Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Smx

  • Rank
    Spartak Moscow Researcher

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hey. I'm from Russia. Sorry for my English. I play in Brazil. I imposed a ban on transfers in the first transfer window. However, almost the end of my first season (winter and summer transfer window behind). My academy in Gremio has released some great young players. But I can not sign contracts with them. The following ban for me: Is this a bug? A day from the current date (10/21/2018) my young players leave hom How is the signing of graduates of the Academy related to transfer bans?
  2. If wide midfielders do not have instructions to hold the ball, then a task less dribbling will also work
  3. I'm from Russia. Sorry for my English. I get your idea. I will try to help you. The first thing I would change is the wingers. I would use wide midfielders instead. Wide support midfielders have no instructions. Therefore, you can customize them as you wish. For your idea, I would recommend: hold the ball and stay wider. About the instructions to hold the ball, I will explain below. In the center of the midfield, I would use two mezzal for support. And on the edges of the protection of two wingbacks on support. In this case, the defensive midfielder, I would set the duty to defend. Or I would use a deep playmaker. If you have such a player. He would provide the connection between the flanks. I would use the balance or positive mentality for the team. In the team instructions, I would set to play wider and wait for underlap. In combination with the instructions to hold the ball at wide midfielders, this would give you the desired effect. Your wide players would create width and pause before a decision. Due to this, they would be able to wait for the offensive movement from wingbacks and mezzalas.
  4. @herne79 This is all a formality. The mentality is still the key setting in the game. And the team shape is still present. Only it depends on the duties. And the mentality of one player can influence the mentality of others and change shape. If the shape had been removed completely, this would not have happened. So that in one situation the trequartista is on balance, and in the other on the attack. Although the mentality of the team has not changed.
  5. For more extreme. Begenning from balance. For example, in the defensive mentality support = cautious, and attack = balance. And this is a smooth transition. And in balance support = balance, and attack = attack, but no positive. But there may still be a dependence of the duties on each other and on how much a team fluidity is obtained. Changing the duties of one player can change the duties of other players, if the team fluidity changes. Example: This is a gradual transition from support (balance) to attack (positive). I change the wingback to attack. Team fluidity is changing. The duties is changing of trequartista on attack They said they removed the team shape. But it is not. The mentality structure now simply lives on its own
  6. Oh. If everything depended only on the roles) Now the situation is such that changing a duties for one player can influence not only his mentality, but also the mentality of other players. It looks like an unassembled constructor)
  7. @herne79 I forgot the team shape) But the current mentality of attacking players does not look quite logical. Their mentality is too aggressive in comparison with support. At the same time, support and defence are very close to each other. If we talk about roles. In fact, you tell me: do not use these roles, use others; adapt to the game. I could use for example an advanced playmaker on support. This will bring more balance, but the role itself acts differently than a trequartista. And a treruqartista role is unique. So why should I refuse it? It seems strange) In the game I want to use the maximum of what is available. But it turns out that due to the fact that it is impossible to correct the mentality, I will have to give up some roles. Because the game forces me to do this. And if we talk about balance, this is not a problem with third-party settings (tempo, pass and etc). This is the problem of the ladder mentality that is now.
  8. @herne79 ok. One of my tactics in FM18: I used the control mentality and very fluid a team shape. It gave me a good balance. Even despite the fact that three players in advanced positions had an attacking mentality. I could also control the mentality of trequartista and raumdauter, making the mentality less due to the setting "look for overlap". The difference in mentality between the most defensive player and the most attacking player was small: In the end, I had a balance and very diverse football due to such specific roles as trequartista, raum and f9. When using such a combination of roles and duties in FM19, all I get is chaos and disorder due to too much difference in mentality. For example, the gap between my defensive central midfielder and trequartista obviously much more than before.
  9. I think if the SI removed the team shape, then the logic of the distribution of mentality should be as "step by step." However, step by step, this is only a transition from defence to support. For example, the defensive duties = cautious, the support duties = balance. But the transition from support to attack is no longer a step, but a leap. The support duties = balance, but atacking duties = atacking, but not positive.
  10. You're right. FM is not a math. And I also do not sit with a calculator when I play. I do not know if you will understand me because of bad English. I am not looking for any magic formulas. I touched on a problem that appeared in FM19. The lack of a team shape does not allow managing the personal mentality of the players. And for me the problem is that players with attacking duties have too high mentality compared to support. As a result, if I use a lot of players in advanced positions with an attacking duties, they become isolated from others. The support group just does not have time to assist them because of the gap in mentality. The same thing happens in the transition to defense. The support and defense group begins to defend too deeply in relation to the attack group. This limits the choice of attacking roles. Im can play with support. But I don’t want to play with support when I need for example a trequartista and raumdauter. It seems to me that the mentality of the attacking players is incorrectly coded. Where their mentality must be attacking, they have a very attacking one, where a positive mentality is attacking.
  11. Hey. I'm from Russia. Sorry for bad english. I created this topic I want to know why the mentality of attacking duties is much more advanced compared to other duties? Example, defensive duties = balanced (example = 11), support duties = positive (example = 13) and atacking duties = very atacking (example 17), but not atacking (example = 15). Why? Previously, it was possible to bring together mentalities through a team shape. But now players with attacking duties are too isolated from other players. This happens because there is no a smooth transition between support duties and atacking duties. Is this a bug?
  12. @Rashidi oh... in atacking team mentality a players with support duty = positive but not atacking (= team mentality). But is part of the problem. At any one team mentalities a players with atacking duty have got a mentlity which much more than other duties. Example, in balanced team mentality a support duty = balanced, but atacking duty = atacking, but no positive. In defensive team mentality a support duty = cautious, but atacking duty = positive (if not forward), but no balanced. As a result, when in advanced positions a lot players with atacking duty, that a lines isolated from each other. This is due to a big gap in mentality. This is not corrected due to the lack of a team shape. This is like a coding error in the game. Because when setting duties no transition from support to attack. Example, defend duty = very defensive (defensive team mentality), support duty = cautious (defensive team mentality) and atacking duty = positive (forward with atacking duty = ataсking), but no balanced. Numerically, it looks like this. 4, 6 and abruptly 10 (no forwards with atacking duty) or 12 (forwards with atacking duty), but not 8 or 10. This requires the use of a large number of support duties to a balance and complicates the principles of playing with a large number of players with attacking duties in advanced positions.
  13. @Rashidi Your example with formulas is very good. I think now you finally understand what I asked) Now in the game like this: Team mentality = attacking = 17 Attack Duty players in attacking team mentality: 17+X (=3) = 20 = very attacking mentality Support Duty players in attacking team mentality: 17 - X (=3) = 14 = positive mentality Defend Duty players in attacking team mentality: 17 - X(=6) = 11 = balanced mentality Why no dutys mentality = a team mentality? Why is the formula different, for example: Attack Duty or Support Duty = team mentality? There is a big difference in mentality between players of support and players of attack.
  14. Ok guys. Thank you. My english very bad. Maybe I seem stupid because of this. I know what a mentality is. My question is not about that. I will try again to explain. Team mentality = attacking Players mentality = balanced (defence duty). positive (support), very atacking (attack duty) Why not transitional atacking mentality between positive and very atacking? This does not allow a gradual transition from one mentality to another in the ladder of mentalities. Attacking players have a higher command mentality. This is strange. This too removes them from the players (support and protection), whose mentality is lower than the command one. As a result, in the type of football that I want to play, the lines are isolated from each other. I cannot balance this due to the lack of structure (team shape). If we consider any team mentality, then the attacking players are too detached from the team basis. Example: team = balanced, player with attack duty (no striker) = attacking mentality. That is much higher than the basic mentality. Why not positive? As a result, due to the over-inflated mentality of attacking players in all strategies and in the absence of team shape, this makes it impossible to use many attacking roles. This forces more support to bring mentalities closer to each other. But I do not want to do that. For me, the mentality of the attacking players seems too high. Understand me, guys?)
  15. Im know this is a mentality. You do not understand me. Excuseme. My question is about the mentality of the team and the mentality of the players. My team is an attacking mentality, but my players with attacking debt are a very attacking mentality. Why? Why not attack the mentality of players with attacking duties?
  • Create New...