborate more on that ?

[whatsupdoc]

On 27/01/2024 at 16:21, dubbed5 said:

Yes, in FM13 I LOVED playing with defensive tactics, with either "counter" or "defensive" mentality. But in FM24 I failed with all my saves trying to do that. Then I read around, and people say gegenpressing with balanced, positive or attacking mentality is the only way that really works.

I started a new save with FC Twente using the standard gegenpressing tactic, without changing anything. No new signings. In January, we were sitting 2nd in the league, 1 point below Feyenoord. We even beat Ajax, and only lost 0-1 to Feyenoord. In the European Conference League, we finished 1st place in the group. It was so easy that I stopped playing this save.

There is testing about mentalities on fm-arena, simulating thousands of matches in testing leagues, and it verifies this. Cautious, defensive, and very defensive mentalities unfortunately don't perform well in newer FMs.

Yeah this was a decent engine where a lot was possible including being compact and playing on the counter with pace up front. 

Unfortunately not possible with the defending in the current engine...

[Mitja]

20 hours ago, Rodrigogc said:

Interesting.. could you elaborate more on that ?

Mentality is probably the only instruction that modifies other instructions. Take passing instructions for example, there are : passing directness, tempo, creative freedom, through balls then transition instructions influence passing decisions. All the above instructions also define risk in passing. 

But when you switch between different mentalities the above setup of given instructions will play out completely differently. For example a fast tempo direct style on positive mentality will turn into tiki taka on defensive mentality. Add that pressing never really worked well in FM there is scenario where Burnleys of this world (especially when on defensive mentality) would completely out pass Cities without having a single shot. 

So mentality actually turns a given set of perfectly clear instructions into something totally different. Especially on extreme ends of mentality slider. And risk is already influenced by other instruments. By that mentality should be defined by other instructions and not the other way around. 

 

[Mitja]

What I wrote above is example of "possession issue". Geggenpres issue is of course related to mentality a lot. Play that catanaccio tactic on balanced or positive add a little pressing and you'll instantly have better results.

[Ein]

4 minutes ago, Mitja said:

By that mentality should be defined by other instructions and not the other way around. 

Exactly. Like how team shape can no longer be selected manually but is automatically determined from the player duties/number of support roles. Team mentality should likewise be determined from the combined effect of the various TIs. TIs like counter, countpress, higher tempo, more direct the passing, higher block, higher DL, etc increases risk and viceversa.

So for example a tiki taka style would have a combination of high risk instructions (counterpress, high block/DL) and low risk ones (short passing, low tempo, hold shape) so the overall mentality would coalesce to balanced.

[NineCloudNine]

I tend to agree that the way the game defines mentality is counter-intuitive. I like the thought that mentality should instead derive from the combined effect of the tactical instructions.

SI do have to strike a balance between casual players and tactics geeks though. The combination of a preset style+tactic, with mentality acting as a sort of volume button or multiplier, works well enough for a casual player, while the tinkerers have the tools to really play around.

As with many things about the game, however, the implementation and especially the interface are so complex that neither group really gets what they need. I spend hours playing with tactical shapes but I still wouldn’t be confident describing the full range of changes wrought by switching the mentality slider up and down.

A particular frustration is that players have their own mentality setting, which often isn’t the same as the team setting and which *is* derived from other instructions, roles and duties, sometimes in ways you have no way of predicting.

[Ein]

I think it would work for casual players/beginners as well (mentality is determined for you based on what you choose). It could potentially disrupt exploit tactics that employ attacking mentality + all sort of risky TIs. And, more importantly, it would be more intuitive and elegantly simple.

Just some more examples:

Tiki taka: counterpress (+ risk), high block (+ risk), high DL (+ risk), short passing (- risk), low tempo (- risk), hold shape (- risk) -> balanced
Gegenpress: counterpress (+ risk), counter (+ risk), high block (+ risk), high DL (+ risk), quick tempo (+ risk) -> attacking
Direct counter-attacking: counter (+ risk), regroup (- risk), direct passing (+ risk), quick tempo (+ risk), low block (- risk), -> balanced/positive
Catenaccio: short passing (- risk), low block (- risk), hold shape (- risk), regroup (- risk) -> defensive

Say you're playing direct counter-attacking and want to protect a lead. You could, among other things, change to shorter passing/lower tempo which would automatically change the mentality to cautious.

Edited February 2 by Ein

[Rodrigogc]

1 hora atrás, Ein disse:

Exactly. Like how team shape can no longer be selected manually but is automatically determined from the player duties/number of support roles. Team mentality should likewise be determined from the combined effect of the various TIs. TIs like counter, countpress, higher tempo, more direct the passing, higher block, higher DL, etc increases risk and viceversa.

So for example a tiki taka style would have a combination of high risk instructions (counterpress, high block/DL) and low risk ones (short passing, low tempo, hold shape) so the overall mentality would coalesce to balanced.

Indeed that would be way better. I think Fluidity is defined by set of instructions, Mentality should be the same. 

What bothers me with this system now is that I have to find workarounds to get what I want from my players. For instance, if I want my Left Back to play on positive mentality, I'll have to change the team mentality, but I don't want that, I want to change just my LB mentality and that is not possible anymore. So I'll have to change his role to change his mentality, but it will affect other instructions, which Is not my intention.. In the end I won't get him to play exactly how I want.

 

[Mitja]

1 hour ago, Ein said:

Exactly. Like how team shape can no longer be selected manually but is automatically determined from the player duties/number of support roles. Team mentality should likewise be determined from the combined effect of the various TIs. TIs like counter, countpress, higher tempo, more direct the passing, higher block, higher DL, etc increases risk and viceversa.

Yes and the other option would be that mentality simply chooses the right duty distribution in combination with fluidity. Such closed system would reduce possibility of diablo tactics a lot.

[NineCloudNine]

29 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

Indeed that would be way better. I think Fluidity is defined by set of instructions, Mentality should be the same. 

 

Fluidity is determined by how many support duties you have. That’s it. Nothing else.

[Ein]

25 minutes ago, Mitja said:

Yes and the other option would be that mentality simply chooses the right duty distribution in combination with fluidity. Such closed system would reduce possibility of diablo tactics a lot.

Yes, player duties could be taken into consideration in combination with the TIs as well. So in general attacking duties increase risk and defensive duties reduce it.

If enough people agree with it, we could try putting it forward in the Suggestions subforum. I won't bother doing it myself as I never seem to get any reply/feedback on Bug Reports. Maybe some mod or 'FM aristocrat' who agrees with it could push it.

[Mitja]

1 hour ago, Ein said:

Yes, player duties could be taken into consideration in combination with the TIs as well. So in general attacking duties increase risk and defensive duties reduce it.

If enough people agree with it, we could try putting it forward in the Suggestions subforum. I won't bother doing it myself as I never seem to get any reply/feedback on Bug Reports. Maybe some mod or 'FM aristocrat' who agrees with it could push it.

What I would do with Tis in relation to mentality is I'd limit some instructions in logical way. For example you wouldn't be able to set very high dline on defensive mentality. Or very short passing or hold shape. Again this would help new players as well as AI I guess and limit diablo tactics.

[Rodrigogc]

2 horas atrás, Ein disse:

I think it would work for casual players/beginners as well (mentality is determined for you based on what you choose). It could potentially disrupt exploit tactics that employ attacking mentality + all sort of risky TIs. And, more importantly, it would be more intuitive and elegantly simple.

Just some more examples:

Tiki taka: counterpress (+ risk), high block (+ risk), high DL (+ risk), short passing (- risk), low tempo (- risk), hold shape (- risk) -> balanced
Gegenpress: counterpress (+ risk), counter (+ risk), high block (+ risk), high DL (+ risk), quick tempo (+ risk) -> attacking
Direct counter-attacking: counter (+ risk), regroup (- risk), direct passing (+ risk), quick tempo (+ risk), low block (- risk), -> balanced/positive
Catenaccio: short passing (- risk), low block (- risk), hold shape (- risk), regroup (- risk) -> defensive

Say you're playing direct counter-attacking and want to protect a lead. You could, among other things, change to shorter passing/lower tempo which would automatically change the mentality to cautious.

 

That would be nice. I think mentality controling many instructions is a way SI found to make it quick for less experienced players to change the team within the match without having to go to tactics and change instructions one by one. The problem is that it became counterintuitive. 

In FM13 they had a set of instructions you could give without having to go to tactics, like "press more", "play short passes", "play low tempo", etc... I used to find that very useful, I don't know why SI removed it from the game. Instead we are left with shouts where only 3 of them work and are completely underdeveloped. 

[Dagenham_Dave]

4 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

In FM13 they had a set of instructions you could give without having to go to tactics, like "press more", "play short passes", "play low tempo", etc... I used to find that very useful, I don't know why SI removed it from the game

They didn't remove them from the game, they are now tactical instructions which you can still very easily change in-game. 

[wazzaflow10]

6 hours ago, NineCloudNine said:

I tend to agree that the way the game defines mentality is counter-intuitive. I like the thought that mentality should instead derive from the combined effect of the tactical instructions.

SI do have to strike a balance between casual players and tactics geeks though. The combination of a preset style+tactic, with mentality acting as a sort of volume button or multiplier, works well enough for a casual player, while the tinkerers have the tools to really play around.

As with many things about the game, however, the implementation and especially the interface are so complex that neither group really gets what they need. I spend hours playing with tactical shapes but I still wouldn’t be confident describing the full range of changes wrought by switching the mentality slider up and down.

A particular frustration is that players have their own mentality setting, which often isn’t the same as the team setting and which *is* derived from other instructions, roles and duties, sometimes in ways you have no way of predicting.

It would be nice if they took something from the WIBWOB days of showing you where players would generally be given where the ball is. The screen isn't editable but it would at least give you a visual of how you line up with and without the ball. I don't want to bring WIBWOB back but its not like Pep isn't showing players their positioning for phases of play. I think it would solve a ton of complaints here without really revealing how the engine works.

They could also do with making the individual player mentality more accessible. Agree 100%.

[whatsupdoc]

1 hour ago, wazzaflow10 said:

It would be nice if they took something from the WIBWOB days of showing you where players would generally be given where the ball is. The screen isn't editable but it would at least give you a visual of how you line up with and without the ball. I don't want to bring WIBWOB back but its not like Pep isn't showing players their positioning for phases of play. I think it would solve a ton of complaints here without really revealing how the engine works.

They could also do with making the individual player mentality more accessible. Agree 100%.

Nice idea

[NineCloudNine]

2 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

It would be nice if they took something from the WIBWOB days of showing you where players would generally be given where the ball is. The screen isn't editable but it would at least give you a visual of how you line up with and without the ball. I don't want to bring WIBWOB back but its not like Pep isn't showing players their positioning for phases of play. I think it would solve a ton of complaints here without really revealing how the engine works.

They could also do with making the individual player mentality more accessible. Agree 100%.

I seem to recall a time in an FM many years ago when I could put an arrow on the screen telling a player where to go when the team has the ball. It’s a bit weird that no such thing currently exists in what is otherwise a far more sophisticated tactic creator.

[wazzaflow10]

4 minutes ago, NineCloudNine said:

I seem to recall a time in an FM many years ago when I could put an arrow on the screen telling a player where to go when the team has the ball. It’s a bit weird that no such thing currently exists in what is otherwise a far more sophisticated tactic creator.

yeah that was 05/06/07/08. Those got really abused. You could have your RB become your left winger. That's why it was done away with. No way to contain people into something the engine could handle with regularity.

Its strange that when you pick a tactical style they show you the little gif like clip but don't show you what your tactic could look like in the same vein.

[Freakiie]

On 02/02/2024 at 12:58, Mitja said:

What I would do with Tis in relation to mentality is I'd limit some instructions in logical way. For example you wouldn't be able to set very high dline on defensive mentality. Or very short passing or hold shape. Again this would help new players as well as AI I guess and limit diablo tactics.

But would that really be logical? What about teams that have possession for the sake of possession and defend by not letting their opponents touch the ball? They generally try to win the ball back higher up the field, but then take no risks when actually in possession. Why would they not be allowed to have a low risk mentality while defending relatively high up the pitch?

I think just renaming mentality to risk, which what it inherently is, would already make quite a difference. Also, actually explaining properly what this risk means. I wouldn't want it completely removed from the game, as at times having a single setting you simply up or down one notch depending on the situation is really nice to have and I wouldn't want to have to change 5 different player instructions to make my team go slightly more on the offensive. However, as it stands it's incredibly misleading and setting your mentality to defensive won't suddenly make you defensive. Especially if you don't understand the underlying workings of the tactics creator it's no surprise that many people get really confused as to why a "defensive" mentality tends to suck so much.

Admittedly I think the presets also don't help here, if I'm not mistaken Catenaccio for example makes you play incredibly deep, stand offish and then dumps a defensive mentality on top of that which just asks for your team to be completely battered because you give up 90% of the pitch to the opposition and when you get the ball back you instantly hoof it up front because that's the lowest risk option. Defending like that for extended periods of time is going to be a disaster for pretty much every team.

[Rodrigogc]

56 minutos atrás, Freakiie disse:

But would that really be logical? What about teams that have possession for the sake of possession and defend by not letting their opponents touch the ball? They generally try to win the ball back higher up the field, but then take no risks when actually in possession. Why would they not be allowed to have a low risk mentality while defending relatively high up the pitch?

I think just renaming mentality to risk, which what it inherently is, would already make quite a difference. Also, actually explaining properly what this risk means. I wouldn't want it completely removed from the game, as at times having a single setting you simply up or down one notch depending on the situation is really nice to have and I wouldn't want to have to change 5 different player instructions to make my team go slightly more on the offensive. However, as it stands it's incredibly misleading and setting your mentality to defensive won't suddenly make you defensive. Especially if you don't understand the underlying workings of the tactics creator it's no surprise that many people get really confused as to why a "defensive" mentality tends to suck so much.

Admittedly I think the presets also don't help here, if I'm not mistaken Catenaccio for example makes you play incredibly deep, stand offish and then dumps a defensive mentality on top of that which just asks for your team to be completely battered because you give up 90% of the pitch to the opposition and when you get the ball back you instantly hoof it up front because that's the lowest risk option. Defending like that for extended periods of time is going to be a disaster for pretty much every team.

 

Yes, the presets give you an idea that they will work when actually a lot of them poorly works, but presets are supposed to be tweaked. The whole confusion could be indeed sorted out by changing up the names, because that's what stuck in our mind. As much as I know that Mentality means riks, when I read Defensive, Cautious, It's hard to associate it with risk, because these names are very straightforward and easy to remember. When you have to make many tactical decisions, you tend to stick with the names to speed things up, but the names are extremely misleading. I think SI could take that into consideration. 

[Mitja]

2 hours ago, Freakiie said:

But would that really be logical? What about teams that have possession for the sake of possession and defend by not letting their opponents touch the ball? They generally try to win the ball back higher up the field, but then take no risks when actually in possession. Why would they not be allowed to have a low risk mentality while defending relatively high up the pitch?

 

 

Shouldn't tempo and time wasting settings be responsible for possession for the sake of possession? 

What has mentality got to do with it?

[CrowManager]

On 29/01/2024 at 06:50, NineCloudNine said:

If SI were to implement accurate fatigue and injury rates from always-on gegenpressing, these forums would light up with complaints. Even now there are regular complaint threads from players who have exhausted their lower division team and think this is unrealistic because “look at Rodri IRL”. 

Ironically one way to reduce the efficacy of pressing is to use a realism mod with increased injuries. Then your players (and those of the AI) will break down if asked to full-on press all the time.

SI are between a rock and a hard place here.

It isn't just lower division teams, lot of the examples of people complaining about injuries being too common are top level teams lmao, as if Premier League teams don't get large numbers of injuries.

[Ein]

On 03/02/2024 at 17:14, Freakiie said:

What about teams that have possession for the sake of possession and defend by not letting their opponents touch the ball?

There's no shortage of possession instructions: the passing slider, the tempo slider, 'work ball into box', 'dribble less' and 'play out of defence'.

[batsy23]

On 27.01.2024 at 08:50, dubbed5 said:

I reinstalled FM13 and did a quick testing.

I picked the team predicted to finish 10th in the PL, Aston Villa.

I set up a simple 4-1-4-1 defensive tactic:
-Defensive mentality, rigid philosophy
-Deep defensive line, hold position, stand off (no pressing)
-More direct passing, slow tempo, counter attack on

 

Holidayed until end of the year, ticking on "use current tactic".
The team sat at a decent 7th place:

 

As you would expect from such a tactic, they had solid, reliable defense.
And they didn't score much (besides 2 lucky games against Reading and Q.P.R.).

 

FM13 felt like a tactical simulator, with balanced tactical styles. It was all logical.
Basically, ANY tactical style worked as long as you had the right players.
You could replicate almost any team's playing style.

I jumped back to FM24, using the same tactic with the 10th predicted PL team, West Ham.

 

Well, by the time I came back from my 6-month-long Hawaiian vacation, I was already sacked:

 

Notice zero clean sheets in the PL, often conceding 3-4 goals.

Okay, I decided to start a new save and test one of the official preset tactics.
These were made by SI games; surely they know what they are doing.
I picked the catenaccio, as I loved playing that style in FM13:

 

Logic would tell us that playing such a compact defensive formation, with defensive mentality will result in good defense.
Well, FM24 match engine disagrees:

 

Actually I was sacked earlier this time.
Look at those results, 0-4, 1-4, 0-4, 0-3. Oh my...

I was curious what happens if I use the mighty gegenpressing tactic with the same team:

 

Surprise, surprise, not only did I still have a job by the end of the year, but West Ham actually overachieved:

 

The funny thing is, even though playing a high tempo, high d-line attacking football as a mid-level team, they had a very solid defense:

 

Playing on defensive mentality and slow tempo is suicide in FM24.
Basically, sitting back and absorbing pressure doesn't work anymore.
The match engine is seriously unbalanced.
Use high tempo, pressing, balanced/positive/attacking mentality and you will overachieve.
Try anything else, and it's a struggle.

The guys at fm-arena did tons of testing, millions of simulated games in fair testing league.
The results are really eye-opening.

This. 

Because of this i delete the game because they kill the immersion for me. Novadays, i just wrote & talk about the games direction. If they wanna walk fifa's way, i don't wanna walk this road. 

[NineCloudNine]

29 minutes ago, batsy23 said:

Playing on defensive mentality and slow tempo is suicide in FM24.
Basically, sitting back and absorbing pressure doesn't work anymore.

It would be suicide in the real life modern game as well. Football in 2024 is not the same as 2013. Gegenpress wasn’t a thing then. Positional play was basic. Players are now fitter. Data analysis is light years ahead. FM is at least trying to reflect this change.

What FM gets wrong is letting players run gegenpress tactics with no consequences. IRL turning it all up to max will destroy your players by Christmas and you’ll get picked off by smart opponents exploiting space. FM is far too forgiving on injuries and player fatigue and the AI managers aren’t smart enough. But if SI did these things, the forum would light up with complaints from players who won’t accept that asking a midfielder to press for 90 mins, 40 times a season will destroy them, “because Rodri does it”.

Edited February 5 by NineCloudNine

[batsy23]

14 dakika önce, NineCloudNine said:

It would be suicide in the real life modern game as well. Football in 2024 is not the same as 2013. Gegenpress wasn’t a thing then. Positional play was basic. Players are now fitter. Data analysis is light years ahead. FM is at least trying to reflect this change.

What FM gets wrong is letting players run gegenpress tactics with no consequences. IRL turning it all up to max will destroy your players by Christmas and you’ll get picked off by smart opponents exploiting space. FM is far too forgiving on injuries and player fatigue and the AI managers aren’t smart enough. But if SI did these things, the forum would light up with complaints from players who won’t accept that asking a midfielder to press for 90 mins, 40 times a season will destroy them, “because Rodri does it”.

In this edition of fm, you can use double attacking mezzala or central midfielder with two inside forward and advanced forward. And the result is goals without consequences. 

[NineCloudNine]

11 minutes ago, batsy23 said:

In this edition of fm, you can use double attacking mezzala or central midfielder with two inside forward and advanced forward. And the result is goals without consequences. 

I get that - this happens because SI are too generous with injury and fatigue rates and because AI managers aren’t smart enough. I just dispute that FM13 is a good comparison point because football has changed so dramatically since then. Teams playing slow defensive football would be taken apart in the modern game, even assuming they aren’t booed off the pitch and the manager replaced with someone who has studied modern football.

 

[Ein]

9 hours ago, NineCloudNine said:

this happens because SI are too generous with injury and fatigue rates and because AI managers aren’t smart enough.

Not only. Some tactics are not supposed to do well until the players get tired. Some tactics are not supposed to do well period.

It's not true that defensive tactics would necessarily get teams slaughtered. Football is still varied and teams like Brentford and Luton still get to punch above their weight. As do teams playing high pressing, offensive football (Brighton, Bournemouth). But that's certainly not a given either. Ultimately, a lack of pragmatism hampered Leeds' progress and cost their place in the EPL. And Burnley, whilst doing extremely well in the Championship, are not finding life as easy in the EPL.

FM lacks such variety and it's extremely easy to overachieve with insanely offensive tactics. Not just offensive but insanely offensive. Someone just posted a tactic with 2 mezzalas and 2 wingbacks with which he was doing extremely well. Not even Man City play that way -- their left FB plays like a centreback. Not even Liverpool have ever played that way -- when their WBs pushed forward, their CMs were more conservative.

Edited February 6 by Ein

[Mitja]

5 hours ago, Ein said:

Not only. Some tactics are not supposed to do well until the players get tired. Some tactics are not supposed to do well period.

It's not true that defensive tactics would necessarily get teams slaughtered. Football is still varied and teams like Brentford and Luton still get to punch above their weight. As do teams playing high pressing, offensive football (Brighton, Bournemouth). But that's certainly not a given either. Ultimately, a lack of pragmatism hampered Leeds' progress and cost their place in the EPL. And Burnley, whilst doing extremely well in the Championship, are not finding life as easy in the EPL.

FM lacks such variety and it's extremely easy to overachieve with insanely offensive tactics. Not just offensive but insanely offensive. Someone just posted a tactic with 2 mezzalas and 2 wingbacks with which he was doing extremely well. Not even Man City play that way -- their left FB plays like a centreback. Not even Liverpool have ever played that way -- when their WBs pushed forward, their CMs were more conservative.

I don't think it lacks variety I'd argue FM offers too many styles. All op tactics use attacking mentality and maximum intensity. 

On the other hand defensive styles are too lethargic for two reasons. First one is that defending is awful there's no true team effort, compactness, shifting, attributes don't seem to matter much etc. The other thing is that such already passive style is then enhanced with passive mentality that's more suited to very patient possession style than counter attacking which goes with defensive football.

[Ein]

3 minutes ago, Mitja said:

I don't think it lacks variety I'd argue FM offers too many styles. All op tactics use attacking mentality and maximum intensity. 

On the other hand defensive styles are too lethargic for two reasons. First one is that defending is awful there's no true team effort, compactness, shifting, attributes don't seem to matter much etc. The other thing is that such already passive style is then enhanced with passive mentality that's more suited to very patient possession style than counter attacking which goes with defensive football.

I meant variety with regards to tactical effectiveness.

[Etebaer]

Intensity is not sin!

Most of the things i do tactically are meant to increase the activity of my team and increase the intensity and still it is only around 70% or so while playing offensive and gegenpress.

Some of the things i do tactically are meant to minimize the errors that can occur or at least let the team make the errors in a region of the field were an error is still defensible afterward.

Everything else is about the playstyle which i want a quick passing attacking playstyle where runs only occur in the final third if passing is not an option bcs a good pass allways outruns/outplays an oposing player with my team setup 3 to 4 rows of payers vertically and a spread of 4 to 5 players horizontally interleaved for good passing and versatile attacking options as well a defensive depth and width.

Yet in principle my tactic has not changed since FM13 but the ME of the latest FMs makes me have more and more possession and this year for the fist time i have close to 65% and 70% possession even if the teams are quite stronger yet what changes against strong teams is the ability of my players to score which makes i.e. games with 60% possession but 0.3 vs 2.7 xg against such a stronger team occur.

Sometimes you win 3-0 but more often you lose 1-2 up to 1-6 bcs the inability to make possession count albeit i am not a fan of possession anyway as to me quality of chances and shots on target are more decisive!

Edited February 6 by Etebaer

[wazzaflow10]

19 hours ago, Ein said:

FM lacks such variety and it's extremely easy to overachieve with insanely offensive tactics. Not just offensive but insanely offensive. Someone just posted a tactic with 2 mezzalas and 2 wingbacks with which he was doing extremely well. Not even Man City play that way -- their left FB plays like a centreback. Not even Liverpool have ever played that way -- when their WBs pushed forward, their CMs were more conservative.

This is what happens when you treat the game as a tactic exploiter than a football management sim though. There's a whole site dedicated to telling you "is this tactic going to be overpowered". It's impossible to determine what an infinite number of man hours will do when tasked with a singular objective. It has nothing really to do with "is the game balanced or not?" and much more to do with people trying out more and more extreme variants to break it. It's no wonder someone has found a tactic that the ME can't handle by doing something extreme that none of the devs tested.

Put up the same system for 2013, people would break that game too. The only question would be how long would it take to break it. 

Are there improvements to be had? Absolutely. SI hasn't come out and said this is our final ME version for the series. The best thing to do is show real examples with pkms of where defensively + counterattack things fall flat in the engine. If it's that prominent it should be easy to show. 

[Ein]

7 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

There's a whole site dedicated to telling you "is this tactic going to be overpowered". It's impossible to determine what an infinite number of man hours will do when tasked with a singular objective. It has nothing really to do with "is the game balanced or not?" and much more to do with people trying out more and more extreme variants to break it. It's no wonder someone has found a tactic that the ME can't handle by doing something extreme that none of the devs tested.

There's no need to do anything extreme other than using the default tactical templates.

7 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

The best thing to do is show real examples with pkms of where defensively + counterattack things fall flat in the engine.

Such faults, rather than being episodic, are quantitative and emerge as long-term trends. Pinpointing exactly what the ME is doing, especially with so many things being under the hood, is beyond the scope of end users. The long-term trends are extensively documented and easily reproducible.

I do not understand the resistance from end users to improve the product.

[Mitja]

10 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

This is what happens when you treat the game as a tactic exploiter than a football management sim though. There's a whole site dedicated to telling you "is this tactic going to be overpowered". It's impossible to determine what an infinite number of man hours will do when tasked with a singular objective. It has nothing really to do with "is the game balanced or not?" and much more to do with people trying out more and more extreme variants to break it. It's no wonder someone has found a tactic that the ME can't handle by doing something extreme that none of the devs tested.

Put up the same system for 2013, people would break that game too. The only question would be how long would it take to break it. 

Are there improvements to be had? Absolutely. SI hasn't come out and said this is our final ME version for the series. The best thing to do is show real examples with pkms of where defensively + counterattack things fall flat in the engine. If it's that prominent it should be easy to show. 

But it's not like those gegenpress maximum intensity tactics haven't been op for a long time now? And if I'm not mistaken wasn't it promised that op gegenpress will be thing of the past for fm24. 

And on the other hand tactics that employ mentality below balanced being not only underachieving but display football style completely different than what's bring claimed. 

All this has been discussed at least since fm17 probably even earlier. 

 

 

 

[mibsweden]

I like the FM 24 one the best.

[wazzaflow10]

9 hours ago, Ein said:

There's no need to do anything extreme other than using the default tactical templates.

Doesn't mean the default isn't extreme. Good thing its really, really easily avoidable too.

9 hours ago, Ein said:

Such faults, rather than being episodic, are quantitative and emerge as long-term trends. Pinpointing exactly what the ME is doing, especially with so many things being under the hood, is beyond the scope of end users. The long-term trends are extensively documented and easily reproducible.

The long term trends being what exactly? I haven't seen anything resembling valid statistical tests. I disagree with the idea that you cannot pinpoint an issue in the match engine if the problem is so widespread. If hitting high pressing teams on the counter is so broken as it is being claimed here there should be plenty of evidence in ME form to show it.

 

9 hours ago, Ein said:

I do not understand the resistance from end users to improve the product.

Oh stop it. No one is resisting anything. We've all pointed out flaws to SI in the ME. If you have evidence and examples of where the game is consistently failing then post it in the bug forum. 

[SPE3D]

I think the tactical system is fine as it is. As some have already mentioned we should stop thinking of mentalities and start thinking of risk modifiers.

I have great success with a defensive mentality but with positive player roles and pressing and counterattacking on. It means without the ball I am a solid defensive unit but as soon as we get the ball we counter attack effectively. We are currently top of the national league with a team expected to finish 17th. I don't play gegen press or any similar combination and I stick to the default formations that are in the game.

For me the only thing I would improve would be to have more central play in the offensive third.

 

[KlaaZ]

On 27/01/2024 at 06:50, dubbed5 said:

I reinstalled FM13 and did a quick testing.

I picked the team predicted to finish 10th in the PL, Aston Villa.

I set up a simple 4-1-4-1 defensive tactic:
-Defensive mentality, rigid philosophy
-Deep defensive line, hold position, stand off (no pressing)
-More direct passing, slow tempo, counter attack on

 

Holidayed until end of the year, ticking on "use current tactic".
The team sat at a decent 7th place:

 

As you would expect from such a tactic, they had solid, reliable defense.
And they didn't score much (besides 2 lucky games against Reading and Q.P.R.).

 

FM13 felt like a tactical simulator, with balanced tactical styles. It was all logical.
Basically, ANY tactical style worked as long as you had the right players.
You could replicate almost any team's playing style.

I jumped back to FM24, using the same tactic with the 10th predicted PL team, West Ham.

 

Well, by the time I came back from my 6-month-long Hawaiian vacation, I was already sacked:

 

Notice zero clean sheets in the PL, often conceding 3-4 goals.

Okay, I decided to start a new save and test one of the official preset tactics.
These were made by SI games; surely they know what they are doing.
I picked the catenaccio, as I loved playing that style in FM13:

 

Logic would tell us that playing such a compact defensive formation, with defensive mentality will result in good defense.
Well, FM24 match engine disagrees:

 

Actually I was sacked earlier this time.
Look at those results, 0-4, 1-4, 0-4, 0-3. Oh my...

I was curious what happens if I use the mighty gegenpressing tactic with the same team:

 

Surprise, surprise, not only did I still have a job by the end of the year, but West Ham actually overachieved:

 

The funny thing is, even though playing a high tempo, high d-line attacking football as a mid-level team, they had a very solid defense:

 

Playing on defensive mentality and slow tempo is suicide in FM24.
Basically, sitting back and absorbing pressure doesn't work anymore.
The match engine is seriously unbalanced.
Use high tempo, pressing, balanced/positive/attacking mentality and you will overachieve.
Try anything else, and it's a struggle.

The guys at fm-arena did tons of testing, millions of simulated games in fair testing league.
The results are really eye-opening.

To counter your point, I just became champions of Belgium and won the cup in my opening season with a team predicted to end in 15th place, with only one additional signing. I played a mid block 3-4-2-1 on balanced almost the entire time. 

So no, not everything else is a struggle.

[JimmysTheBestCop]

How could the match engine be balanced when several 3rd party testing communities have confirmed year after year acceleration and pace are most impactful to match engine for every version. And the 3rd best attribute is miles behind. 

 

Our only hope is fm25 hopefully it was built from ground up and has new ideology

[Rodrigogc]

10 minutos atrás, JimmysTheBestCop disse:

How could the match engine be balanced when several 3rd party testing communities have confirmed year after year acceleration and pace are most impactful to match engine for every version. And the 3rd best attribute is miles behind. 

 

Our only hope is fm25 hopefully it was built from ground up and has new ideology

Yes, I've seen many tests regarding this. A guy promoted with Southampton bought only high acceleration and pace players and finished in 7th his first Premier league season after getting promoted. On the other hand, many teams that don't have fast players underperform, like Juventus and Fluminense (Brazil). It is just obvious how physical attributes have so much impact. I manage Adama Traore, he is only a fast player and has been racking up goals in Premier league with very low technical and mental attributes.

As for defenders, it seems like not even Tackling and marking are important anymore, since they will be passive anyway.

[Etebaer]

For this moment in time i found that the ability to win headers is paramount in the defense at least for my team!

As most of the time when my team loses tight games its mostly headers, penaltys and "impossible" shots the make my team lose, as long the quality delta is not way to big in favour of the oposing team.

Mental stats seem to have quite a say in this too, probably more than in every other FM so far.

[Mitja]

8 hours ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

Our only hope is fm25 hopefully it was built from ground up and has new ideology

From what I've read that's not going to happen unfortunately. In FM 19 I reported issue how fullbacks would never step up from defensive line to close down wingers no matter how aggressive the pressing instructions would be just like in FM 17 which had no such issues fullbacks would engage earlier if asked to. I don't know if this has been fixed it wasn't in FM 21. And this issue couldn't be that hard to fix since it worked normally before. 

What does it tell us? It's either the ME team don't know how to do it which I doubt. The other option is that they don't care.

[CaptainSa]

12 hours ago, JimmysTheBestCop said:

How could the match engine be balanced when several 3rd party testing communities have confirmed year after year acceleration and pace are most impactful to match engine for every version. And the 3rd best attribute is miles behind. 

Those experiments tell you nothing except that if you put in unrealistic attributes you get unrealistic results.

[dannyo666]

10 hours ago, Etebaer said:

For this moment in time i found that the ability to win headers is paramount in the defense at least for my team!

As most of the time when my team loses tight games its mostly headers, penaltys and "impossible" shots the make my team lose, as long the quality delta is not way to big in favour of the oposing team.

Mental stats seem to have quite a say in this too, probably more than in every other FM so far.

Ive found as long as a player has very good physicals and mentals this player will be amazing...even playing out of position-Seems technicals do not matter one bit any more in a simulation game

[NineCloudNine]

2 hours ago, CaptainSa said:

Those experiments tell you nothing except that if you put in unrealistic attributes you get unrealistic results.

I don’t agree with a lot of the criticism in this thread and you are right about unrealistic experiments. However, there is a long-standing issue with pace & acceleration being extremely powerful.

SI know this because those attributes have very high CA multipliers in positions where they matter most (forwards, on the flanks). That’s why so many pacy wingers have such low mentals in FM - there’s no CA left. Thus you get Ousmane Dembele with the physicals of an Olympic sprinter and the mentals of a small child. IRL an infuriating player, in FM a monster. It’s been like that for years.

Edited February 9 by NineCloudNine

[wazzaflow10]

2 hours ago, NineCloudNine said:

I don’t agree with a lot of the criticism in this thread and you are right about unrealistic experiments. However, there is a long-standing issue with pace & acceleration being extremely powerful.

SI know this because those attributes have very high CA multipliers in positions where they matter most (forwards, on the flanks). That’s why so many pacy wingers have such low mentals in FM - there’s no CA left. Thus you get Ousmane Dembele with the physicals of an Olympic sprinter and the mentals of a small child. IRL an infuriating player, in FM a monster. It’s been like that for years.

Wasn't this Theo Walcott? Amazing, blistering pace, incredible talent until injuries and age took it from him and then his poor technical/mental abilities made him virtually useless? I don't think there's anything wrong with physicals having more of an influence given the nature of the sport.

It seems (and this has been brought up by you in this thread) like the best counter to that is rather than trying to reconfigure the engine, energy and fitness should suffer greatly if you play every match at extreme tempos. I think players being asked to press high should see their fatigue drop faster than in currently does. Otherwise you risk playing the last 15-30 mins with players who are gassed and then the physical attributes aren't enough to compensate for the lack of mental/technical skills. 

Thinking back, I wonder if they tried this in 23 but the centrebacks were the ones losing fitness rather than the midfield and forwards causing it to be logged as a bug and eventually abandoned.

[Rodrigogc]

9 minutos atrás, wazzaflow10 disse:

Wasn't this Theo Walcott? Amazing, blistering pace, incredible talent until injuries and age took it from him and then his poor technical/mental abilities made him virtually useless? I don't think there's anything wrong with physicals having more of an influence given the nature of the sport.

Physicals having more influence is okay, but it seems like it should depend more on the player position. For instance, great DMs usually have great mentals, but those who lack the physicals should not suffer such a loss in performance due to that, in comparison with a winger who depends on physicals way more. Busquets has never been a physical player, had been for years the best DM in the world, but in FM he's always been average when playing, because the game could not simulate what he did properly. 

It has become too easy to sign great players in FM, because one starts seeing the obvious attributes that really matter. If you find a GK with great jumping reach, he will do well almost always. All the other positions, basically find players who are physical and that's it. Of course physicals are important for all positions, but football is more dynamic than that. There are countless  examples of great players who play well at high level without being fast or strong.

[NineCloudNine]

1 hour ago, wazzaflow10 said:

Wasn't this Theo Walcott? Amazing, blistering pace, incredible talent until injuries and age took it from him and then his poor technical/mental abilities made him virtually useless? I don't think there's anything wrong with physicals having more of an influence given the nature of the sport.

It seems (and this has been brought up by you in this thread) like the best counter to that is rather than trying to reconfigure the engine, energy and fitness should suffer greatly if you play every match at extreme tempos. I think players being asked to press high should see their fatigue drop faster than in currently does. Otherwise you risk playing the last 15-30 mins with players who are gassed and then the physical attributes aren't enough to compensate for the lack of mental/technical skills.

Pace and acceleration ARE deadly in football and there are players who rely on to them to cover for lesser technique/mentals. That's why when you get someone like Vinicius or the real Ronaldo who has the whole package, it's insane. So FM is in the right area, it's just extreme.

And yes you are right IMO to bring it back to fatigue and also injuries. Real Ronaldo, Dembele, Walcott, also Michael Owen ... all very injury-prone. Nothing causes torn muscles and tendons liks sprinting flat out and turning at speed, especially when fatigued. FM is waaaaaay too forgiving here.

Edited February 9 by NineCloudNine