Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 "You're a bum, Rock"

About darthrodent

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm a little confused here insofar as training impacts relate to player attributes. So let's take Attacking Wings and the Anticipation attribute. 60% is conferred upon the attacking unit while only 20% is conferred upon the defensive unit. So for argument's sake, let's say both units start with attribute zero. Does this mean that for every 6 points the attacking unit gains, the defensive unit gains only 2? I'm confused as to how the percentage relates to player attributes...
  2. One final question then I'll leave it for the evening. How does your team type govern the fluidity you're going to use? Are there collections of players—in other words, teams—that are more suited to a more or less rigid style? Might it be possible for an FM Expert to come along and say something like, "I can see the issue here, this team simply has to play Very Fluid." My own overarching philosophy when it comes to FM is to never make a decision that doesn't have a good reason behind it. Most everything I do in the game is based on some sort of inference that I deem to be rational, logical, and sound. I could literally walk you through any of my systems and tell you precisely why he is set to that role or why he is a Half-Back or why a box-to-box midfielder is a more logical choice in that situation. However, once we reach fluidity, all logic breaks down for me. It's like being on the edge of a black hole at the event horizon; one more step and the laws of physics and time as we know it breaks down. Can someone please get me away from the black hole?!
  3. Steve, I don't know how well you know football (you sound very knowledgable) but do you reckon you could pick out five real teams—one per Fluidity setting—and briefly discuss in FM terms? So, one team you think plays Very Rigid, one you think plays Rigid, one Balanced, and so on you get the idea. I know it's a lot to ask, mate, but I think it would be a real big help with understanding the game. Believe it or not I'm a pretty smart lad, but this fluidity thing has got me stumped. It doesn't matter how many times I go over it, I just can't friggin get it! To open the floor up to the rest of you knowledgable so-and-sos, I'm going to list two different teams and if you could speak to those teams a little bit in terms of fluidity explaining the hows and whys I'd be grateful. Here goes: Man Utd's infamous 1998-99 season 4-4-2 system: ---------Yorke---Cole---------- --------------------------------- Giggs-----------------Beckham --------------------------------- ---------Keane-Scholes------- --------------------------------- Irwin-Johnsen-Stam-Neville --------------------------------- ---------Schmeichel----------- Chelsea's Current 4-2-3-1: ---------------Eto-------------- --------------------------------- --Hazard----Oscar----Mata-- --------------------------------- -----Ramirez---Lampard----- --------------------------------- -Cole-Terry--Luiz--Ivanovic- --------------------------------- -------------Cech--------------
  4. First question, Steve: Do you notice your team plays as "more of a consolidated unit" the more Fluid the system is? From what I've read the strikers of fluid teams defend and the defenders attack.
  5. This is great, Steve, thanks very much, mate. Let me just digest your thoughts and I'll get back to you with questions if that's coolio.
  6. That's very interesting. Are you saying that Hold position affects the latitudinal (fancy way of saying up and down or north and south) behaviour of players in both directions depending upon position and role? In other words, Hold Position for a midfielder means "Don't venture forward" while Hold Position for a centre back (CB) means "Don't venture backwards." You see, in my opinion, it's the interpretation of these things that is misleading and does a disservice to the truth around the game. For the life of me I can't notice a difference between my CB with either a Stopper or Cover duty, I've tested and tested this and they behave identically as far as I can tell. But go to the Tactics Forum and I guarantee you'll hear people talking about how there is a difference, completely contrary to my own observation. I'm noticing actually that a lot of instructions have effects that are so infinitesimally small that you need a high-powered microscope to detect them, or there are a collection of instructions that don't do anything at all. I'm willing to accept that there are other tactical factors that override individual settings; perhaps defenders simply do not behave like a covering defender if you're playing a very high line. Well if that's the case then the game should communicate that to you or the option to Hold Position should be grayed out or coloured red as though it's conflicting. The point of this thread was to have discussions like this, but alas it never took off with any interest.
  7. You could make me watch 10 full matches at random of any team under the condition that five of those games the team has a Very Rigid setup and five of those games Very Fluid. I highly doubt I'd be able to distinguish between the rigid and fluid tactics—and that's the crux of the issue for me at least. If I don't know the effects—can't actually see them—of implementing more fluid or more rigid systems, then why am I going to choose anything other than Balanced? When choosing fluid systems, I don't see my team defending any more or less of a unit than rigid systems, and conversely by choosing rigid systems I don't see my team split up into discrete units any more than I do from fluid systems. So. Until someone can tell me, unequivocally, evidenced using match engine screenshots or video clips, I'll carry on under the assumption that it doesn't matter in the slightest, because quite frankly that's how it appears to me right now. That goes for Creative Freedom too. I couldn't tell you the difference between those players who have full license of expression and those kept on a leash. If someone could change that in this thread, I'd be a most happy chappy.
  8. To summarise Fluidity: Rigid —Defenders Defend —Midfielders support both Defence and Attack —Attackers Attack —Freedom of expression outside of tactical framework is limited —Mentalities governed only somewhat by player position and duty —Mentalities vary only slightly from defender to defender, midfielder to midfielder, and attacker to attacker What does this mean? +Players stick more to team instructions allowing for higher degree of user control +More disciplined team, more likely to keep shape +Well suited to a player base with lower Mental and Technical attributes +Works well for systems with non-flat lines such as 4-1-2-2 or 4-4-2 Diamond –Limited Creative Freedom may stifle chance creation –Similar Mentalities; doesn't lend itself to "between the lines" positioning –Opponents can easily expose "between the lines" in flat systems like the 4-4-2 –Systems such as the 4-2-3-1 are vulnerable since attacking players won't track back Fluid —Defensive and Attacking responsibilities shared across the team —Players in all positions will have closely matching Mentalities matching team Mentality —Defensive systems should ensure Attackers can Defend, while Attacking systems should ensure Defenders can Attack —Freedom of expression outside of tactical framework is promoted and encouraged What does this mean? +Team is more compact—due to closer-matching Mentalities—allowing for flatter systems such as the 4-4-2 +Intelligent, creative, and mentally-gifted players can thrive +Team attacks and defends as a unit and play is more varied and unpredictable–User cedes a significant amount of control –Unpredictable effects –Without the correct types of player, system could fail –Attack can prove ineffective and Defense can prove vulnerable Fluidity and Roles —Team Fluidity is directly proportional to role redundancy because all players are expected to contribute in all areas —Team Rigidity promotes specific role instruction and, therefore, user control.
  9. Brilliant, mate. Please post your progress and any observations you make. That's PRECISELY the type of thinking I'm trying to promote here: "Freeing Up" a position. I'm about to start a new game myself with a dodgy-looking 4-4-2 hybrid thingy! If it has potential I'll post about it. If it fails miserable I'll just pretend that I "don't have much time to play these days."
  10. While your point about match engine (ME) exploitation is well met, I have to disagree with your point on realism. During my playing days at various levels (and I know for a fact that teams do this at the highest level), we would spend hours on shadow play. You're probably aware of what that is, but in case you're not, our first XI would line up in the system we were playing next game and the rest of the squad would line up in the system our scouts predicted the opposition would play next. Very much like the old tactical grid, we'd walk through our positional responsibilities based on what "quadrant" the ball was in—we'd do this for both attack and defence and I HATED it because I just wanted to play. However, I understood the merits of it and how important it was for our team and I think that by implementing something like this in FM would actually be closer to real-life. I'm sure the geniuses at SI would be able to counteract any ME exploits and a player's ability to follow those instructions would have to be based on the level of facilities, coaching staff, and player attributes. I think it would be a nice way to link training and match-day. Right now I still feel as though there is a distinct lack of tactical control where the player is still limited to a rigid instruction set—If I want my Centre Back to sit on the right wing when the ball is by the opponent's corner flag I think I should be given the control to allow that to happen.
  11. I'm actually all for it. Us elder generation of FM'ers will indeed hark back to a time when there was such an option for the positioning of your players. I LOVED the tactical grid where you could position your team (possession and non-possession) based on where the ball was on the pitch; it's the one feature I feel FM is crying out for. I can but dream… However, if you take a team like Barcelona, when they're on the ball they are laborious in possession, slow, patient, and lazy—TEMPO: SLOW. Yet as soon as they lose the ball they are terrier-like, fast, and full of energy—TEMPO: FAST. In other words, Barcelona has both a possession and non-possession tempo. I see no reason why Attack and Defence can not be split into two instruction sets. In fact, I think SI should seriously consider doing just that.
  12. I wonder if a PPM such as 'Gets Forward When Possible' or 'Arrives Late in the Box' would be a decent choice for an aggressive Half Back? I quite like how he becomes an extra man in midfield at times...
  13. Nick, were you already playing this system before I started this thread, mate? With Everton too? Great minds really do think alike! I mean, this system is identical -- at least in shape -- to the one I set up...
  14. In typical SI fashion (sorry SI, but it's true), FM 14's manual is passable at best and the new "hover" tool-tips -- useful to an extent -- don't delve deep enough to the extent I know how all the tactical "pieces" fit together, i.e., Player Instructions and Player Role. I've said it many times before that I'm a big proponent of FM's ambiguity and that there's a fine line between providing instructional documentation and a "spoon-feeding-paint-by-numbers" recipe for success. However, I don't think it's acceptable there are certain tactical instructions whose effects elude me. Imagine dishing out final tactical instructions to your Central Midfielder (CM) before a game: Manager: Okay, so I want you to play direct, risky passes, and dribble with the ball when you can. Oh, and Run Wide With the Ball as often as you can too. Central Midfielder: Do you mean run down the wing with it, boss? Sort of like a winger? Manager: I'm not actually sure to be honest. I may mean run wid-ER as in off-centre, i.e., don't dribble up the gut, but I might also mean dribble down the byline as in overlapping the winger like a Full Back does. But then again, I might simply mean that after receiving the ball in the middle of the park, dribble with the ball laterally for a moment or two... Central Midfielder: You mean to say that you're not entirely sure what it is you're actually instructing me to do? Manager: Errm, that's pretty much what's going on here, son, yes. In other words, the idea that a coach wouldn't know what instructions he was giving out to his team members is preposterous; but with SI's obligatory lack of documentation I feel it's tantamount to just that. And I know that the tool-tips are supposed to help and they do -- at times -- but the information the tips provide don't always appear logical to every given situation. The option for a CM to Run Wide With the Ball is one such example. I'm hoping -- with your help -- to build a glossary/reference guide for every seemingly illogical, curious instruction related to every single role. I think it's fair to abide by the logic that those instructions that are not grayed out are fair game for that particular role and, therefore, must have an in-game effect -- otherwise why would they not be grayed out? I'm hoping that through collaboration we can build a reference guide that can help new and experienced players alike. I fall into the latter category and I have to admit that I'm puzzled by some of the tactical options I have at my disposal. I'll get started: Position: Central Defender Duty: Cover Logical Available Player Instructions: Shoot More Often, Pass it Shorter, More Direct Passes, More Risky Passes, Close Down More, Tackle Harder, Ease Off Tackles, Mark Tighter Illogical Available Player Instructions and Descriptions Get Further Forward Description: Get further forward encourages players to adopt a more attacking mentality and seek to make an impact on the game in advanced areas. Comments: I understand the idea that a CB can have a more attacking mentality, encouraging him to play more forward passes as opposed to side to side, however; does the CB push up into attacking areas seeking to make an impact on the game in advanced areas? Has anyone witnessed this? Hold Position Description: Hold position requires players to remain largely in their assigned position and rarely deviate from it. Whilst others may roam or swap positions with others, players asked to hold will remain in place. Comments: I'd never expect my CB to swap positions with others or roam from position, so what does Hold Position actually do then? Surely by definition your CBs hold their positions? The Hold Position instruction sounds like a preventative instruction, but what does it prevent in terms of your CBs?
  15. When I play Football Manager I try to glean as much information as I can from the vast amounts of data I have at my fingertips. That endeavour can, at times, be difficult; difficult because it isn't always apparent what data and information relates to the many other facets of the game—this is not a complaint; I really enjoy the ambiguity of the Football Manager series. There are many things I don't know about the game and as such I'm left with no alternative but to speculate and hypothesise. Case in point—Goal Times. I have two overarching questions: 1. What do the periods in which you score the most goals say about your team or the character of your team, if anything at all? 2. What do the periods in which you concede the most goals say about your team or the character of your team, if anything at all? Could it be that the times you both concede and score say nothing at all? In other words, the line of reasoning goes something like this: I score most of my goals between minutes 61 and 75; therefore I score most of my goals between minutes 61 and 75; a ridiculous tautology. What I'm looking to do is to discover something—anything—about the character of my team. A more useful line of reasoning could be as follows: I score most of my goals between minutes 76 and 90; therefore my team is very determined in nature. Keeping in mind that many goals may be scored or conceded later on in a match due to a tactical change as a consequence of chasing the game, what does it say about one's team if (I'll use extremes in an attempt to avoid random goals): 1. It scores 90% of its goals between 1-15 minutes? 2. It concedes 90% of its goals between 1-15 minutes? 3. It scores 90% of its goals between 76-90 minutes? 4. It concedes 90% of its goals between 76-90 minutes? Does anyone have any insight? Does anyone actually pay attention to this data? If so, what types of things do you change tactically, and what do you think this data says about your team's personality or character? On the other hand is it all just completely random?
  • Create New...