Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

OBONGO

Members
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About OBONGO

  • Rank
    Amateur
  1. Yeah but then they are not forwards anymore, which is what the op wanted, are they...
  2. The menu button is not available on one of those screens. What you can do however is click on a team so that the usual team profile etc. screens show - the menu will be there as usual.
  3. Sure, lots of things can be gathered from viewing a game, but I think you should know what it is you are asking your players to do before you ask them?
  4. Thanks again, I really think we could use some official clarification on the bars and their relative size/effect/etc. Like what - if there is any - difference is there between a short bar that is Mixed and another that is still Mixed but is way way wider and a bit more to the left/right etc. Not just with passing, but all the settings basically. As for the defensive line I do understand varying tactics have varied starting points, what I meant was aimed specifically at the representation of the d-line in the tactics screen. I assume that because the pitch is pictured, it does indeed show just how deep/high the desired line is supposed to be, like "right there on the halfway line" or "all the way deep down at the edge of the area"... which would seem fairly obvious, except with other sliders like closing down apparently being relative (as in "abstract" and not literally shown using a "1:1" picture) I was unsure.
  5. Thanks HUNT3R, well you say you "don't see why it matters" but the thing is I sort of want to know what it is I am asking my players to do before I tell them to do something, hence my questions. Closing down - so the default value changes with tactics, but the bar is not a "real" representation of "how far", meaning that if I pick Standard, the highest possible defensive line and maximum closing down, I will close down much sooner than if I picked the standard defensive line, despite the Closing down bars being of equal length? Good to know, I sort of suspected as much but was not sure. What about the defensive line, is that also just an indication like with Closing down, or is it an actual representation of where on the pitch it will be (or try to anyway)? Having the pitch displayed suggests to me the latter, but apparently with CD it is the former so I am curious Passing - I have a vague idea that the passing is not uniform across the team, yeah. But, say, Contain and Overload clearly have differently sized passing "bars". Are these sizes and positions indicative of something? They are noticeably different even on Mixed, so what would the actual difference, if any, be? Would it be, I don't know, the average of the passing range or something like that? Or would the upper range of the bar show the maximum average passing range, meaning that on Contain, even the more direct passers will pass it shorter than most players on Overload, because their bar ends well before the Contain's begins? Or take the pass shorter instruction on Contain, it is very, very tiny. Does it mean the difference between defending and attacking players' passing range is gonna be much, much lower because it is such a tiny bar (i.e. even the defenders will play it shorter than virtually in any other tactic, and the attackers even shorter than usual)? Or is it just a representation of "everyone will pass a bit shorter than usual"? As for the BWM thing - even on flexible, the BWM's "passing slider" is very short, but labelled Mixed. a CM(S) is also on Mixed, but like twice "as long". And, in order to be just as long, the BWM has to be put on "more direct". Hence the question whether the visual representation is indicative of how expansive their passing will be (BWM's Mixed = rather short, CM's Mixed = balanced, BWM More Direct = sort of like CM Mixed, you get the idea). Or whether it is just a fancy button and Mixed is Mixed regardless of what it looks like.
  6. Not sure how else to word the question. Are the changes in the various sliders in tactical instructions just visual, or are they practical? I am pretty sure they are mostly practical – but I am not entirely sure, so I would welcome a clarification. That is, will a Mixed passing directness in Contain be the same kind of Mixed as in Attacking? Or is Attacking-Mixed a more direct passing style because its "slider" is about 20 percent more "to the right" than in Contain? Does the basic closing down value in Overload mean pressing from the same "height" as the one in Counter? Or is there an actual difference of close to third of a pitch length, as shown by the pretty graphic? Now these first two would seem to me fairly obviously "practical", judging by previous FMs etc. But does a BWM have the same passing range on Mixed as a CM, despite the BWM "slider" being only a third of the CM's? Or does the BWM's have to be on "more direct passing" to have the same range as a CM on mixed passing? And is it the same kind of passing, since these two "slider lenghts" are the same? Or is there a difference by the virtue of the BWM being "more direct", albeit "same value"? And is an Anchorman's passing "about 10 percent less direct" and RGA's "a bit more direct" than that of a DLP, as the "slider" suggests? On all other vanilla settings obviously as these values change. Oh and one last thing, if they are indeed practical, are they literal? Like, can only think of the defensive line/closing down right now, is the tactical tool an actual representation of the defensive line ("roughly in front of our area" and "right from the halfway line"), or an abstraction ("not much" and "hella much")?
  7. One thing (strictly speaking it's two...) I'd love for FM to emulate from the real life is... 'tendencies' or 'player experience'? I'm not really sure how to put it. Right now there are player prefered moves. What I'd love is for players to have a much deeper personality on the pitch. More (waaaay more) PPMs, even almost but not quite cosmetic ones. Assuming player attributes are strictly about how competent a player is in a given skill, then players with 10 in all attributes will be the same. But with different 'tendencies', these would then slightly tweak how that skill is used. What he likes or does not like to do. Potential for synergy with proper tactics (or interesting problems with conflicting ones). And even go a step further and incorporate that into the player's development. Been played as a quick winger in an attacking tactic all his youth career? Well, he'll get a set of traits which dictate he is used to that. His natural game will be hugging the line, running up and down, whipping a cross - not playing a more relaxed, lower tempo, narrower, passing game. Right now if he has the numbers, he'll be equally good. Even if he has never played 'like that' before. I'd love if this sort of 'roleplaying' element, these 'tendencies' were present on the competition/club/management level as well. Things like a much more pronounced domestic player bias, a 'feeder' league, things like that. Like, right now the, I don't know, Polish or Czech leagues are what, 95 percent domestic? But in the game a couple of years down the road they get filled with foreigners disproportionately. At the same time, Czech players don't really leave for the Premier League anymore. BuLi, if they are good enough. Or managerial preferences - these could again tie in with the player 'experience', maybe someone likes salt of the earth proper English hard men, someone prefers southern technique, you get the idea...
  8. I don't mind there being a set in stone PA, simply because you don't really know it. However right now it feels very easy to develop players. Just get some who aren't absolutely rotten, and play them. I'd prefer if player development was much more wild. If player form was reflected in attributes, if attributes changed more often. Both ways. I'd love for much greater swings in attributes overall. Right now it feels like there's only one way for the attributes to move, and that's relatively slowly up (assuming PA hasn't been hit/player isn't old). Few if any ups and downs, just a gradual improvement. No reasons to go beyond the numbers you see (and maybe the personality reports, obviously). Like, why would anyone ever buy an in form striker in FM if you can see he has 10s across the board if there's a guy available with 13s. Now if the former guy was actually on an 'attribute upswing', then I might get him. It might be a risk because it might be a temporary boost, sure. It might add some depth, trying to foster and keep his form up, things like that. Or things like early peakers, late bloomers. I feel there just isn't enough variety. Or rather it is not pronounced, visible, 'tangible' nowhere near enough. Also more 'wild' and 'variety' goes for other aspects of the game, like player development, feels like it's extremely rare (or does it ever happen?) for players to undergo shifts in 'skillsets' or positions etc. unless you mould them yourself... but you have guys like Bale, Jankulovski, Lahm in real life, that's what I mean.
  9. I love the idea of more clarity - even though I rather dislike the 'gamey' or 'arcadey' presentation suggested originally - but as years and years of FM titles have shown us, giving the players actual understanding how the game and its mechanics work is not a direction SI want to take. Which I think is a shame because ultimately you cannot employ the same real world 'football common sense' to what is a piece of software with a particular set of limits and a particular interpretation of that 'common sense'. Well to be fair you definitely can in many things, but not entirely. You just have to hope that stat X does what you think it does, because there is no official confirmation, you don't know if it does anything, or if it does, how much. And you have no way of figuring it out because like someone in this thread said, you would have to run thousands and thousands of tests to find out whether having X, Y and Z a point or two higher is worth it, if there's a difference. I understand the developers wanting to take the game in a more 'generic', 'conceptual' direction, but it is just so infuriating and annoying when the game is clearly aimed towards that end, but at the same time firmly rooted in a very 'calculated', 'non-generic' core. Incidentally this is rather prominent in the tactical side of the game, where a lot of options basically have you asking the players to play a certain way - without a priori knowing what it is you are actually asking them to do! Do X more. How much more. More than what? What is baseline X? I am kind of hoping the new 'visualized' tactical screen will help in this regard but I am also pretty sure those hopes are in vain, as the visualization will just be another label for 'slightly more' and not 'start pressing from halfway in the opposition half' or something like that...
  10. Someone from reddit has put my thoughts about the GK video into words: (from: https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/comments/3pt9ca/fm16_match_engine_goalkeepers/)
  11. This is strangely familiar but I can't quite remember, have you abided by all the squad composition rules - specifically number of goalkeepers?
  12. This is why we need proper documentation, an actually useful manual, an explanation of game concepts FM is a video game which appears to have a lot of popular knowledge or common sense (related to football). Like, "everybody" knows what direct passing is, what fitness training is, you get the idea. But it is still a video game with a particular set of mechanics which means there is just one way of interpreting that "common sense". And if you fail to guess that one single correct particular interpretation it is detrimental to the game. You aim for fitness training in the preseason, which is an entirely logical assumption in a game about football coaching, right? But what you are apparently actually doing is wasting three weeks of ingame training (because it takes months to kick in - or does it?), and endangering your players (because they are not match fit and at a higher risk of injury - or again, are they?). Same thing goes for other aspects of the game.
  13. I bet two bucks all this talk about some extra, hidden, not yet revealed functionality which would have prevented the shirts from being kept, or a prettier alternative as shown by vpaulus used will turn out to be baseless, and there will be nothing of the sort.
  14. Yup, judging by the vid/screen, the only addition seems to be you can have more set piece setups... with the exact same settings as before. Obviously a more detailed look might prove different but I'm not holding my breath. Also I second your post dissecting the announced changes - more stats feels like the only tangible, useful addition (and possibly the draft thing, but I don't plan to play against friends).
×
×
  • Create New...