[Are green/red circles for roles and duties meaningless?]

2 ore fa, Wavelberry ha scritto:

This leads me to one conclusion. The way tactics and the tactic creator works and is displayed and communicated in FM needs to change.

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...

[Are green/red circles for roles and duties meaningless?]

7 ore fa, warlock ha scritto:

I could live without it myself, but I don't see how this is a major issue.

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...

[Are green/red circles for roles and duties meaningless?]

2 ore fa, michaeltmurrayuk ha scritto:

there is nothing wrong with playing players in lower rated roles if it suits your tactic provided they have the attributes to play the role you want which is the most important thing.

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...

2 ore fa, michaeltmurrayuk ha scritto:

but in FM18 only one of these would get the full circle. So the game is now telling you what their best role overall is instead of their best role in each position.

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?

[Are green/red circles for roles and duties meaningless?]

46 minuti fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

Role Suitability is based on attributes, basically how well  a players attributes fit the role, its not the same as positional ability.

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?

 

47 minuti fa, Rashidi ha scritto:

The absence of a green circle simply tells me to be very careful how I use him

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...

[Are green/red circles for roles and duties meaningless?]

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?

[Football Manager TV: Sports Science]

Hopefully, and finally, that'll put an end to the "random injury epidemic"...

BTW, I know it's a long shot, but I'd really like to see previous injuries taking the toll on a player, making him more susceptible to similar incidents due to tear and wear (in the editor, there is indeed the "recurring" option for injuries, so there must be some sort of foundation to build on).

AFAICT, now injury proneness is random, where a guy with a high value is as likely to tear an abdominal muscle while taking a dump as to sprain his ankle 5 times in a season in training. With this new addition, could it be possible to have a guy who has had knee problems before be more prone to THAT specific injury?

I mean, if I sign Pato I'd "expect" him to miss many months with muscle injuries, or that poor Giuseppe Rossi isn't likely to last more than 20 games without going down to the Nth knee ligament career-ending injury.

[Football Manager TV: Tactics]

3 hours ago, Barside said:

More is great as it gives the AI managers more tool to create realistic & challenging tactical approaches, the last thing I ever want to see are fewer roles that have more customisation . At least not until the AI is capable of creating its own custom roles but very few people will really want to see that as that's when FM really because a test of tactical acumen.

 

Fair enough, but I maintain that, for the human player, less is more. Especially as long as tactical feedback and in-game representation of the match are as unreliable and erratic like they've been til FM17.

Maybe the new additions in FM18 (link play, weakness areas) will help, but generally speaking it's still a guessing game trying to find out why your 4* Advanced Playmaker is playing like crap despite ticking all the boxes for that role. Or whether your star AMC should be set as Trequartista, AP or AM, as the difference isn't really so noticeable... And, to be honest, the lines between roles are blurred in real life as well.

I see how AI may need all those specific roles with PIs and everything, but the human manager is often overwhelmed (and confused about terminology, as many roles aren't 100% defined, and my idea of a DLP may be different than yours or SI's...)

10 different roles for the CM position are like 10 variations of chocolate ice-cream... Appealing and fancy, but ultimately redundant. And in most cases, you'll want to go with a bigger serving of regular chocolate (in FM terms, "screw the role, I'll just buy a better player")
Not to mention, more often than not, you'll see your L2 side playing short pass as if they were Guardiola's Barça anyway...

[Football Manager TV: Tactics]

Am I the only one who wishes for FEWER options, roles and OIs?

So far (ie. until FM17) the in-game feedback, both in the ME itself and from the staff, hasn't been as good or as informative as it the sheer amount of options would have required.

We players still need either to go through long and tedious trial-and-error process, or through "tactical masterclasses" on this board (or elsewhere), unless we sort of stumble across a tactic that works well enough to allow us to minimize the impact of the many quirks of the ME and of the game itself.

So, while the new features seem to be interesting and whatnot, I do maintain the tactical side needed a hefty downsizing, instead of getting more stuff added to further confusion.

P.S. Why not adding some default "complete" tactics, with instructions etc? That would reduce the need for newbies and those with not enough time or desire to fine-tuning their own creation to download "supertactics" (and then moan about them, or their improbable 2-3-3-2, not working as expected).

[Football Manager TV: Scouting]

That looks REALLY promising and, if executed correctly, game-changing both for short-term and long-term careers.

I shouldn't be even able to scout a guy who's (not) playing for the U18 team of a semi-obscure club in Ukraine just because my club's scouting range is "worldwide", let alone finding out his exact attributes in a matter of a week (or right away as it was in older editions).

Player ratings, pros and cons should only be based on MATCH STATS and highlights, ie. the in-game version of "hearsay" and "media hype" in some cases. THEN, attributes should still be kinda vague even upon closer scouting, and even when a player joins for good (or on trial) it'd take a while to get a final assessment.
Think of how many players joined with high expectations only to turn out much worse than previously thought. Or how many joined with little or no fanfare and became valuable assets.

I see it's unfeasible in a videogame, as all values are fixed, so a Passing 18 can't be a Passing 14 or a Passing 20, but maybe we'd get an A, B, C, D, E, F sort of general value, possible appliead to macro-areas (ie. the octagon).

That'd be awesome for FM19...

Meanwhile, I'll gladly take this revamp with fairly high hopes it'll make scouting worth my time again, compared to the current "let me search by attribute/value, then let's scout him just in case"

[Great players in FM that never made it irl]

Vela is still pretty young at 23 and he isn't exactly a bad player. Had a very good season on loan at Real Sociedad last season.

But that's not the point...

With few notable exceptions (mostly limited to earlier, and thus less throughly/carefully researched, versions of CM/FM), almost every highly rated youngster from recent iterations of the game has "made it" to a certain extent...

Still, those kids who in, say, FM08 or FM09 were becoming Messiesque world-beaters already in their first in-game season haven't come even remotely close to that level of brilliance in real life, several years after their original (over)evaluation.

Compare how awesome Carlos Vela is in 2012 in an old FM savegame and look at him in real-life 2012...

In a couple of years Henri Saivet could as well turn out becoming a decent player for a Ligue 1 mid-table act, but by that time in FM09 he would have won a couple of Golden Balls, Shoes etc...

[Great players in FM that never made it irl]

He is twenty for goodness sake. How you can you say he hasn't made it when he's barely had time to?

Still, he's nowhere near the level of potential he was given back when he hadn't played a single league game and his current status, at almost 21, barely justify the high-end negative potential he still is awarded.

Same goes for many youngsters, past and present... Researchers do tend to get carried away when assigning -8s and -9s...

[Great players in FM that never made it irl]

The elusive Martin Knutsen from CM97/98...

No such player exists, and neither Morten Knutsen or Martin Knudsen were strikers and/or so insanely great... So I think we have here the perfect candidate...

Then I'd go with Jody Morris, Ronnie Wallwork, Richard Wellens, Erik Nevland, Davide di Terlizzi, Arturo Lupoli, Paolo Vernazza, Nello Russo

[Great players in FM that never made it irl]

Mashaga Bakenga at Rosenborg is a great 55k buy and i bet he wont make it IRL...seems to fit the criteria. Young, Cheap to buy and scores for fun.

Dude... Bakenga is 19 and scored 12 goals in 26 apps (13 as starter) in his breakthrough season...

Sure in FM he has a bit of an unfair advantage due to the ME's emphasis on pace, but isn't it a bit too early to include him in this list, also considering his Negative PA can give different career paths to his FM alter ego?

[Cm 97/98]

DosBox or a nice Virtual Machine with win98...

For me, CM97/98 is THE CM...

I pre-ordered it via a gaming magazine... back in the old days when pre-orders had to be done at the local VG store and the waiting time ranged from "1 month" to "who knows..."

I got the UK version (something I've always tried to do since) and spent almost every minute of my time at home playing it or manually updating the database. To this day I think it's the edition of CM/FM I've played the most.

When I moved to study abroad, a few years ago, I couldn't afford a new computer so I bought an used one for a few quids (it was a P200 MMX... ) and installed my glorious copy of CM97/98 to start a brand new career with what was almost a "legends" database already

I still have a copy of the game installed on my hard drive, as a reminder of a simpler time, when I didn't need to have a major in Sports Psychology and 5 hours of spare time to enjoy a football management game...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

@SFraser

thank you for the explaination, now I finally get it.

Just a quick question about the ST/CF schedules... Aren't they a tad too light in the Attacking/Shooting dept?

For sure there's something I'm missing again, but shouldn't a striker [much more if a developing one] mainly train at shooting?

But as far as I've understood, some attacking skills (Finishing? Composure?) aren't in the Attacking/Shooting category, so the focus has to be split. Right?

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

Thanks for the previous reply...

However I still struggle with training injuries.

Every week or so at least one or two players got injured in training, usually it's strains [groin, calf, back etc...] causing a player to be sidelined for 3-4 weeks.

I checked, and my tram's Training Facilities are rated 15

My Fitness Coaches have Hardness 12 and 16. Out of the other nine coaches [none of them in charge of Aerobic/Strength training anyway] only two are 18 and 20.

So is it normal most of my younger players [both on U19 or Developing schedules] are picking up injuries every other day?

If I decrease the Workload to the highest Medium click, will the effectiveness of the schedules drop dramatically?

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

I'm having players getting injured every other day...

Mostly strains or pulls in reserve/U19 players. Maybe should I bring the overall workload back in the "medium" region?

Also most players are either unhappy with the heavy workload or are struggling to keep up with the training regime "despite being professional" [as my coach says about some players]

Is it normal having every schedule set on Heavy/Very Heavy?

Also, a dumb question... How am I supposed to use the "Test" schedule in order to create a custom schedule? How many "clicks" do I have to make in every category in order not to disrupt the balance of the schedule?

[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

Check their setting for Wide Play.

The default option is "move into channels"

then I have "Normal", "Hug touchline" and "Cut Inside".

I can see "hug touchline" not being the one I'm looking for, but what's "normal" and what's "cut inside"?

Inside from where, if he's supposed to be a Target Man or a D-L Forward, thus playing in the middle of the pitch under normal circumstances?

I don't quite get it... Strikers shouldn't wander much on the flanks, especially if there are wingers fielded with that very purpose (and with suitable skills)

[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

I've opened a thread, but it got no replies, so I try again here.

How do I stop my striker(s) from playing wide, almost like Wingers, or even Side Midfielders?

How on earth can they score if they're running along the touchline?

[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

"Dwells on Ball" could mean a certain player is, so to speak, "in love with the ball", aka he doesn't pass it too often or too quickly, thus wasting some potentially dangerous situations (counters, through balls etc)

"Cut inside" means a wide player, especially a winger, tends to roam in a more central position, leaving his position uncovered and probably ending up in someone else's place.

[Funny Screenshots Thread]

Is this a new record?