Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Neil Brock

Football Manager 2016 Out Now - Official Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

If you are unsure about mentality the best way to play is probably the same as MBarbaric describes in post #1226. Leave team mentality on standard and just adjust the TIs to suit the match. Its actually the way I used to play a lot and still do although I do tinker more with mentality than I used to a few years ago.

I'll start probably 90% of matches with standard mentality adjusting if I feel the need during a match.

Personally I very rarely used attacking in FM15 mainly because my tactics were based more around possession & defence. I did use it a little in FM14 with varying degrees of success.

As to when to use it you need advanced players in your formation to receive the ball early so ideally two/three in the AM/ST strata and you then want opposition that is leaving space at the back for you to exploit. So in FM terms you really need the opposition to be the stronger team as then they'll leave more space at the back while on the same train of thought its more likely to work best during away matches for the same reason.

To a lesser extent it could be useful against teams who pack the midfield as your players will play more direct bypassing the opposition players in the middle.

EDIT

You can also select an attack mentality and then temper it down with TIs but the FM ME seems to work better for me if I take a lower mentality and temper it up but then that might just be the way I think.

EDIT 2

Actually forgot another situation you see described a lot on the forums. Users start with an attacking style and one of two things occurs - The opposition score and sit back even more leading to the barn door/shovel scenario or the attacking team scores forcing the defensive team to chase the game leaving space at the back and they score another 3/4/5 goals.

So yes when you are ahead and the opposition are chasing the game although this can sometimes lead to an end to end scenario.

I agree on that, I tend to do the same thing usually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the match engine out-grown the simplistic mentality names/descriptions or were they always obtuse? Who cares... What I think would be useful is for the game to have a more accurate, perhaps even more expansive, description of the mentalities. Failing that is there some post in the tactics forum that explains the repercussions, and hence applicability, of each of the mentalities? It looks to me like some user education would go a long way to resolving issues people might have. You can only bash people for so long with the "its your tactics" before you are obligated to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The defenders position especially the full back is so awful,except that the ME is good.

I agree, I can't play it because of the full backs though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else seeing Everton drastically outperform expectations? I'm halfway through my first EPL season and Everton are at the top of the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DLF is a playmaker role, which attracts the ball.

As far as i know, theres no mention of this in game related to the role.

Same with playmakers actually. Theres no actual ingame info that says players will look to pass to these players if they can, other than the role, and some of us just like the role settings and dont want them to be playmakers/targetmen.

Now in previous versions we COULD set who was a playmaker or targetman regardless of role . It is unfortunately another tactical option that has been removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as i know, theres no mention of this in game related to the role.

Same with playmakers actually. Theres no actual ingame info that says players will look to pass to these players if they can, other than the role, and some of us just like the role settings and dont want them to be playmakers/targetmen.

Now in previous versions we COULD set who was a playmaker or targetman regardless of role . It is unfortunately another tactical option that has been removed.

The clue is in the name - "Playmaker" & "Target Man"

The role description also explains the roles fairly clearly.

The role description for a DLF also explains that his role is to link play and whilst not a true playmaker its obvious he is going to be heavily involved in attacks.

Removing the options to set PMs or TMs was perfectly fine and are now linked directly to the role you select which makes much more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The clue is in the name - "Playmaker" & "Target Man"

The role description also explains the roles fairly clearly.

The role description for a DLF also explains that his role is to link play and whilst not a true playmaker its obvious he is going to be heavily involved in attacks.

Removing the options to set PMs or TMs was perfectly fine and are now linked directly to the role you select which makes much more sense.

Those exact roles where in fm13 with the added function of designated playmaker and targetman roles, the bottom line here is a tactical function has been removed for whatever reason, i would suspect it broke the match engine in some way, or it was percieved to be to overpowered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those exact roles where in fm13 with the added function of designated playmaker and targetman roles, the bottom line here is a tactical function has been removed for whatever reason, i would suspect it broke the match engine in some way, or it was percieved to be to overpowered.

I imagine it was removed because its function was taken over by the roles.

Leaving it in made little sense and left potential for it to be abused and used as an exploit.

Claiming it to be a negative change by SI is ridiculous as anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to see it was the correct decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I imagine it was removed because its function was taken over by the roles.

Leaving it in made little sense and left potential for it to be abused and used as an exploit.

Claiming it to be a negative change by SI is ridiculous as anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to see it was the correct decision.

You say the function has been over taken by the specific roles, but i have not seen any information from solid sources suggesting that is the case, yes we would all like to believe the function wasnt completely removed, but its not the first time Si removed a playmaker designated fuction, they done is back in the champ days, cant mind the editions, think it was 01-02 had playmaker role then the next edition didnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say the function has been over taken by the specific roles, but i have not seen any information from solid sources suggesting that is the case, yes we would all like to believe the function wasnt completely removed, but its not the first time Si removed a playmaker designated fuction, they done is back in the champ days, cant mind the editions, think it was 01-02 had playmaker role then the next edition didnt.

What do you expect? Its not like a major change, its was a very minor change to the way the TC worked.

What exactly did the box do in previous versions? It encouraged other players to pass to the player you ticked as PM.

Whats does assigning a DLP/AP role do? It encourages other players to pass to that player.

Pretty sure there were a few threads in the tactics forum explaining that when the change was made.

All in all it just feels like you are trying to make an issue out of a total non-issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of my current team, the goalkeeper is the only player out of them all that have played 10+ to have less than a 75% pass completion rate.

And in my current save, no team in the Premier League has a higher pass completion above 75% bar Manchester City. They're at 79% or 80%.

Other teams in the league? Don't know and don't care to be honest, I only focus on my team.

What I cited above to me serves as an increased sample size to demonstrate that my issues relate to the match engine. So I do care.

But I don't think it would ever be something I'd get hung up on. I tend to focus on enjoying the game rather than over scrutinise every single stat incase it falls below my own perception of reality.

Nope. Wrong way around. I don't "over scrutinise every single stat", I notice that, regardless of mentality and instructions, players are prone to a lot of mindless hoofing and low probability Hollywood balls in defiance of all tactical input, and find that it is corroborated by pass completion percentages for both my own team, opponents, and the whole league. And to be honest, it's not a terribly convincing defence to glibly talk about not getting "hung up" on the realism of what is possibly the most in-depth, immersive computer game in the world. The whole premise is that it's supposed to be as close to reality as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well your tactics are your responsibility and your choices.

You have access to exactly the same options that AI teams do therefore if you can't achieve the completion rates that AI teams do its an indication that you aren't making the choices required to achieve them.

My pass completion is about the fourth or fifth in the league. Pass completion across the board is lower than it is in the real world by 8-9%, which is more than it sounds when you consider that a midfielder who completes 87% of his passes is considered reliable with the ball while a midfielder of comparable role who completes only 77% would be considered a borderline liability.

Whether a high pass completion rate should be the aim of a tactic is a completely different discussion.

It obviously isn't. My aim is to win games, and to do it with the team playing how I want them to. Achieving the former is sometimes made more difficult, but the latter especially, is largely impossible, when players defy all instruction to play mindless Hollywood balls from all over the pitch. To say nothing of the combination of it being incredibly easy to score and concede from crosses, while the rate at which clear chances *not* resulting from crosses get missed is just astonishing, much as in FM2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say the function has been over taken by the specific roles, but i have not seen any information from solid sources suggesting that is the case, yes we would all like to believe the function wasnt completely removed, but its not the first time Si removed a playmaker designated fuction, they done is back in the champ days, cant mind the editions, think it was 01-02 had playmaker role then the next edition didnt.

It is the case. If you're doubting it, you can SEE it in a game for yourself. It was just removed because the game became more role focused and it doesn't make sense having a playmaker role without wanting him to "make plays". Same with Target Men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The labels and descriptions for mentalities are not helpful. Mentalities are really levels of risk, so Contain is least risky and Overload most. So a team IRL like Bayer Leverkusen or to an extent Klopp's Dortmund play with a high level of risk with an Attacking mentality in FM terms (very high line, very intense pressing, very high tempo, constant forward runs, always looking to pass forward rather than sideways or backwards).

Then Guardiola's Barca played with a more medium/low level of risk, so Standard or Counter, with the modification of a higher defensive line, more pressing and short passing. They played at a low, patient tempo with lots of backwards or sideways passes and fewer forward runs from midfield. One or both full backs and wide forwards had attack duties to push them forwards, the rest of the team concentrated on keeping control through possession.

The reverse would maybe be a team like Leicester, who play with a high level of risk, Attacking or Control in FM terms, but a lower defensive line. Still lots of forward passes, high tempo, lots of forwards runs etc.

These are the more extreme examples and IRL most teams would be more balanced, shifting between Counter, Standard and Control (or low-medium, medium, medium-high risk) based on opposition and match situation.

Well said. I've long said (and I'm not the only one) that mentalities should be viewed in terms of risk, and I'd argue the descriptions should be rewritten to reflect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Is there a way to stop teams being described as "X Football Club" in the match commentary? It's like having Brendan Rodgers commentate on all of the games.

2. If we're now deducting the cost of releasing players from the transfer budget (weird change, but whatever), can you at least have the option to flex the transfer budget to free up enough funds, rather than have the release automatically fail? The same function exists when there's not enough transfer funds to deal with an incoming transfer, so it seems to be an oversight to not have it there when you're releasing players. It's a real pain to have it fail, then have to go back and manually flex the transfer budget, then release him again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a board confidence report, it states that they are dissapointed with me selling my best player. But it was the Chairman who intervened and accepted a bid... A bit silly or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well said. I've long said (and I'm not the only one) that mentalities should be viewed in terms of risk, and I'd argue the descriptions should be rewritten to reflect that.

Mentalities shouldn't be a 'risk' based tool in tactical terms even though, I must admit, that it does appear so in this latest addition of FM which is causing several problems and has almost become something you want to avoid. Players with Attacking Duties, for the most part, have forward runs (which should enable them to get into attacking positions) or more dribbling or something else you would assume would constitute an attacking mind-set. I would argue that Attacking mentality players should emphasize more on the attacking aspects of the game like getting forward, shooting, dribbling, ect... - where on the other hand Defending mentality players would emphasize more on defending aspects such as holding positions, tackling, marking, safety, ect...

That is why I thought that SI had implemented team instructions like 'retain possession' + 'play out of defense' + 'work ball into box' so that one can play attacking football and still keep possession... It just isn't working like that at the moment. What is happening is that players deep down the pitch in attacking mentality frameworks or with attacking duties seem to just go onto the 'route one' mode (even without that option implemented in team instructions) bypassing the three mentioned above team instructions simply because mentality has become a risk tool and they give up possession so the whole game plan looks inverted...

Right now, I can play away from home - have a deeper defensive line on a defensive mentality strategy and have around 65% possession. In the real world, teams that usually play like that give up possession, let the initiative in the hands of the opponent and try to grind out a result...

It's all back to front...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that still hasn't been fixed in my opinion, is 'half chances' and 'clear cut chances'.

Two clear cut chances being marked up as 'half chances':

Man_Utd_v_OM_Pitch.png

image upload

Looks worse than it is really, here Juan Mata put Martial clean through, he scores from this by slotting it wide of the keeper. He's just running on to the ball there, the defender to his left is actually quite late getting there, and is nowhere near him when he strikes the ball (literally in the next milisecond...)

Man_Utd_v_OM_Pitch_2.png

photo uploading

Here, Martial is again played clean through, a beauty of a pass (Van Gaal are you watching?) by Mata and Martial here takes the wrong option, he takes a first time shot and skies it, when he could have taken another touch, two at a stretch.

Let's look at what the game is defining as a clear cut chance...

Man_Utd_v_OM_Pitch_3.png

screen shot windows

Hmm... Perez, has a sea of bodies around him, he attempts a shot at the near post that is saved. This is apparently a clear cut chance, yet both of Martial's "clear" chances are called half-efforts.

The other two chances in this match are called correctly (half chances), one resulting from a defensive collision and the other has a defender within tackling distance.

I also noticed, on a deleted save (stupidly...) that on the formation report page, the information presented is incorrect. On my own team (England's) report it was saying I was vulnerable to facing a formation as I had conceded a whooping 8 Clear cut chances to it. In all the matches I had played, the opposition had 0 CCC and 0 Half chances - I do prize myself on defence(!) so it did stand out as an anomaly. Whether this is just a visual error or if the prozone statistics is counting chances in one area but not the other is beyond me. If I see it again on my newer saves I will be sure to upload it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with the mentality ladder is that they seem to describe styles of play that are somewhat self-contradictory.

Attacking is high tempo, high line, lots of pressing, but then also ultra high risk-taking and ultra-direct passing.

Defensive is deep line, low tempo, short passing, lots of time wasting. This results in counterintuitively high possession stats.

Does any team IRL really play like either of these? Does any FM manager really want to? It seems like "attacking" is an utterly useless mentality. If you're a dominant team you'll give up your technical advantages with stupid long passes. If you're an underdog team your defense will get torn apart because of the high line and aggressive closing down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, has the "start game unemployed" changed from last year? I selected "start unemployed", went to my profile to vacation while applying for all available jobs, and the "apply for jobs" was unselectable. I had to go to "job center" and click "apply for all jobs" (which in this case was a significant number), had one interview with a low-level club (I started with one coaching badge and sunday-league player experience), the next day, after the interview, Jurgen Klinsmann offered me the U-23 Head coaching position for the US...which I think is a bit of stretch for someone with no actual coaching experience. And someone else got the only job I was offered an interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalities shouldn't be a 'risk' based tool in tactical terms even though, I must admit, that it does appear so in this latest addition of FM which is causing several problems and has almost become something you want to avoid. Players with Attacking Duties, for the most part, have forward runs (which should enable them to get into attacking positions) or more dribbling or something else you would assume would constitute an attacking mind-set. I would argue that Attacking mentality players should emphasize more on the attacking aspects of the game like getting forward, shooting, dribbling, ect... - where on the other hand Defending mentality players would emphasize more on defending aspects such as holding positions, tackling, marking, safety, ect...

That is why I thought that SI had implemented team instructions like 'retain possession' + 'play out of defense' + 'work ball into box' so that one can play attacking football and still keep possession... It just isn't working like that at the moment. What is happening is that players deep down the pitch in attacking mentality frameworks or with attacking duties seem to just go onto the 'route one' mode (even without that option implemented in team instructions) bypassing the three mentioned above team instructions simply because mentality has become a risk tool and they give up possession so the whole game plan looks inverted...

Right now, I can play away from home - have a deeper defensive line on a defensive mentality strategy and have around 65% possession. In the real world, teams that usually play like that give up possession, let the initiative in the hands of the opponent and try to grind out a result...

It's all back to front...

Mentality has always been a risk/reward thing. The definition has never changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really enjoying the game this year. Changes to the team instructions in tactics is really helpfull.

Only thing I don't like is the players reputation is shown as stars instead of Worldwide, Continental etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalities shouldn't be a 'risk' based tool in tactical terms even though, I must admit, that it does appear so in this latest addition of FM which is causing several problems and has almost become something you want to avoid. Players with Attacking Duties, for the most part, have forward runs (which should enable them to get into attacking positions) or more dribbling or something else you would assume would constitute an attacking mind-set. I would argue that Attacking mentality players should emphasize more on the attacking aspects of the game like getting forward, shooting, dribbling, ect... - where on the other hand Defending mentality players would emphasize more on defending aspects such as holding positions, tackling, marking, safety, ect...

That is why I thought that SI had implemented team instructions like 'retain possession' + 'play out of defense' + 'work ball into box' so that one can play attacking football and still keep possession... It just isn't working like that at the moment. What is happening is that players deep down the pitch in attacking mentality frameworks or with attacking duties seem to just go onto the 'route one' mode (even without that option implemented in team instructions) bypassing the three mentioned above team instructions simply because mentality has become a risk tool and they give up possession so the whole game plan looks inverted...

Right now, I can play away from home - have a deeper defensive line on a defensive mentality strategy and have around 65% possession. In the real world, teams that usually play like that give up possession, let the initiative in the hands of the opponent and try to grind out a result...

It's all back to front...

Mentalities have always been a risk and reward based tool. This is not new, hence the reason I say they should have been described that way long ago. Mentalities are a lot more malleable with the team instructions than the names suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why I thought that SI had implemented team instructions like 'retain possession' + 'play out of defense' + 'work ball into box' so that one can play attacking football and still keep possession... It just isn't working like that at the moment. What is happening is that players deep down the pitch in attacking mentality frameworks or with attacking duties seem to just go onto the 'route one' mode (even without that option implemented in team instructions) bypassing the three mentioned above team instructions simply because mentality has become a risk tool and they give up possession so the whole game plan looks inverted...

Mentality governs risk, but it also and always has influenced the overall urgency to move the ball towards the box. So you can go with attack as a mentality and suit that to your wishes, with lower tempo, and shorter passing, that's all fine. But it will and has always lead to mainly forward passes, in whatever style you prefer. funneling play towards the final third, trying to get the ball into the box, which is one reason why yelling "attack" in FM has never by default lead to more actual quality in goal scoring opportunity, in particular against sides parking the bus. It's partly semantics, would Barcelona or the Spain national team at its most lateral and stretching be regarded as a genuinely "attacking" side on British soil? I highly doubt it. But in that aspect the wording is about right. The confusion mainly comes in with the more defensive or moderate ones, as you can still be pretty darn attacking on about any mentality. In fact, you can expose yourself on contain outright this massively that you will be easy prey on the counter.

Which is in large parts because of duty as you can overload final thirds on any mentality vs. make every player hold position ditto. I'm with you, by the way. SI have linked duty now with mentality by default. Meaning that regardless of shape attack duty players are more prone to look for forward passes and vice versa for defensive ones. All shapes have adopted what was the specialty of "balanced", which made an attack duty wide defender as "attack-minded" as your forward. This mixes up two fundamentally different things, as duties originally where mainly about movement. Attack duty players (get further forward activated by default) look to leave their default position and break forward from play and spearhead the lines. Support duty players will step up and support. Defend duty players (hold position activated) will keep that position.

There are a few notable exceptions, such as playmaker roles, as none of them available on attack duty are encouraged to get ahead of play (which would be contradictory to them being classed "playmakers" -- can't make much of the play if you regularly move and run beyond it). However that nicely and simply tied in to how footie teams are generally very broadly speaking set up: you have players covering, players finishing moves off and players feeding those, a different mix of each of those can make a team far more defensive vs/ more attacking in an instant, without changing anything. To illustrate, not every position has a role available with a defend duty (hold position activated by default), so I had picked roles that allowed for the "hold position" player instruction. This is what these formations would look like if every player was told to hold position and the ball has reached the final third, not recommended to actually play as lack of movement from deep and between the lines means that attacking players are easily marked and to defend against).

4-2-3-1 Denmark (staggered formation, notice how the attack players move pretty high up the pitch by default).

sU9DJVF.jpg

4-1-4-1 (notice how the lines are clearly visible, in such formations they absolutely need to be bridged via attacking movement -- actually the Nr. 24 was a bit of a mistake, he would sit deeper, accidentally had him on a DM/support rather than defend).

oEvQDbT.jpg

This also in parts plays into AI wasting time and playing lots of backwards and lateral passes deep on the pitch. They go with a defensive mentality, obviously, probably add a couple instrcutions, let the keeper roll the ball out to a defender, add a couple of defend duties (which makes them more likely to play lateral and backwards passes as of FM 2016). And all it takes for an above average turnover of the ball of your own side is a couple of attack duty players in your CM stratum (such as wingers, and a central player, as they look to move the ball forward), and the turnover is pretty big. This happens on moderately aggressive/forward pushing mentalities as well, such as say, standard. On structured shapes the mentalities were pretty spaced out already, not sure how this looks like under the hood in particular, but there's clearly that kind of fallout. There's an issue with closing down/pressing high up the pitch, which means such time wasting AI can just kick the ball about as they like (which is why you can be genuinely outpassed by non-league standard opposition who waste time from kick-off), but I think mixing duty (which is about movement primarily) and mentality up by default is a mistake as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need to get back the 'with/without' ball player position instructions. Tinkering with mentalities, instructions and whatnot is too complicated sometimes, I just need to tell them "when we have the ball, you are here, when we don't, you are here" and that is it. Will this feature ever come back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalities have always been a risk and reward based tool. This is not new, hence the reason I say they should have been described that way long ago. Mentalities are a lot more malleable with the team instructions than the names suggest.

I understand that, but in this version it looks like risk is all the mentality actually does and it's been magnified - so that:

Defensive mentality = highly successful safety passing

Attacking mentality = risky impossible passes launched from deep bypassing all other Tactical Instructions.

This is a major concern because, and I think I am speaking for quite a few members of the FM community, that one would think that Attributes such as Dribbling, Passing, Finishing, Vision and other Decision Making would actually have a bearing on how successful those type of actions are - and not based one of three mentality settings.

I know a lot of people who have played real life football will agree that when the coach comes out and talks about attacking or defending mind-sets of the game, they are pretty clear cut --- it's not that he comes out and says 'we have to pass, dribble and shoot with a more Defensive Mentality to lower the risks'. Training attacking football and defending football during training lessons has each it's reality - and most people can visualize what constitutes Attacking or Defending elements in the game of football. That is why, right now, the game is absolutely not making any sense...

Svenc has been quite accurate with his analysis and illustrations, so I am looking forward to see more of his insights... :thup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand that, but in this version it looks like risk is all the mentality actually does and it's been magnified - so that:

Defensive mentality = highly successful safety passing

Attacking mentality = risky impossible passes launched from deep bypassing all other Tactical Instructions.

This is a major concern because, and I think I am speaking for quite a few members of the FM community, that one would think that Attributes such as Dribbling, Passing, Finishing, Vision and other Decision Making would actually have a bearing on how successful those type of actions are - and not based one of three mentality settings.

I know a lot of people who have played real life football will agree that when the coach comes out and talks about attacking or defending mind-sets of the game, they are pretty clear cut --- it's not that he comes out and says 'we have to pass, dribble and shoot with a more Defensive Mentality to lower the risks'. Training attacking football and defending football during training lessons has each it's reality - and most people can visualize what constitutes Attacking or Defending elements in the game of football. That is why, right now, the game is absolutely not making any sense...

Svenc has been quite accurate with his analysis and illustrations, so I am looking forward to see more of his insights... :thup:

A very big reason defensive mentality often gets highly successful rates its because the initial press against the build up isn't good enough (an area where the ME needs to improve), which allows a very slow build up from the back all too easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We really need to get back the 'with/without' ball player position instructions. Tinkering with mentalities, instructions and whatnot is too complicated sometimes, I just need to tell them "when we have the ball, you are here, when we don't, you are here" and that is it. Will this feature ever come back?

No it won't come back because its already built into the TC.

The roles/duties/TIs/PIs/OIs/Attributes etc define where a player is on the pitch both with & without the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know a lot of people who have played real life football will agree that when the coach comes out and talks about attacking or defending mind-sets of the game, they are pretty clear cut --- it's not that he comes out and says 'we have to pass, dribble and shoot with a more Defensive Mentality to lower the risks'.

They'll teach the mindset of not trying low percentage passes/shots/dribbles, but if the opening is clearly there, then go for it.

I understand that, but in this version it looks like risk is all the mentality actually does and it's been magnified - so that:

Defensive mentality = highly successful safety passing

Attacking mentality = risky impossible passes launched from deep bypassing all other Tactical Instructions.

This isn't the case. The attacking mentalities still has passing structures that encourage shorter passes at the back, to keep possession and will be more direct up front, to encourage that attacking incisiveness.

The issue, from what I've seen in the tactical areas here and elsewhere, is that people stick 10+ Team Instructions on top of a tactic. To use Attacking mentality as an example, with the short passing at the back, they'll still add play out of defence AND shorter passing which makes the passing range (at the back especially) very short. That's when you start seeing the punted balls because there's no one close enough. People also tend to allocate too many attacking duties to an already attacking mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To use Attacking mentality as an example, with the short passing at the back, they'll still add play out of defence AND shorter passing which makes the passing range (at the back especially) very short. That's when you start seeing the punted balls because there's no one close enough. People also tend to allocate too many attacking duties to an already attacking mentality.

The too many attack duties applies (in FM 2016 even mores than previously, which I think is wrong and mixing up fundamentally different things, see above). But "Play out of defense" totally minimized the passing instructions all along and was never a cause of punting, unless there was nobody in deep positions, upon which more direct balls were totally logical (can only pass the ball to players who are either nearby or mainly further up the pitch). Players won't turn into punting morons because they're given the largest possible bias to look for short passes exclusively or something. :)

Agreed about denying Loversleaper's statement though that an attacking mentality would override / bypass tactical instructions. Players will look to get towards the box in whatever style you instructed them to (and the defaults of building from the back / more direct balls up-front are customizable to big degrees). What's new as of FM 2016 is that attack duty players are far more likely to do so, and vice versa for defend duty ones as attack duty players are given more aggressive mentalities, and vice versa for defend duty ones. To quote THOG, I think this is how it shouldn't be as the primary function of duty is/was movement (which is different and needed)

you should generally see more risk taking and more aggressive positioning from an Attack duty midfielder compared to a Support duty midfielder. One consequence of this is that your duties will have a greater influence on your overall style of play. A team full of Support duties will be far more possession-oriented whereas a team full of Attack duties will try to initiate attacks with much more urgency.

So you'll see a side more likely to recycle possession with lateral and backwards passes if you don't throw a number of attack duties in the mix. The thing is that duties primarily govern something very fundamental and totally different first and foremost, and certainly not but the aggressiveness of the runs in isolation. That's what's being observed here, in my opinion. As argued, even on fairly moderate mentalities, having a couple of attack duty playerse in the CM stratum means they will pretty aggressively look to move the ball forward (only/mainly forward passes and no more lateral balls), and in some formations you absolutely need those in sufficient numbers to even have a halfway coherent tactics / enough players upfront in sufficient positions. At least if your aim is to halfway decently penetrate the opposition's area and not leave a forward totally without support. :D

edit: About punting, it's not common knowledge and easily ignored, but reading the patch notes it is apparent that players with lesser mental traits are more likely to clear their lines rather than staying cool if they are pushed. Happens on all levels eventually, naturally (same as a player with long shots of 1 can still score a screamer... just less oftenly). It's still something that's easily overlooked when being frustrated by players just booting the ball upfield. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The too many attack duties applies (in FM 2016 even mores than previously, which I think is wrong and mixing up fundamentally different things, see above). But "Play out of defense" totally minimized the passing instructions all along and was never a cause of punting, unless there was nobody in deep positions, upon which more direct balls were totally logical (can only pass the ball to players who are either nearby or mainly further up the pitch). Players won't turn into punting morons because they're given the largest possible bias to look for short passes exclusively or something. :)

Agreed about denying Loversleaper's statement though that an attacking mentality would override / bypass tactical instructions. Players will look to get towards the box in whatever style you instructed them to (and the defaults of building from the back / more direct balls up-front are customizable to big degrees). What's new as of FM 2016 is that attack duty players are far more likely to do so, and vice versa for defend duty ones as attack duty players are given more aggressive mentalities, and vice versa for defend duty ones. To quote THOG, I think this is how it shouldn't be as the primary function of duty is/was movement (which is different and needed)

I've always understood mentality, ever since I read TT&F 07, which was my start into the FM series. Duties took me a while to understand, even though it's not that difficult. The term 'duty' was vague for me. I wouldn't get rid of duties altogether. It could just be better explained, just like mentality can be better explained than it is currently in-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with mentalities is that they change instructions in both the attacking and defensive phase which can lead to confusion as they are separate parts of the game and are not necessarily related. For instance, the counter mentality states clearly that it is best used when you expect to lose the battle of possession and want to get men behind the ball, but by editing the team instructions you can get a high pressing, patient possession style of play a la Barcelona which completely contradicts the purpose of choosing that mentality in the first place. I think it would be much simpler to separate these two phases of the game by ditching the mentalities.

I think a build up style as a base for the offensive phase and a pressing style as a base for the defensive phase would be a more user-friendly way of doing things. Below is how I would re-work mentalities:

Build Up Style - Possession / Mixed / Direct

Default instructions

Possession (passing style = short, mentality, tempo, width = medium-low)

Mixed (passing style, mentality, tempo, width = medium)

Direct (passing style = direct, mentality, tempo, width = medium-high)

Additional build up instructions

Mentality - much safer / safer / riskier / much riskier

Tempo - much lower / lower / higher / much higher

Width - narrow / fairly narrow/ fairly wide / wide

So by default a possession style will have a lower mentality than a direct style.

Pressing Style - Low / Medium / High

Default instructions

Low (defensive line, closing down = low)

Medium (defensive line, closing down = medium)

High (defensive line, closing down = high)

Additional pressing instructions

Defensive Line - deeper / higher

Closing Down - less / more

Instead of choosing a counter mentality with various instructions to replicate a possession-based, high pressing style of play, now all you need to choose is a possession build up style and a high pressing style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is no Black Friday sale for FM16, huh :(?

That has nothing to do with SI.

If the shop selling FM16 wants to have the game in a Black Friday sale then it's their decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a bug or just a whimpy player? He's currently on 2 goals in the game but wanting to come off because of a bruise on his shin?

85a3214f6213dfd3a7ac514fde2caaa4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this a bug or just a whimpy player? He's currently on 2 goals in the game but wanting to come off because of a bruise on his shin?

85a3214f6213dfd3a7ac514fde2caaa4.png

Maybe he suffers from Daniel Sturridge syndrome :brock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think i've noticed this before, but possibly has been in the game some time. I know we can have sons, but didn't think AI did.

I was looking up George Hagi's son Ianis, to see if he was still playing (im in 2027) and noticed that George had another son called Stefan, a newgen at Sassuolo.

Looking at some other managers too and noticed a few more :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with regards to mentalities I am now assuming

Defensive = slow build up, possession based football with few risky passes?

Attacking = Fast build up, direct get it forward with many balls in to the channels etc?

So for instance I would say that a Barcelona tactic would be Defensive mentality, Very fluid, Close down much more, Push higher up, play out of defence, retain possession, work ball in the box

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it won't come back because its already built into the TC.

The roles/duties/TIs/PIs/OIs/Attributes etc define where a player is on the pitch both with & without the ball.

I'd still like to see where he will stand on the pitch with and without the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd still like to see where he will stand on the pitch with and without the ball.

Players don't "stand" anywhere, they move constantly depending on the orders and what is happening on the pitch.

The positions you select are not places they stand, they are areas of the field that the player works in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we bare in mind this isn't the place to necessarily discuss all aspects of the tactical system...

There is a forum for that... please keep this thread to feedback on the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread was closed so I'll post my reply here...

But the whole nonsense of not even being able to offer a player terms is something that needs to change. If a player isn't interested then fine, but at least allow managers to offer terms with the vague hope of changing their minds.

I absolutely agree with you on this part. I do strongly feel the "non-negotiable" part of transfers should be removed.

You should at least be able to throw numbers at a player no matter who they are. There are times when I know I could easily triple a player's wages, and give him 1st team football, but he has already decided I'm not worth negotiating with (I've seen players say they aren't interested in a move to my club because they don't think they'll get the 1st team football they want), so won't even entertain the idea of a negotiation. This is absurd. Even as Accrington Stanley manager I should be able to offer Jordan Henderson a contract, even for a laugh. You can "declare interest" in anyone, much to your players' amusement, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I play the more I get the impression that "improved counter-attacking" is really more "brain damaged defending". Defenders are very slow to react to long balls. Wingers making forward runs off the ball get completely ignored until it's too late. Closing down needs improvement too. You see a fair amount of goals from multiple defenders closing down the same attacker and leaving huge holes in the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

offsidewtf.gif

offside ? i mean i ve seen some weird offside decisions in fm16 ... but this one ? :D i'll upload the pkm and write it also in the bug forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue, from what I've seen in the tactical areas here and elsewhere, is that people stick 10+ Team Instructions on top of a tactic. To use Attacking mentality as an example, with the short passing at the back, they'll still add play out of defence AND shorter passing which makes the passing range (at the back especially) very short. That's when you start seeing the punted balls because there's no one close enough. People also tend to allocate too many attacking duties to an already attacking mentality.

There is still hoofball going on even when the mentality is turned down and there is a lack of attacking roles though, I don't think it is exclusively an attacking mentality issue.

One thing I still don't enjoy about the more defensive mentalities is the pace of shifting up when the team is in transition - short of a counter attack, getting the midfield to move up at pace is still not quite amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is still hoofball going on even when the mentality is turned down and there is a lack of attacking roles though, I don't think it is exclusively an attacking mentality issue.

One thing I still don't enjoy about the more defensive mentalities is the pace of shifting up when the team is in transition - short of a counter attack, getting the midfield to move up at pace is still not quite amazing.

PKM examples of any of these are always welcome though. That removes the subjectivity and especially regarding the hoofball issue, SI can see under the hood if it's an issue or a lack of creat....vision, composure or poor decision making. :)

Keep in mind that you'll see hoof ball examples more in the lower leagues anyway, but still, PKMs showing that this is a regular thing would be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PKM examples of any of these are always welcome though. That removes the subjectivity and especially regarding the hoofball issue, SI can see under the hood if it's an issue or a lack of creat....vision, composure or poor decision making. :)

Keep in mind that you'll see hoof ball examples more in the lower leagues anyway, but still, PKMs showing that this is a regular thing would be good.

Hoofball? I had a game where Forfar scored three times on counter-attacks with intricate passing moves that would have left Barcelona fans in tears. Teams in the lower divisions often play like EPL teams in this ME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

passes.png

must be some issue with the amount of passes received thing :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...