Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

thizaum

Members+
  • Content Count

    318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About thizaum

  • Rank
    Amateur

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hi guys, I played 2 matches with the new engine last night (existing save and tactic) and imo there’s a big improvement. I appreciate the hard work that was put into this, but it’s a shame that I’ve already played 2 seasons with a (apparently) very different version of the engine.
  2. Cool, thanks, man. I'll give it a try. And I see that the situational tweak is indeed needed.
  3. I see. Thanks for that. But how does that apply to a 4-man defense? For example: I don't think it should be my small right back to mark the opp's left winger in the air during a cross. It should be my right center back. Is defensive width influencing this? In my mind, this setting was about opening or closing the gap between the CBs and side backs, focusing on halfspace or not. And, one more question: how does this apply to a 3-man defense?
  4. Hey guys, I wanted to ask specifically about defensive width. I'm currently playing both 4-3-3 (image below) and 4-2-3-1. And my assistant says I should defend narrow because the opposition is getting too many touches in the final third. The problem is that I don't understand the logic in this. I'm not exactly underachieving, but when I loose it's through opposition wing play. With the correct cover from midfield and compactness, I shouldn't need to defend narrower, right? Thoughts? Thanks.
  5. Bravo! That was exactly my point and why I've also liked to play in a more compact shape.
  6. If you go back to the original post, you are going to see that my team actually started playing better after I forced it to fluid.
  7. Correct, but I’m going to take the guess that every assman in the game suggests you to push towards flexible. Right?
  8. I vary all the way from Cautious to Attacking, making some tweaks on the way. Again, my point is not keeping the team Fluid, but actually seeing how the label affects my playstyle and what I'm aiming at. The shorter passing is an interesting one. I actually think it's an improvement of this new engine. So far I keep getting worse results when I drop to short passes and/or lower tempo. The defenders take so long or play so safe, that they end up trying a long ball. With regular passes and medium tempo, I get better pass completion rate and possession. At least in the league I'm playing. That's interesting. In this case, you're using the label for the opposition to read it better. I take you're all set with your tactic, right? I was actually meaning our own tactics. Exactly. Let's go the other way. If I changed my roles to get a "structured label", how would you avoid the isolation? In my mind, the attackers attack motto will always create isolation.
  9. But that's unfortunate, right? Why limit the options? Yes, I've realized that. The same formation can be fluid under positive and very fluid under attacking. Why "very different"? I honestly think that they still mean the same thing. It's just that now you are restricted by your choice of duties in achieving it. Isn't it comparable with removing the sweeper strata and only allowing the libero for the CB position (and not to RCB and LCB)? Or the restrictions to the mezzala, carrilero and segundo volante? I see this as a "nudge in the direction", not a completely different thing. If I'm pushing towards being more fluid, it won't be harder to balance roles and duties. I actually find it easier to balance when you remove the duty variable. If you set almost everything to support, it's not hard to pair a sitting midfielder with a runner. As an example, I'm playing a wide 4-3-3 now. The only attack duty is one of the wing backs (covered by a DLP-s) and the only defend duty (apart from the CBs) is the halfback.
  10. Thanks, Hunter. These are the first two paragraphs: " Team Shape Team Shape has been removed and has not been replaced. There has been a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about this tactical setting for a long time now, so it’s been removed. Any functions it used to perform, such as adjusting player mentality or creative freedom can still be utilised but now we’ll be adjusting team instructions or player settings instead. Which we could always do anyway. Team Fluidity Team Fluidity is nothing more than a label attached to describe how we set up our players. It has nothing to do with Team Shape and should not be confused with it – despite using the same naming conventions. The way Team Fluidity works is essentially as a guide on how to structure our teams in a way we desire. Prior to this there was nothing to help us set up our roles. So for example – if you set all your attackers to attack and all your defenders to defend you’ll be playing in a very “structured” manner: defenders defend, attackers attack. Now change everyone to a support duty and your team will be playing with a more “fluid” style; everybody supports each other. As mentioned, don’t confuse this with the old Team Shape naming conventions, despite their similarities. " If I understand this correctly, though they use the same names (structured and fluid), the Team Shape has been removed and now we have the Team Fluidity, which is a describing label. I find it curious though that this stresses the importance of not confusing them, but I still think they show if your team will play in a structured or fluid way. The difference is that before it was an active setting and now it's a passive one. Thanks. As said, I did realise this. I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept that the game would have the trouble of displaying this information to you if it didn't affect anything, considering that they've removed the mentality slider (and display) 4 or 5 years ago. Though I appreciate the replies, perhaps I should better explain my post. Now using the updated term, I not asking what team fluidity is and what it depends on. I'm asking or trying to discuss how to use it, both in your favour or not to spoil the way you wanted to play. And I've already seen both things happen in FM20. For example: is it nonsense to play 6 or 7 support duties with an attacking mentality and have the AssMan complaining? Is he trying to help me or push the tactic to Flexible?
  11. Hey guys, I hope everyone is enjoying the holidays! I wanted to ask for some perspective on Fluidity in FM20 (or 19, after the "overhaul"). Just as background, like many here, I have been playing since the CM days, but I actually skipped FM19 (kept playing 18). Although I read about the changes at the time, I'm still learning the new system as I go. I personally like the Barcelona/ Spain/ Guardiola system and a great source for me was a post from some years ago showing a fluid 4-3-3 formation. That has served me as inspiration and base for many versions and tweaks that I have been using all those years. Then I get to 2020 that at the same time doesn't have the fluidity droplist and has the preset formations including tiki taka and vertical tiki taka. First thing I quickly realised was that it wasn't easy to get the preset to work (even with tweaks) with my lower league squad, so I gave up and started from scratch. And secondly, I wasn't understanding what exactly was affecting the fluidity display on the left hand corner. After some time with the game I started to see how it worked and decided to "force it" to fluidity. That was done by having 1 attack duties, 3 defend and 6 support, completely disregarding both the AssMan's suggestion of having 4-5 attack roles with Positive mentality and the rule of thumb of having "a scorer" (IF-a, in this case). And the result was very interesting. Mainly, and summing it up, because the team got closer to where I wanted them to be (which is the same thing I was using in older versions) and it made sense again to use TI's that weren't working before (like shorter passes and lower tempo). So, in general terms (because my point wasn't to create a "fix my tactic" post), what's your take on fluidity and duties in FM20? Any tips or suggestions? If it's the case, would you point me towards a post here or elsewhere that could help me? Thanks in advance.
  12. Though I understand and agree with what @Enzo_Francescoli is saying, I’m with the OP. I’ve even expressed something similar here before. I think this is a result of the way the formations and the engine were created. And, as he said, the 4-2-3-1 is affected by it, but the 4-3-3 isn’t. Without knowing how hard this would be to be implemented, I’d like to see one of the below in the future: - the number of equidistant lines (strati) is a consequence of the formation, instead of a rigid frame. 4-2-3-1 would have 4 lines and 4-3-3, 3. The rest would be fine tuned with roles and duties. - it’s great that the sweeper strata is gone, but another option would be to have only 3 strati, and everything else done by the roles and duties. In this case, the 6, the 8 and the 10 would all be “center midfielders” and the 4-2-3-1 would be a 4-5-1. The matter of having David Silva playing as a 6 is probably something that the engine sorts it out with the attributes (as Enzo said). He can, perhaps, work well as a DLP or Reg, but won’t as an Anchorman or CM-d.
  13. That’s the kind of thing that it would be nice to be graphically shown in the TC screen. I watch every match in full and honestly find the difference hard to see.
×
×
  • Create New...