Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About herne79

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

9,054 profile views
  1. Aggression encourages players to "get stuck in" to the action. This is how the Online Manual describes it: "This reflects a player’s attitude in terms of playing mentality but is not necessarily a dirtiness indicator. A more aggressive player will look to involve himself in every incident and get stuck in, perhaps at the expense of a yellow card or two. A less aggressive player may shy away from situations and merely drop into his comfort zone, waiting for the play to find him." So lots of Aggression in central defenders (to continue the example) may be a cause of stepping up out of line to make challenges - and thus potentially leaving space behind. When you play with a Defensive Midfielder this may not be quite so noticeable as you have that defensive screen, but I personally avoid high Aggression in a central defender if I'm not using a DM. As an aside, this is why I favour high levels of Aggression if using an aggressive role, such as a BWM. I don't really see the point of using a role that actively looks to "get stuck in" if the player's attribute will discourage that behaviour. And avoid "dirty" players at all costs, especially if they have high levels of Aggression. Look for coach/scout reports that indicate "high levels of competitiveness" - that's a dirty player .
  2. Yup . @Real Put a player with very high potential into a team already full of "galacticos" and he'll only have 3 or 4 stars because of who he's being compared to. Put that same player into lets say Las Palmas and he'll have 5 stars.
  3. Exactly as Cleon says. The names given to this individual role training are just labels used to define a collection of attributes to develop. So you're not training a "Target Man" (or whatever), you're developing a set of attributes which just happen to have been labelled as "Target Man". When developing players and setting individual role training, focus on the attributes you want to develop - not the name of the role .
  4. What does a stopper duty do? Further, have you set any additional closing down instructions from either using a Team Instruction and/or an aggressive mentality? Do any of your central defenders have a high Aggression attribute (which can act like a natural press)?
  5. @Seb Wassell Would it be fair to assume the same principles apply to unlearning a Trait as they do to learning one? @Keyzer Soze In your save is Gedson still a young player or are you many years in the future and he's ageing? (Age plays a part in Trait learning - it becomes progressively harder as players age).
  6. They're using an in game editor to view the hidden numbers.
  7. ok, one last try. From the opening post: If you want to play in a realistic fashion you can do that today with FM18. Want to take Levante to the La Liga title over the course of a few seasons? You can. Want to take Barcelona to Champions League glory with a tiki taka style system? You can. Want to use an old fashioned English type of 4-4-2? You can. Want to employ an Italian Sweeper system? You can. Want a Brazilian Box? You can. Want to do a load of other "realistic" things? You can. So what precisely does building the ME to get IRL tactics "a better success rating" actually mean? Because you can use IRL tactics today and achieve great success. However, there are of course limitations and room for improvement. Pressing especially could use some work to name but one area. Tactical descriptions are another (and a particular bug bear of mine). We're not in a game world of perfection but if we so desire we can play - today - in a "realistic" fashion. That's not to say what you see in the match engine and 3D graphics engine will always be a 100% accurate reflection of real life. As complex as they are, they're not that good. But you can certainly set your game up to reflect real life with the intention of playing in as much of a real life style simulation as you can. Conversely of course, if somebody wants to play in an unrealistic manner to help them over achieve more immediate success, they can do that as well. We're free to choose how we want to play. The AI switching to these "fishing" tactics if they're struggling for a goal has also been mentioned. But why shouldn't the AI do that? If I were needing a goal, especially in an important match, I'd probably throw on an extra attacker or two, go more direct and try to pressurise the opposition defence into submission. Teams can do that in real life as well. What's unrealistic about it? Wouldn't it be more unrealistic if the AI didn't do that? If we don't know how to cope with that strategy when/if the AI does "go fishing", isn't that part of our learning curve? Does Mourinho in real life just carry on regardless and ignore things when the opposition are chasing a goal and throw on attackers? Or does he bring on 6 defenders and withdraw everyone into their own half to protect the lead? Yes some of the ME issues don't exactly help us when we're trying to cope with this in a match, but it's nowhere near an impossibility. If it were, only AI managers would ever win anything. The only unrealistic thing I see in this thread is the ability of people to heavily over achieve by constantly employing your so-called "fishing" tactics. And what's so wrong with that if that's how they want to play?
  8. a) Why shouldn't it be successful? Just because it's not "realistic"? Because it isn't "real life"? You'd prefer a TC/ME that only reflects realism? That'll alienate a sizeable chunk of the player base. b) Define "bad". In this context it's coming back to the same realism / not realism argument as above. c) Yeh it is unrealistic, but we aren't purely dealing with realism. Some in this thread seem to only want realism. That's fair enough if you do, but what about others? Why? Some people want to play like that. Others don't. Why take away the choice? Taking Levante to win La Liga over a realistic period of time is already possible. Why do you think it isn't? The fastest way may be to field some unrealistic formation, but it is quite definitely not the only way to do it, at least over a realistic time period. I want to address this as I'm apparently being disrespectful to certain people and "pretending" things (ie., I'm lying). I'm fully aware of the posts these guys (and others) make, probably more so than most people. I've never said "it's just about winning games", pretence or not. Why you are twisting my words I don't know, but it isn't appreciated and I suggest you stop doing it. Any comments I've made in this thread are about this topic, nothing else. And that topic is, to quote the OP: All I am saying is why should we no longer have the choice of having "unrealistic tactics"? I've also made comment where people believe they are "forced" into using these tactics. If you want an almost guaranteed quick win then sure. If that isn't what you want then we are absolutely not forced into anything unless we are attempting to do something that the TC/ME is simply not capable of. There's plenty of that and the people you quote above (and others) post about such capabilities. Yes, the TC can be improved. Yes the ME can be improved. That's not even a debate. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about choice, plain and simple. And you both seem to want that choice removed.
  9. @RBKalle Wow, you've not only taken something completely out of context but also completely missed the point. Good job .
  10. ok a different perspective. If you want to play with a "silly formation" with 3 strikers "lazing away" up front, you can. Many people who play this game only want to do that. They just want the next "winning tactic". For whatever reason that's all they want to do, it's how they have fun and good luck to them. On the flip side, many other people want to play the game in a more "realistic" way. And they can absolutely do that too and have fun playing in that manner. I'm actually quite pleased the game, tactics creator and match engine are flexible enough to allow us all to play the game how we want to - how we enjoy it. Nobody gets excluded based on their own game play preferences. I think that's pretty cool and would much rather have a game like that than one that actively tries to stop some people having fun. Can you imagine the outcry if SI removed that flexibility? So, when you say things like: Success based on what? You want to be able to use an "IRL tactic" to take Levante to the La Liga title in season one just as the 3 striker tactic did? That wouldn't reflect the "realism" that you are after though. Alternatively perhaps you want this "new ME build" to allow you to take Levante to the La Liga title over a period of time in a realistic manner? Well you can do that today, right now. You already have all the tools you need to do that.
  11. Sure no problem. Perhaps best to wait until you've actually tried the system to see what works (or not) so you can share the problems you are having as well (if any).
  12. FM17 tactics in FM18?

    If you're asking about tactics you've been downloading, you're better off asking in the downloads section . In general though the core principles rarely change much, so what works one year should by and large (possibly with the odd tweak here and there) work the next.
  13. And I got Plymouth Argyle (predicted to finish bottom of League One) promoted in my first season using a 4-4-2 variant. Also unrealistic. A friend of mine took San Marino to Champions League glory without using a 3 striker formation. Unrealistic as well. If you want to go for a 3 striker formation, you can. But you're not forced to, which is what you are saying above. Is it easier? Some people think so sure, but nowhere near the impossibility you believe. I only look at one, which is the one I help moderate https://community.sigames.com/forum/19-tactics-training-strategies-discussion/ and the one I suggested above that people visit if they want help or to see plenty of others successfully not using 3 striker formations.
  14. Exactly as TMS says above. Some people may find it "easier" to set up and have success with a 3 striker formation, but that does not equate to being forced down that road. Take a quick look at the emulations / recreations pinned at the top of the Tactics forum - not a single 3 striker formation. Have a look at the current great threads from Cleon for example - again you won't find a 3 striker formation there either. Personally I've never used a 3 striker formation, nor felt the need to. I've mainly been playing 4-4-2 variants for the last 3 iterations of FM, whilst dabbling with 4231s and 4123DMs. All I'd suggest is that if you can only find success with a 3 striker formation but you want to use something else and can't because it all goes to hell, look for help in the Tactics forum .
  15. Yes. As ever, balance things with the rest of your set up but yes you can absolutely use 2 x Carrileros in a diamond.