Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Recommended Posts

I'm not a man who says "it's broken" as soon as something doesn't work that way I excepted but there are definitely serious Match Engine issues in this year's version.

AML/Rs are practically useless defensively. They still pack a strong punch offensively, but when it comes to defence, they're nowhere to be seen.

I'm a 4-5-1 (or 4-1-2-2-1) man, or I have been so far. I've found the tactic solid defensively, due to 2 central defenders and a DM. It was also strong in the middle of the pitch due to three men being there in the central position (CM/CM and a DM), allowing generally good ball retention while waiting for the option for a good direct ball. AML/Rs were generally main offensive outlets with the lone central being more involved in the build up play.

It was a solid formation which was relatively easy to tweak depending on the situation and the opposition.

In FM15, I naturally started from there. Immediately I noticed I was leaky, and mostly from the wings. Since I was managing Vojvodina in Serbian Superleage, I was often forced to plug the holes with less than perfect solutions (low budget and the fact that everyone except the Serbs are foreigners and only 4 foreign players are allowed), so I assumed it was about players, not the formation. After a few years and decent success, I've had a really good team, head and shoulders above the rest of the division, and I still struggled and I was still leaky. I think I've tried every possible tweak over the 5 seasons but it was pretty much the same.

I rarely dominated possession, and when I did, it was 55% at most. I've noticed I struggled the most against teams playing a good old fashioned 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 flat. Whenever my wide players received the ball there were immediately 2 and often 3 opposition players besides, closing all options.

So, I've changed my formation to 4-5-1 flat, with ML/R instead of AM/R. It made an instant impact. I wasn't as strong offensively but I've started dominating possession, with 60+% being often the case and limiting my opponents to very few, if any chances.

I've tried the same recipe with different clubs (Spartak Moscow), played about 5 games with 4-1-2-2-1, than reloaded and played the same matches again with 4-5-1 flat midfield. The difference was immense.

It appears that fullback don't defend properly unless there's a winger assisting them. DM can help, but only rarely, and the opposition can easily nulify it by switching the ball to the other flank. Most of the goals I conceded came from the wings. After I switched to a flat 5 in the midfield, opposition wingers weren't a problem anymore.

It's a huge problem. It leads to a lot of goals and freak results, with crosses being unnaturally powerful. I've humbled some much stronger teams in Europe by exploiting this fact. I was also humbled by much weaker teams because of that. Sure, you can change formation and mitigate the issues, but you lose a lot offensively and there's a problem with instructing ML/Rs to cut inside. A lot of great players are AMR/Ls and it seems such a waste of potential. It really needs to be addressed ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early in FM15, crosses were undeniably overpowered, along with crosses, which is likely to have affected your early experiences.

These have since been reduced, but are probably still higher than SI would like - but they are working on the defending and general accuracy of crossed deliveries all the time. Ways to improve defending of both are now fairly well documented in here.

AML/R players have always been less effective at defending than ML/R players. This is not new or different in FM15, so again your early experiences are perhaps a factor here. As such, it is not a huge problem, nor does it need to be addressed ASAP in my opinion. It takes little time for players to learn a new position on the whole. If there is an issue, it perhaps is at database level where more AML/R players should be shown as competent at ML/R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure it does. It stands to reason that having AML/R is going to have more potency in attack, although personally I think they get forward a little to quickly which becomes more of a problem when teams sit deep as it gets over crowded quickly . If you wish to use advanced wide players you really need to accommodate them with the rest of your set up. The popular 4-2-3-1 is a ridiculously adventurous starting formation for example, and many players get frustrated when it isn't working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any problems playing 41221. In fact I have a great start with Aston Villa - in first 10 matches of the season, without any new players in first 11, I lost only 2 times and won against City and Chelsea.

My wingers are on support duty and they do a good job in defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AML/R players have always been less effective at defending than ML/R players. This is not new or different in FM15, so again your early experiences are perhaps a factor here

Of course they have, but they are almost useless at the moment. If my team is defending, and the ball is behind AMR/L, they pretty much ignore it all together. IF are especially bad. They appear to have zero defensive duties, like Treqs. By the nature of their role, they won't often be in position to help, but at the moment, they don't even try, allowing opposition to pass the ball around slowly and get in position to overrun the fullback. Wingers on support are slightly better, but much less interested in defence than MR/L.

This is not new or different in FM15, so again your early experiences are perhaps a factor here. As such, it is not a huge problem, nor does it need to be addressed ASAP in my opinion. It takes little time for players to learn a new position on the whole. If there is an issue, it perhaps is at database level where more AML/R players should be shown as competent at ML/R.

There are issues with that. There are really no instruction for an Inside Forward-like role in the ML/R positions. It's pretty much impossible to get them to cut inside from there. Just because the positions are close on the pitch, different instructions often mean you need totally different players. Treq and a Defensive Forward play in the same position, but they do totally different things and need a completely different set of attributes, and sometimes different formation and tactical set up.

Just because someone is a great IF, it doesn't mean he's gonna be a great winger or a wide midfielder.

P.S. What early version? I didn't play beta, if that's what you mean by early version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wide Midfielders can Cut Inside very nicely, as does the Wide Playmaker by default. I use a Wide Playmaker Attack and he is the second top scorer in my team for two successive seasons and the top assist maker. He performs exactly as I would want a more advanced player to play, but he also tracks back defensively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that AMR/L players with an attack duty do much less defending than those with support duty. So if you want them to be defensively more active then you need to use support duty. Alternatively, use man marking to force the player to mark the specific player (usually the DR/L, but sometimes MR/L) that you want him be covering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wide Midfielders can Cut Inside very nicely, as does the Wide Playmaker by default. I use a Wide Playmaker Attack and he is the second top scorer in my team for two successive seasons and the top assist maker. He performs exactly as I would want a more advanced player to play, but he also tracks back defensively.

Hmm...

I'll try that. I'm still gonna cry about my perfect AML Inside Forward, my best player and captain. :( It feels like I'm demoting him.

There aren't problems with other players trying too often to pass to him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There aren't problems with other players trying too often to pass to him?

He'll have the playmaker focus - but he's your best player, isn't he? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main problem with the ME is the way players stand around next to the ball and just watch as an opposition player runs half way across the pitch to take it from in front of their face.

Also the massive increase in keepers getting caught out of position and players attempting 50-60 yard shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have FM15, after hating FM14 and FM13 and ended up going back permanently to FM12, but I'm "thrilled" to read that SI still thinks AMR/Ls don't track back in real life and we're still being advised to man-mark opposition fullbacks every single game, which is the same workaround I'm doing on a 3 year old version of the game.

MR/MLs have died in real life, the database correctly reflects this. No top team in the world plays MR/MLs except perhaps Atlético Madrid with their classic 4-4-2. Why? Because real life advanced wingers of the modern age, have the stamina and tactical intelligence to track back to balance their teams in defence. The only that don't track back are teams that spend 90% of their matches in the opposition area (therefore we don't even get to see them in their defensive shape), wingers that are lazy and will ignore their manager's instructions, or notorious rare exceptions for tactical reasons like Cristiano Ronaldo (and this has been a huge tactical problem for Portugal for ages as we are unable to sustain an attacking stance for as long as Real Madrid does, and invariably tend to be overloaded in his flank over and over again).

The popular 4-2-3-1 is a ridiculously adventurous starting formation for example, and many players get frustrated when it isn't working.

It tends to be a bit adventurous, but the match engine interpretation of it makes it more gung-ho than it is in real life. Rafael Benitez played it most of his career and he's the last manager you'd think of as adventurous (remember his famous deployment of Dirk Kuyt as a AMR defensive winger - in fact I believe I've read defensive winger has been removed from the possible roles to choose as AMR/Ls in this version of the game, cheers SI again). The truly gung-ho 4-2-3-1s would be something like Dortmund's under Jurgen Klopp, but that has more to do with the instructions of playing really high tempo, open football, than the actual formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crazy thing about the whole AML/R vs. ML/R debate is that people keep referring to real life. We are talking about a computer game here, and that's the important thing. Doesn't really matter what the real life, subjective opinions of this are; in FM, the most effective overall starting position is at ML/R.

People might not like it, they might be able to reel off reams of statistics and examples of real life players who are clearly not operating from this position, but the computer game interpretation of the broad "wide midfield role" works on this basis. It isn't a massive deal. It flabbergasts me that we had a thread of over 100+ posts debating this recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MR/MLs have died in real life, the database correctly reflects this. No top team in the world plays MR/MLs except perhaps Atlético Madrid with their classic 4-4-2.

Counterpoint: MR/Ls are more popular than ever in real life, even if your particular narrow definition has become rarer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have FM15, after hating FM14 and FM13 and ended up going back permanently to FM12, but I'm "thrilled" to read that SI still thinks AMR/Ls don't track back in real life and we're still being advised to man-mark opposition fullbacks every single game, which is the same workaround I'm doing on a 3 year old version of the game.

MR/MLs have died in real life, the database correctly reflects this. No top team in the world plays MR/MLs except perhaps Atlético Madrid with their classic 4-4-2. Why? Because real life advanced wingers of the modern age, have the stamina and tactical intelligence to track back to balance their teams in defence. The only that don't track back are teams that spend 90% of their matches in the opposition area (therefore we don't even get to see them in their defensive shape), wingers that are lazy and will ignore their manager's instructions, or notorious rare exceptions for tactical reasons like Cristiano Ronaldo (and this has been a huge tactical problem for Portugal for ages as we are unable to sustain an attacking stance for as long as Real Madrid does, and invariably tend to be overloaded in his flank over and over again).

It tends to be a bit adventurous, but the match engine interpretation of it makes it more gung-ho than it is in real life. Rafael Benitez played it most of his career and he's the last manager you'd think of as adventurous (remember his famous deployment of Dirk Kuyt as a AMR defensive winger - in fact I believe I've read defensive winger has been removed from the possible roles to choose as AMR/Ls in this version of the game, cheers SI again). The truly gung-ho 4-2-3-1s would be something like Dortmund's under Jurgen Klopp, but that has more to do with the instructions of playing really high tempo, open football, than the actual formation.

I agree in a way. However real life formations are never really how the actual strategy plays out. A bit like RTH said it is a game. Since converting to ml/mr more than the defensive side of things I like the timing of their attacks and the angles of them better. I also agree with whoever said it's a database problem. To me to many players are natural in the AML/AMR slots and not enough are at ml/mr. It's a minor annoyance retraining. I don't believe the ml/mr are dead, and the aml/amr do track back on support duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The crazy thing about the whole AML/R vs. ML/R debate is that people keep referring to real life. We are talking about a computer game here, and that's the important thing. Doesn't really matter what the real life, subjective opinions of this are; in FM, the most effective overall starting position is at ML/R.

People might not like it, they might be able to reel off reams of statistics and examples of real life players who are clearly not operating from this position, but the computer game interpretation of the broad "wide midfield role" works on this basis. It isn't a massive deal. It flabbergasts me that we had a thread of over 100+ posts debating this recently.

This is a game that prides itself on simulating real life, hence real life is very relevant. Of course people are going to complain when they feel things are unrealistic.

Counterpoint: MR/Ls are more popular than ever in real life, even if your particular narrow definition has become rarer.

My definition of MR/Ls are the kind of player that used to play in a classic 4-4-2, this is not the only tactic that uses them (think things like the 3-4-3) but is the best example. Beckham for example was very well suited to this but not to a more advanced role, even Gerrard played it regularly, he certainly wouldn't ever fit as AMR. My interpretation is that the major difference between a MR/ML and a AMR/AML, is that a MR/ML will tend to position himself deeper even when the team has possession of the bal,l and mostly advance only when actively participating in play (for example when dribbling himself); whereas a AMR/AML will tend to immediately advance a few more yards as soon as the team grabs the ball. However defensively they're much alike with the modern AMR/AML actively participating in going back, the main difference is that AMR/AMLs have a lot more ground to make up if their team suddenly lose possession, whereas a MR/ML will be naturally deeper already. AMR/AMLs will need a lot more stamina to perform the same defensive duties.

I believe MR/ML have become much rarer because it's very hard to exploit effectively that space in between fullback and AMR/AML, in the seconds it takes until the winger catches up back again. It's not a particularly dangerous space anyway. Once AMR/AMLs became popular about 10 years ago, and were shown to these days be physically well capable of covering the extra ground of going up and down the wing all day long, there was no going back to the more static MR/MLs as they are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I'm generalizing as obviously there are many different ways of playing both positions, hence all the Football Manager roles of Wide Midfielder, Playmaker on a wing, Winger, Inside Forward, then the duties etc. There are several different ways of playing MR/ML yes, you could have a "midfielder on a wing" who tends to tug inside a few yards deeper than the opposing area, you could have a "unpacey winger" whose primary function is to deliver crosses from deep Beckham-style, and you could have a more traditional attacking winger who tends to dribble down the wing and cross but in a 4-4-2 will tend to start his runs from deeper positions, compared to playing as a AMR/AML in a 4-1-2-2-1 or 4-2-3-1.

I agree in a way. However real life formations are never really how the actual strategy plays out. A bit like RTH said it is a game. Since converting to ml/mr more than the defensive side of things I like the timing of their attacks and the angles of them better. I also agree with whoever said it's a database problem. To me to many players are natural in the AML/AMR slots and not enough are at ml/mr. It's a minor annoyance retraining. I don't believe the ml/mr are dead, and the aml/amr do track back on support duty.

If it is a database issue then not only should countless players be turned into natural MLs or MRs, they also should be made unnatural AMLs or AMRs as they aren't used to NOT tracking back. And more absurdly, the vast majority of the many, many AI managers on the database whose favourite formations are 4-3-3s (4-1-2-2-1) or 4-2-3-1s should be turned into fans of 4-1-4-1 or 4-4-1-1.

It's the game's interpretation that's wrong, not the database. It bases itself on the idea that the formation we set is purely the defensive shape, yet what we commonly talk about a player is not his defensive position but his overall position as a balance between his offensive and defensive phases; and that's replicated by the hundreds of researchers in their appraisal of players and staff, and even on the preset tactical formations provided by the game!

I think this is all also loosely connected to the fact the ME ties players too much to their duties. Players who attack attack all day and players who support support all day. In real life you could have a AMR/A whose primary function is to run into space, and try to break the offside trap down the wing; yet he could still be instructed to help out in defense. Think Pedro Rodriguez or Thomas Muller. This is different from a AMR/S whose primary function is to support others' runs, whilst playing near the area, AMR/S's will tend to help out a little more in defense than AMR/A's yes, and will rightly be keener to track back a few yards further back, but that in most cases their higher contribution is because they tend not to be way out there by the byline as often when their team loses the ball!

There still needs to be a way to set up your AMR/AML not to defend at all if you want to, but that should be a side option, not something that happens by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fluidity dictates a lot. In a highly structured set up attacking players are far less likely to track back than in a fluid one. I'm not sure an inside forward should track back by default. Any way we can complain about the game all day, I just try and work with what we've got. I usually set my midfield to accommodate having advanced wide players. A flat 3 across the center does a nice job with the right roles. Having used the ml/mr more recently I actually prefer it, although I understand it's not for some. I try not to get hung up on minor annoyances like I used to and just have some fun with the game for what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wide Midfielders can Cut Inside very nicely, as does the Wide Playmaker by default. I use a Wide Playmaker Attack and he is the second top scorer in my team for two successive seasons and the top assist maker. He performs exactly as I would want a more advanced player to play, but he also tracks back defensively.

I have condidered making Lamela a wide playmaker on my Spurs save. I decided against it as I have Parejo as a DLP and Eriksen as a Adv P (in CM) and though it might be too many playmakers on the pitch. Do you think this would be an issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a great article here about how to utilise your wingers defensively.

http://www.theawaystand.co.uk/community/topic/8110-utilising-a-winger-defensively/ (Unsure if I am allowed to link to other sites. Apologies if not)

I personally use them both with mark tighter and on occasion specific player marking and I have no issues.

This is an excellent article for those wanting their AML/R positions to track back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is an excellent article for those wanting their AML/R positions to track back

Tried setting tight marking for my Inside Forward on Attack. It did absolutely nothing. He stood a couple of meters from two opposition players who had no other options but passed the ball between them for quite some time. He showed absolutely no inclination of getting involved. Literally a Treq on the wings. 0 defensive effort, which is REALLY wrong and should be addressed. Might work on a Winger/support, haven't tried that.

Anyway, I've had a lot of issues with moving my AMR/Ls to MR/L position. I've gained a lot of defensive solidity, but lost offensive potency. My IF(A) didn't contribute nearly enough offensively as WP(A). In addition, it left my single forward isolated. There simply wasn't enough support for him, even though I had one CM on Attack duty.

That naturally created problems, due to how effective crosses and set pieces are, and how often defenders and goalkeepers make mistakes. Chances are, you're gonna concede from a counter or a set piece or a stupid mistake. Very few games ended with opposition scoring 0. So, you're simply forced to create something with more attacking power, especially in my case when I'm managing one of the top teams in the division and opposition most often parks the bus against me.

So, I've created a type of 4-4-2, with CM(D) and CM(S), two offensive wingers in ML and MR position, DLF(S) and SS(A) in the AMC position. It worked a treat for about half a season, decent ball retention, good stability and good offensively. I was 1st, 2 points ahead and two games in hand. After that, it inexplicably crumbled, in the last 10 matches, I've won 3 and lost 7! Now I'm fourth, 10 points behind the 1st. My defense started leaking again, and weaker teams dominating possession.

I'm forced again to try and change the formation.

Anyone having suggestions? Most of my tactics involve using AML/R for the offensive punch. Those rare formations I tried without them were wingless formations, where I relied on FBs and/or WBs to provide width and crosses. I haven't used MR/L for the last 6-7 FM versions, and I'm pretty much lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so....

I don't want to hijack this thread, but it's relevant so apologies to the OP.

I just lost a game 4-3, ok no big deal until you see the other team created 0 CCC, over 50% of shots were long range. They attempted 44 (forty-four) crosses, completed 8 and scored 3 of the 4 goals from identical positions. The other goal was a long shot.

How can I reduce this? 44 crosses is ridiculous to start with.

I've built a formation around trying to stop this happening, with supporting full backs and MR/L instead of AMR/L, but I can do nothing to stop it.

I'm playing FMC so I can't find the exact stats, but looking through match reports, at least 50% of the goals I concede are crosses, and easily another 40% are long range shots & corners.

EDIT: Stats found and confirmed 50% of goals conceded from crosses.

EDIT: Next game 54 crosses attempted, 10 completed, lost 1-0 to a cross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried playing a few seasons, tinkering more but now I have to admit that it feels broken.

Basically anyone in the Attacking Midfielder strata on Attack duty doesn't do anything defensively. Sure, I'm willing to accept that they may be caught out of position, that's a calculated risk I'm willing to take but I can not accept that anyone with an Attack duty there behaves like a Treq. If I play my favourite 4-1-2-2-1, having Inside Forward on Support means he's too slow to join the attack. When on Attack duty, Inside Forwards are pretty much like an another forward who join the forward strata when team is on the attack. When on support duty, they basically stay in the attacking midfield strata, until they receive a ball. That's a huge difference, as they clutter that part of the pitch while the lone forward doesn't get enough support.

Moving them to midfield strata doesn't solve the issue. The role that is closest to Inside Forward is Wide Playmaker, but he's not advanced enough to create enough attacking threat. While he gets with the ball enough further up the field, the opposition defence has enough time plug all holes. It also clutters that part of the pitch.

Also, it forces you to play with a Playmaker, something I never liked, and now you can't even not tick "use playmaker" box and have it as role instead of a play style (complete bonkers) . So, you have to hope he won't be marked out of the game. To stop that, you have to assign playmaker roles to other players and, bottom line, we shouldn't have to resort to such tinkering to lessen the impact of the obvious flaw of the match engine.

I'm flabbergasted this isn't recognized as a HUGE issue with the ME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must confess I see the problem as much as a lack of attacking intent from players in the CM strata as a lack of defensive intent from the AM strata. For instance Ravel Morrison for me was outstanding as any AM but pretty hopeless as a MR or CM and it doesn't help that he was listed as awkward at MR yet Natural at AMR which I still find baffling after all these years for the sake of a few feet especially if what starts on the tactics screen is "the defensive shape". The problem is what do you do?! If you want your AM's it defend put them on support apparently but that then goes against attacking intent, I mean after all if all your AM's are on support who is getting into the box?! Surely any player in any position with instruction should be able to do both. I still cite Hazard at Chelsea IRL the prime example, certainly this season.

I feel that there is an issue in the ME with players in the CM strata this year anyway as there is bunching and a real lack of runners IMO with players, even a CM on attack, failing to run past a striker which makes attacks very one dimensional and probably why crossing seemed the major way of scoring.

An example is trying to play Kevin Nolan - the way he used to play that is not how he meanders about now!! - Nolan at his best would get beyond the striker, attacking the box as say an AM A would do, or should do - but he would also track back. Yet now to get him to track back you would have to play him on support which according to the role he will stay in the hole rather than get into the box so you can't play what I would call a box to box attacking midfielder and they do exist but almost impossible to get right in FM as it is now.

Same with if you play a lone forward. If you then play players in the CM strata then you are well advised to play a lone striker on support but who then is getting into the box?! It can be very frustrating because no matter what anyone says you can't tailor all roles into real life ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For instance Ravel Morrison for me was outstanding as any AM but pretty hopeless as a MR or CM and it doesn't help that he was listed as awkward at MR yet Natural at AMR which I still find baffling after all these years for the sake of a few feet especially if what starts on the tactics screen is "the defensive shape".

Very good point. I think that ultimately the tactics screen will move away from positions completely, and the familiarity will switch to be entirely role based.

The same issue you say above is relevant for WB / FB positions. If my full back is a "natural" Wing back, why cant he play naturally in the WB position.

In my opinion, the role suitability you see in the TC now is the first step towards this. I mentioned it years ago in a wishlist / ideas thread somewhere, where basically positions are blacked out (i.e any player could theoretically play in any position, given the right role, duty and instructions).

I accept that's a little broad, but the theory stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RTHerringbone,

First, I know there is this big Barcelona tactic thread that never dies for the last 3 years and all that, but I decided to bring this up here because it is more relevant IMO.

We can all agree that FM is a simulation game....but as such it is trying to simulate real life. And we can all agree that Barca always plays 4-3-3 with AMR/L, not 4-5-1 with MR/L. But we all know that all through the years (at least I know as Barca fan for more than 20 years, as long as I've played FM and CM before that), even back to the Rijkaard days, Barca's wide forwards (those players in AMR/L positions) have tracked back - Ronaldinho, Luis Garcia, Guily, Messi, Henry, Eto'o, Villa, Pedro, now Neymar and Suarez. We can all agree also that those players in these positions play the role of Inside Forwards in FM, most of the time (sometimes a Winger role is given). And those players make many attacking runs also - some to divert attention away from Messi, some to create space, some to penetrate and have a goalscoring opportunity, etc.

So, my question is what role best describes such dynamic behavior from a AMR/L position, where the player can track back (note: i'm not saying start defending from deeper position, something an MR/L would do) and also offer attacking threat?

From my experience in FM14 and prior editions, when I used a Very Fluid fluidity/philosophy, the AMR/L as IF on Attack duty tracked back. They were useless though if and when I was using Balanced (now called Flexible) fluidity. And it made sense and I was fine with that. Hence why I preferred to use Very Fluid fluidity to reflect how Barca play - everyone contributes to the same task ( keep possession, defend, attack, etc. together). Now on FM15 though, IF-A are useless even within Very Fluid fluidity. Why and how come? BTW, if it helps, I use Standard mentality. Isn't supposed to be that on Very Fluid everyone is supposed to contribute to all the phases of play? Why aren't my wide forwards contributing defensively then?

Explain that, please. I would like to understand. BTW, I'm not having problems winning and all that. I just want to be able to create what I want my team to play and something that resembles RL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RTHerringbone.....

Given the different contributions from Attack and Support Duty AML/R players in FM15, I feel you are obliged to use some form of Support Duty in order to get any form of tracking back from AML/R.

It isn't the Fluidity that has changed, it is the interpretation of the influence of Duty which has changed. In my opinion it is far too influential at the moment and renders the use of AML/R Attack Duties moot given the clear signs that they simply do not defend. I can see systems in which that sort of behaviour would be sought; but it wouldn't be in a system of mine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the different contributions from Attack and Support Duty AML/R players in FM15, I feel you are obliged to use some form of Support Duty in order to get any form of tracking back from AML/R.

I thought of that as well. Then I tried using IF-S, which gave me the tracking back part, but I'm losing attacking threat even when the PI "get further forward" is given.

It isn't the Fluidity that has changed, it is the interpretation of the influence of Duty which has changed. In my opinion it is far too influential at the moment and renders the use of AML/R Attack Duties moot given the clear signs that they simply do not defend. I can see systems in which that sort of behaviour would be sought; but it wouldn't be in a system of mine!

Yeah, but the change in the interpretation of the Duty actually does mess up the Fluidity, because then it makes a Very Fluid act like Balanced/Flexible would. It's not right and it should be corrected. Has anyone brought this up to the people in charge at SI games?

BTW, another issue I have is with the AI defending at corner kicks. There is still an overuse of "mark the six yard" by multiple players by the AI. That was a problem with the last patch on FM14, why wasn't this corrected for FM15? Ridiculous.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but the change in the interpretation of the Duty actually does mess up the Fluidity, because then it makes a Very Fluid act like Balanced/Flexible would. It's not right and it should be corrected. Has anyone brought this up to the people in charge at SI games?

BTW, another issue I have is with the AI defending at corner kicks. There is still an overuse of "mark the six yard" by multiple players by the AI. That was a problem with the last patch on FM14, why wasn't this corrected for FM15? Ridiculous.........

It has been mentioned and is under review. I don't see much wrong with how the AI positions itself corners. It is implemented as intended. If you feel it is ridiculous, then please upload some examples to the bugs forum and state how you think they should be positioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has been mentioned and is under review. I don't see much wrong with how the AI positions itself corners. It is implemented as intended. If you feel it is ridiculous, then please upload some examples to the bugs forum and state how you think they should be positioned.

You don't see much wrong in how the AI defends at corner kicks? It positions 4 players to mark the six yard box just as it did on the last patch in FM14. Then you posted it was a bug that was overlooked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't see much wrong in how the AI defends at corner kicks? It positions 4 players to mark the six yard box just as it did on the last patch in FM14. Then you posted it was a bug that was overlooked.

That's zonal marking though. Many clubs position a line of 4 players along the length of the six yard box to defend a corner, just ask the likes of Benitez, Guardiola or Mancini.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't see much wrong in how the AI defends at corner kicks? It positions 4 players to mark the six yard box just as it did on the last patch in FM14. Then you posted it was a bug that was overlooked.

The overlooked element was that the AI could place multiple players zonally like this in FM14, but we could only set one due to a UI bug (which someone figured out a workaround to).

In FM15 this isn't an issue as we can place people in the same way.

If you think four players zonally marking this area is wrong, state why in the bugs forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is that Everything from standard play and more attacking means players Hoof the ball upwards the pitch. Take "Control" for an example players can have 4 passing options but still Hoofs the ball, there is no Control it is like "Control" means "all out attack" still I play team settings "keep hold in the ball" "shorter passing" and individual settinngs like "play it shorter" but still they hoof that ball.

No playing "defending" game is the attacking **** while other things above that is giving away posssesion and in defending game the AML/R also track back better so defensively it works better as well.

Yes and almost no movement whatever duty you give players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't mean that at all Mikael, nor does it behave that way in my experience.

If you have examples where this happens, then please upload them to the Bugs Forum, detailing all of your Roles, Duties, TIs and PIs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't mean that at all Mikael, nor does it behave that way in my experience.

If you have examples where this happens, then please upload them to the Bugs Forum, detailing all of your Roles, Duties, TIs and PIs.

What doesn´t it mean?

In my opinion it does and I dont know how to upload them, what do I upload? That particular match?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What doesn´t it mean?

In my opinion it does and I dont know how to upload them, what do I upload? That particular match?

You implied that Control as a Mentality just makes players "hoof the ball", whereas my experience using the same Mentality differs. It is obviously far more than Mentality alone and depends on the whole of the system employed, including Roles, Duties and Instructions.

A guide as to how to upload .pkms is here: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/406157

If you are able to create a bug report detailing your whole set up and mentioning specific times at which a player "hoofs the ball" in the uploaded .pkm, then SI can investigate. Don't get me wrong - there are cases where a random hoofed ball occurs, but they shouldn't be frequent enough to get wound up about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...