Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

RBKalle

Members
  • Content count

    6,745
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

About RBKalle

  • Rank
    Third Team

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Rosenborg BK - Odds BK

Currently Managing

  • Currently Managing
    Undrið FF
  1. I've noticed that too in my Serie A save. That tactic apparently works too well with otherwise quite limited players. Don't really know why. I can see "it's your tactic" to an extent, but it's simply weird how weak sides on paper can be much more tricky to face compared to expectations and real-life comparisons. Maybe that 4-2-3-1 "exploits" some of the ME's weaknesses thus giving your opponents a chance they wouldn't have, say, with a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1?
  2. If I'm allowed to play Super Devil's Advocate... The changes in the UI and the increased amount of time-consuming features alone are probably responsible for a fair chunk of those extra hours...
  3. That's the main contention point! When the game is jam-packed with tactical features that borrow heavily from real football terminology and with many many options that seem to point to a very life-like tactical experience, you can't help but feel "cheated" when it turns out "Counter" doesn't mean what 99.999% of the football-watching/playing population think. Or when you start to wonder what the heck "Shape" is. Or why your DLP doesn't do what DLPs do in real life. Or, even worse, when Barça or City play hoofball while a relegation candidate plays lovely tiki-taka away to a Top Team. Sure, the casual gamer will celebrate a glorious win at Camp Nou or at Etihad with their smaller side and won't care one bit about how underwhelming and unrealistically drab the Top Club was... But to many FM'ers, that sweet victory will start to lose its taste as time goes by. And we'll start to question the why and the how we were able to outplay Barça with Midtjylland or Maribor in our second or third season. Wanna debate about "but FM is a football fantasy with a bit of simulation"? Fine... If that's the direction the game is going, then let's revert to CM4 tactical screen and leave the rest of the game to work itself out. So long annoying rants about "Carrillero or Mezzala?" or about "why is my lone Poacher playing wide?" or about "why can't my FB defend if his life depended on it?" So long 30-pages essays about mechanics that are "loosely based on real football" and implemented in a confusing, cumbersome and convoluted way into the game. Currently the game is in a weird place, where realism is implicitly invoked by plenty of features, while the "it's only a game" card can be played to justify every instance where the aforementioned realism is nowhere to be found. So the question is: what does FM want to be when it grows up? If it wants to be a football management simulation, the tactical/realism part needs to be rewritten completely to reflect realistic wording, instructions and ways to set a tactic up. Both by human players and AI managers If it wants to be a football management fantasy, do away with all the confusing stuff and keep it simpler. That'll save everyone a lot of hassle. The current hybrid is hardly a crowd-pleaser, with anyone not living and breathing FM jargon having to either adapt to play the TC/ME instead of a football match, or resign to live with the many questionablr parts of the game. Ironically, it's only the very casual gamers, those who'll win 4 Quadruple in a row with Barça or City (or with editor-enhanced LL sides) before getting bored and moving on, who don't really mind or notice that.
  4. Yeah, but if the role indicators are a bit iffy AND I'm not told anywhere what the actual consequences of playing a 100% BWM as an 70% CM(auto) are, how am I supposed to choose? Visually, the impact of the reddish circles and pitch zones is quite noticeable, so many human players will be tempted to rework a perfectly fine tactic to accomodate a player's "best role", only to unintentionally creating an unbalanced and inherently WORSE tactic. All that, while thinking it'll be an improvement because hey, 11 green circles! It's at least questionable that a feature that is supposed to make things easier to the human manager (ie. a visual cue to replace a handmade spreadsheet, or a note about a player's best role according to key attributes) is creating a communication short-circuit of sorts, where what you see is "worse" than what you may end up getting in the ME. So hypothetically I'll have less negative consequences for playing Pirlo as a B2B (same position, completely unsuitable role due to lack of mobility and stamina) than for playing Robben as LM (less familiar role, but more overlapping attributes with his Natural position)? It's another problem with too many cooks spoiling the broth. If Attributes > Position (as it should be in the game and is, largely, in real life), Roles' colours should be weighed with more attention to the attributes. Hence, a Natural AMR Winger should be Accomplished as MR Winger (assuming he's decent at the defensive part of the game). If Position > Attributes (as it is currently in FM, apparently) there's no reason for a player Natural in 2 or more positions to have at least 2 Natural roles, likely one per position... Otherwise, what is he Natural at exactly? No, what I mean is that if my character's stats/skills are low in Archery, there should be NO WAY I could be almost as effective as another character whose best skill is Archery. If I choose to build my avatar as a sword-wielding badass, I shouldn't be able to pick up bow and arrows and happily Wilhelm Tell my way through a dungeon... Regardless of what the rest of my party is best at.
  5. Pretty much this! The more I think about it, the more mindblowingly surreal (to put it very very mildly...) this whole mess feels... I don't mean any disrespect to the members and mods who replied, but for heaven's sake, take a step backwards and look at the picture you painted: 1) Since FM18 there is only ONE 100% Green Role, even for players who are Natural in two or more positions 2) Role and Duty Suitability is a "guideline", weighed on primary and secondary attributes for position/role (and possibly stars alignment and Nostradamus' prophecies) 3) Average or even poor suitability for a specific role only affects Decision and can easily be countered via other tactical tweaks (ie. good partnerships, tactical familiarity and coherent formation) 4) NONE OF THAT IS EXPLAINED ANYWHERE, so naturally most casual or new players will simply assume Green=Great, thus making wrong tactical choices or even selling/signing players based on completely wrong assumptions, suggested by the game's "peculiar" way to handle such an important feature. All those addition were supposed to make things easier and more relatable to the Average Joe C. Gamer (C. is for Casual), but SI managed to overcomplicate an already cumbersome interface. So now it's: confusing, exclusive and, in some areas, almost completely inconsequencial and ineffectual...
  6. Well... It's useless at best and misleading at worst... If you can happily ignore all the red circles and zones, with a bit of luck and a few tweaks, what's the point of having such "guides"? And while a FM veteran can just think "yeah, I'll do things my way", a newcomer or a less experienced user may simply be thrown off by the inconsistencies and logically think Green=Best, Red=Terrible and end up with a completely screwed up formation, DESPITE his setup being, on paper, the best possible. To me it IS a major issue because it underlines once more how arbitrary and counterintuitive many features have become in this game. Imagine something similar in another genre of games... Say in a RPG your character has low stats for Archery, you'd logically wouldn't spend money on bows and arrows and would try to avoid using them... Ony to find out (by word of mouth, no less) that your hero is almost as good of a marksman as a Wood Elf because "skills stats are merely indicators"... Again, it may not be gamebreaking, but if you add it to the list of all the other "minor" quirks, issues, bugs and flaws, the big picture isn't looking that bright...
  7. So why bothering with all the visual cues?! Not to mention it's not stated, nor suggested, ANYWHERE in the game that those are "guidelines" and that you can more or less disregard them if you need to. And what about the impact of such misunderstanding in the TC? Ironically I get FEWER red areas around the pitch if I choose the "wrong" role, as the "ideal" role+duty combo will leave gaping holes in some areas of the pitch. Oh and BTW, it doesn't even fit my player that great either... Which is even worse, not to mention the criteria for "best role" seem rather inconsequential, as many roles, especially in the "overrepresented" positions differ so little it's hard to differentiate the roles, moreso at a lower level, where the gap in quality is less noticeable. Why is this guy "best" as plain CM while his Dec and Det are subpar and DLP is less demanding?
  8. getting out of nowhere as a manager

    I thought so, but in my second week at Auckland City I already had a small mutiny and some of the players felt "I had lost the dressing room"... Luckly it was only a handful of backups, so with a few assertive rebuttals and some loan deals, it's problem solved. Kinda... as manager support is still "poor" according to my staff. Who knew a bunch of part-timers from NZ were so gutsy to question a European former star...
  9. getting out of nowhere as a manager

    I started in Samoan second tier (with "former international star" rep), came in 3rd in the first year and I was already getting offers from other places. In the second year I won the league and got promoted to the Premier, and Auckland City (NZ and Oceania champions) hired me. So it is possible to make it out of a small island nation, but, I don't know how farther you can go... I haven't loaded non-Oceanic nations, so Australia is the highest I can reach for now... I'll probably load the Asian leagues once I'm successful enough in NZ and Australia and we'll see how it goes from there.
  10. Your best/longest career?

    An epic journey on the Faroe Islands, from division 2 to European Champions... Now with the added goal of leading the National Team to a Euro/World Cup final stage. Unfortunately it's been on the backburner for a while, but seeing FM18 hasn't really captured my imagination, I may as well pick it up again. On CM3 I had a great save with Inter (no idea why... Never liked them), playing til the year 2020-something. Unfortunately it was before the time I was backing up my saves, so it's lost forever...
  11. But, at least with newgens, shouldn't the Positional Ability be more or less directly linked with the Attributes? I mean, in real life we got plenty of adapted/retrained players who may not possess ALL the key attributes for the secondary position (which, often, used to be their original one...) but are still good enough to play in at least ONE role of the secondary position... Otherwise they wouldn't be used there, or not on a regular basis. In FM terms, if a player has the attributes for a role in a position he's accomplished, why is he Awkward anyway? Is there something wrong with the attributes' weighting while calculating the compatibility %? Biggest offender is IMO, DM and CM, or MR-L/AMR-L... There isn't a world of difference between some of the roles, so if a guy is good at both, shouldn't he be as effective as a DLP in both positions? I've also played a CF/AMR as a plain MR (Winger) with half-empty circle, but that was indeed an impromptu solution and a tertiary position.... The thing is: if I have 4 or 5 Yellowish or Orange circles, doesn't that affect stuff like familiarity, morale etc? There MUST be a downside for playing half of your players in awkward positions... and a bonus for having all in their ideal position. Unless, of course, the system that calculates those ratings is broken...
  12. It turns out a player can be Accomplished at a specific position, and still be Awkward, Unconvincing or Ineffectual in ALL the roles/duties for that position... So a RB/CB will be Awkward or worse as a central defender, no matter the role you choose. Which doesn't make a lick of sense, as we're not dealing with a retrained position or a desperation move, but with what is supposed to be a position where the player is almost natural. How is it possible? Is it because a players has too low attributes to be seen by the game as a "good fit" for the position? As it happens for both original players and newgens, I find it odd for the latter, because the player-generating algorithm should sort of take care of that (no point in a slow and technically inept winger...). And even for real-life players who are barely adequate for their natural role, why are they "Green" for that, even though the key stats are in the low 10s or in single-digits? It's just confusing... But most worryingly is that, apparently, you can easily ignore the colour of the role "pie" because at worst the misplaced player's Decision attribute will take a slight hit and that's about that. If it's true (and I do remember another topic where a member still got decent results with the whole Arsenal Starting XI playing out of position), what's the point of having those circles? Instinctively we're going to look for an All-Bright-Green formation, where, on paper, every player has his ideal position-role-duty, often with terrible results because some combinations don't work well together... Insted we can just ignore all those visual cues? And how is it even possible that the key attributes for a specific role are there, but the circle is still Moss Green or Orange? How are those "ratings" even assigned?
  13. The goal of playing on "easy" is to learn the mechanics of the game in a simplified version of the gameworld. Weaker, fewer or slower enemies, higher HP, lower level enemies, higher rewards etc, depending on the genre. In FM this can't be done because we're not actually playing the "game" itself (ie, the football match), but we're setting up the AI to play it for us. So all the possible ways to make a faux Easy level in FM are just shortcuts that don't change the core of the matter. Just like all the tricks to make it "harder" with the editor or with the choice of club, reputation and past experience. If in this Easy level you nerf the AI's CA by 20%, or reduce the injury frequency, the unhappiness level and so on, a poorly set-up tactic will STILL suck... Or, eventually, you'll start to win just because your team's average CA is 50 points higher than the opposition's, so even the most incompetent and clueless human manager will think he has mastered the game... Only to find out he's completely lost in Normal FM. Football simulations already have that problem where at Beginner level you can win games 10-0 only by virtue of running past AI defenders, and you don't really learn how to properly build up the play, which will come back to bite you in the butt when you start playing like that at Pro and suddenly you can't string two passes together and not even Bale can dribble past an average FB
  14. FM vs RL

    We still/already have them in some areas of the TC The unclear part IMO is how much those fewer options with 4 or 5 choices (or with More/Less modifiers) are basically a "front" for the old sliders. So, if "Be more expressive" is a whole new instruction or is a more user-friendly interface to the infamous "Creative Freedom: 3 click to the right" setting we used to tinker with in the old days.
  15. FM vs RL

    @tacticsdude, not that I disagree with you, but your idea is waaaaaaay too ambitious for the current state of FM... There are still huge limitations in terms of TC-to-ME translation of a rather basic tactic (or at least there's a huge gap between FM-speak and generally accepted football terminology), and it's already combersome enough to reproduce a coherent tactic with the plethora of roles and duties combinations. While the Attack/Defend positioning would be great, it'd mean twice as many potential pitfalls in both tactical creation and rendition. If now you can "only" screw up on one formation, there you'd end up with TWO completely unbalanced, misconstrued or misrepresented formations. Also, as annoying as preset roles are, the alternative is a sliders' comeback, with all the potential for more mishaps and exploits. Plus they're even more far removed from real football than the current set of options. So, while on paper it'd be ideal, we're a long way from the day when it'll be feasible. P.S. Modern poachers who add nothing to the defensive phase: Mauro Icardi. And maybe Karim Benzema to an extent.
×