Important FM16 Tactical Changes

[RTHerringbone]

Or you could upload the .pkms that Cleon asked for.

[Loversleaper]

And I'm guessing you have two choices here: stop acting like a douchebag or get banned

Exactly what I expected

I guess tactical discussions are no longer needed and we will all have to take your word for it... At least you didn't lose your sense of humor

[RTHerringbone]

Just takes the .pkms for you to prove your point......

[Dr. Hook]

Exactly what I expected

I guess tactical discussions are no longer needed and we will all have to take your word for it... At least you didn't lose your sense of humor

Well, I had thought better of that reply, as I am generally more civilized than that. However, the point stands. Have the discussion, argue your case, and be prepared for someone to disagree with you. You can do that without making snarky personal insults and assumptions. If you can't, then stop posting in here.

As for the rest, well, I don't experience what you do. In my reply to Sven, I noted that your screenshots clearly show what you are talking about in your case. That is a long way from a general truism about the match engine. I have NOT experienced this happening in my save. I have nothing to gain by lying about this, and it's weird that you would think that I care enough to do so. If there were a universal problem with midfielders dropping into the defensive line, I would be the first to acknowledge it, which you would know if you knew anything about me and what I do here.

[Bigpapa42]

...?

If there is an issue, providing the PMKs as repeatedly requested can help resolve it, loversleaper. Bringing forward an issue is fine, but why refuse to potentially be part of a solution if there is an problem?

[Loversleaper]

zip.....................

[themadsheep2001]

Enough of this. LL, either you're going to upload the Pkms, or you're not. If you are not, that's fine, but then cease derailing the thread. There is a really simple way to look at this and it's not being taken. I'm going to start removing post from all users on this subject unless things start getting constructive immediately.

[Svenc]

Chill guys. :-)

The difference you are seeing graphically I think has to be viewed in context of what actually happens on the pitch. A CD(D) is and should be far away from AF(A) in mentality in a structured setup that divides the team into attacking and defending strata where the role, duty, position are more rigidly delineated. But at the same time, isn't this what you expect to happen by choosing this? You want your defenders to defend, your attackers to attack.

But within the framework of the chosen strategy. Playing like on contain or defend I wouldn't expect half my players to be encourageed to "get the ball forward and grab a goal" as the visual cues suggest. That's what I witnessed though with but 2 players given an attack duty, they play a far more aggressive game than the team strategy would suggest. Attack duties=generally forward runs=always. You don't get this by default from any other duty. Therefore this would be a conflict. I'm going to quote wwfan (original TC concept co-author). Previously none of the shapes had any of those huge splits if the cues are accurate/at all comparable. The strategies required there to be tight bands rather than huge splits that made defenders encourage to like "shut up shop" and the attackers to "go get em, boys", else they would be without meaning. The tight bands naturally also meant that all the talk about "compactness" was a tad overrated imo. To illustrate this, it took the "get overlap" shout to max out mentality on the fb to seriously get him moving forward much more early.

Huge mentality splits are problematic as they inhibit the overall strategy of play. If the defence is only focused on defending and the attack only focused on attacking, you will get disjointed play. A 1-20 split goes against the logic of the system. You might be able to get it to work with luck, but it is more likely to result in horrible play.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/266323-Falling-out-of-love-with-the-game?p=6972580&viewfull=1#post6972580

If you restrict players from moving between the lines, channel all passes to one player, or, in classic, generating huge mentality splits (equivalent of telling your attack you are going all out to win and the defence you are trying to shut up shop), then you should see bloody awful football.

I think the lack of good documentation or in-game feedback is the key element producing such critique. I don't think the average user can be expected to be as interested in tactical theory as I am, so need more of a helping hand to understand how things fit together. For example, it needs to be crystal clear that giving your defenders a mentality of 1 and attackers one of 20 is going to result in disjointed play, as they are following different strategic direction (you've basically said 'the team will focus on defending' to the defenders and 'the team will focus on attacking' to the attackers).

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/324243-*Official*-Football-Manager-2013-Constructive-non-ME-Feedback-Thread/page7

The forum search is a bit limited, found those via Google. :-) I wish there was no need to get back to that slider speech/ be so technical. But both in parts the play as well as the visual cues seem to suggest that indeed those gaps are genuine, and teams are split up affairs drawing strategy (in parts) less of a thing, or overriding them, in particular on rigid. Anybody here who truly knows? Where's Rich anyway?

[Cleon]

For someone so vocal about their issues, you are very reluctant to post the evidence we've asked for aren't you? If you want to carry this on then upload the evidence. You've been called out and asked to provide the evidence now. Upload the pkm or saved game. If not then you don't really have a right to carry on moaning in the manner you are. I had a feeling you wouldn't post them though.

[Dr. Hook]

But within the framework of the chosen strategy. Playing like on contain or defend I wouldn't expect half my players to be encourageed to "get the ball forward and grab a goal" as the visual cues suggest. That's what I witnessed though with but 2 players given an attack duty, they play a far more aggressive game than the team strategy would suggest. Attack duties=generally forward runs=always. You don't get this by default from any other duty. Therefore this would be a conflict. I'm going to quote wwfan (original TC concept co-author). Previously none of the shapes had any of those huge splits if the cues are accurate/at all comparable. The strategies required there to be tight bands rather than huge splits that made defenders encourage to like "shut up shop" and the attackers to "go get em, boys", else they would be without meaning. The tight bands naturally also meant that all the talk about "compactness" was a tad overrated imo. To illustrate this, it took the "get overlap" shout to max out mentality on the fb to seriously get him moving forward much more early.

The forum search is a bit limited, found those via Google. :-) I wish there was no need to get back to that slider speech/ be so technical. But both in parts the play as well as the visual cues seem to suggest that indeed those gaps are genuine, and teams are split up affairs drawing strategy (in parts) less of a thing, or overriding them, in particular on rigid. Anybody here who truly knows? Where's Rich anyway?

Just removed the quoted bits for clarity. Okay, so first thing is I think you are right that the match engine has evolved away somewhat from the T&T Theorems beginning and the original TC. WWFan is about, but infrequently these days. Perhaps he will jump in and give you a direct response to some of what you raised. On the whole, I don't think we are disagreeing as much as it appears. I believe that an attacking duty- yes it will be attacking with forward runs etc.- within a defensive framework will still be seen to be less aggressive than with an attack mentality.

To your point of setting a couple of attack duties in contain and them still acting like gung-ho attackers, that might be something else to look at. The larger question to me is why you would have an attack duty with a contain strategy. Would it be helpful if the TC actually limited the number of attack duties that can be selected if you chose contain? Having looked at how the AI allocated duties, it has 0 on contain, and I think 0-1 on defensive. This makes sense to me from a general standpoint. If your goal is contain or play defensive, then why would you select a bunch of attack duties. If it is for the other PI's the duty offers, this could be solved with a wider access to the PI's regardless of role chosen, which I am also in favor of.

One past point, I think the visual cues are a step in the right direction. Perhaps its being in the forest for me, but I take the "split" that is indicated in the mentality bar as a split that is relative to the match strategy chosen. Like a number of things, as this evolves I would like it to be a bit more clear.

[Svenc]

To your point of setting a couple of attack duties in contain and them still acting like gung-ho attackers, that might be something else to look at. The larger question to me is why you would have an attack duty with a contain strategy. Would it be helpful if the TC actually limited the number of attack duties that can be selected if you chose contain? Having looked at how the AI allocated duties, it has 0 on contain, and I think 0-1 on defensive. This makes sense to me from a general standpoint. If your goal is contain or play defensive, then why would you select a bunch of attack duties.

Taken it at "face value", "contain" as a genuine strategy, you wouldn't. However, the AI has never been very creatively in this, limiting its options. It could even be argued it was put on a backfoot instantly the way it applied things -- as a favourite, it frequently went with an attacking strategy plus numerous attack duties, which played into the hands of parking bus teams rather than stretching them (and being cautious of being hit on the break). Arguably for a more continental passing game, for instance, with play being serioiusly stretched and lateral balls, you previously had to go for the more restraint mentalities/Strategies, as that made players less aggressive and forward pushing. I sure did. Rich made an entire thread on this that's still popping up high up the list to this day (his Barcelona interpretation). What made the tactics still forward pushing and probing was the actually movement, the license given for it and that was duty entirelly. The thing to stretch here too is that support duty don't offer the same regular movement (and defend none at all, naturally). Therefore, not limiting this to "contain" now, you could attack on any of the mentalities, it was a matter of how aggressively. Going attack outright provides a very British style of play, and you seem to have players encouraged to be that reasonably aggressive simply by your duty setups.

Previously this allowed for the backs pushing all up to support in the final third and still play getting stretched and balls played back frequently even high up the pitch, as picking duties didn't inherently made players more aggressive or less so, not sure about that now. Highly aggressive mentalities mean mostly forward passes exclusively too, it's just a more aggressive push towards goal. Of course you can "contain" outright,

, but that's another thing. The opposite naturally also applies. If those cues of the CBs/D are genuine in particular rigid/structured, they play a super safe game even if the overall team strategy is picked as an attacking one.

As said, would like and challenge for someone to break every option down to simple questions the same as Rich did previously (posted this on the last page), but it seems more complicated/convulted at least in parts. Let's see how this pans out in the long run though! Would still be interesting if the SI chaps would chime in some.

[Dr. Hook]

I'll not argue with you that is more complicated and convoluted in parts than it used to be. You are also correct when there are some styles that the match engine cannot replicate intuitively- you mentioned the Barcelona thread as a perfect example and I agree. The criticism that the match engine lends itself more to a British style I think is also probably right. Let's see what we can come up with for the simple questions that we could do. I think THOGs Lines and Diamonds does this to an extent, but for what you want we'd have to strip out the actual coaching parts and focus solely on match engine mechanics. I don't think it should be that hard, but I'll cop to admitting that the time I spend with the match engine and in this forum has probably led to me believing it is more intuitive than it is- same as with my real life profession where I have to constantly remind myself that they are students for a reason, and I should temper my expectations accordingly.

[MBarbaric]

one thing that didn't get mentioned here and i believe it is important, although i have no real knowledge how it is done in ME.

IRL players on defense duty (just to be perfectly clear, i'm not talking about actual defenders) are on defense duty when their team is IN posession. meaning they are encouraged to stay back and cover the space in case their teammates lose the ball and whole team has to reorganize in defensive shape.

this might (but doesn't need to include the riskiness of passes) but primarily the positioning on the pitch (deeper in fm terms) and forward runs (rarely, again in fm terms)

what seems to happen in fm is that these players take deeper position even when their team doesn't have the ball which then creates gaps that shouldn't exist as they still need to occupy the space in the defensive block once the team has regained their defensive shape as screenshots from Lovesleeper show.

i don't know what is the underlying mechanism that leads to this, but that should really not happen in any serious game of football. it might happen if players are disoriented, demotivated or not their normal self....

what is fundamental in football and is missing from fm (apart from lack of proper closing down) is ability to give players separate instructions when the team is in posession and without it. i am not recalling wibble wobble but as it currently is we have everything mixed into roles that can't cope with both phases of game.

[rninejr]

I was Quite surprised to see jamie vardy, someone with likes to try to beat offside trap ppm n without comes deep to get ball ppm could drop deeper than both IF-S when the team reached final third. Though he quickly came back up front but I was using a structured team shape means he should get higher mentality setting than most of his teammates. indeed, duty now gives more influence than before.

[Svenc]

@Barbaric: Imo you didn'T need WibWob. What's on the tactics pitch was the shape without the ball, it's as easy as that. So: What you lined up=defensive shape. What this transpired to in attack was duty job. Generally with some exceptions: Attack duties: Forward runs always from the position. Support: mixed. Defend: Never. Thereof also came the advice in wwfan's 12 Step Guide, which I don't see applying anymore for the most part. When he encouraged newbies to have at least one attack duty in defense and midfield, what he really meant was players making regular forward runs and frequent actually runs between the lines, which you only get on role/duty combos that have the "forward runs always/gets further forward" activated in that sense. Attack duties now don't merely encourage to "get further forward", there's more to it, ditto support and defend. Therefore: more complicated. Arguably conflicting, even.

Concerning the shapes, if you insisted on it, you could everybody tell to hold position, which is not advisable as that meant no forward runs/runs from deep (and thus movement). But when the ball had reached the final third, your attacking shape would look exactly like your defensive shape which is logical as no player had made a forward run from his default/defensive position and the team rather move forward en bloc alongside the play or ball... the AMR/AML and AMC spots pushed up reasonably high up the pitch by default. That's in parts why the 4-2-3-1 Denmark imo was so common and important amongst human players. No matter what you did, you had 4 players supporting one another around the box, generally. Whereas in a non-staggered formation with clear lines, such as the 4-4-2 or 4-1-4-1, even the AI isolated the forward pretty oftenly, due to one of its forward always always being on attack duty previously apparently. Naturally this rubbed off on play and the stats, and even those who didn't delve too deeply into things instinctively felt that going 4-2-3-1 etc. was "a good way to go". Some even suggested it to be a cheat or overpowered, but inherently no. It's just that you can go much easier wrong on some of the other formations, and that players are reasonably spaced out in such staggered ones by default when attacking.

The criticism that the match engine lends itself more to a British style I think is also probably right. Let's see what we can come up with for the simple questions that we could do.

Not inherently damning much p'rhaps, but if players were given reasonably aggressive mentalities, that meant a forward push. wwfan went with counter I think as previously the tight bands that made the strategy (again, no such huge gaps, no matter the shape) didn't have players on aggressive mentalities in more restraint / cautious mentalities. It wasn't wholly intuitive maybe, I personally had them sorted in my head from most cautious (contain) to most aggressive (overload) but then again, it was partly semantical too. I mean, would the British consider the Spain national team a genuinely attacking side? Barcelona under Guardiola would have been likely booed off the pitch on some English grounds or at least have somebody stand up politely encouraging them to get the ****ing ball forward, damnit.

[carrunion22]

Thereof also came the advice in wwfan's 12 Step Guide, which I don't see applying anymore for the most part. When he encouraged newbies to have at least one attack duty in defense and midfield

I don't know about anyone else, but this is one thing I've found to be a big change this year. FM15, no matter what shape I used, I had one DL or DR on attack and the other on support. I had been doing it for a few versions since reading wwfan's guide using it to set up an initial template and then evolving my tactics from there. This one always stuck, with the side swapping based on the players at my disposal, and obviously the AMR/L in front with the opposite duty. This year I naturally used this basis and I have found it much more difficult to have success with a tactic like this than with matching duties on the flanks. Not to say I have had no success, just that it's something I have found more difficult to get consistently working. It's obviously an easy thing to adjust, it just seems so strange to move away what has become such a basic for me!

[RTHerringbone]

It's the danger of guides becoming regarded as factual instructions. This year we're seeing more and more systems evolving where there are fewer Attack Duties as the realisation is dawning that a more pragmatic approach often delivers "better" football. It's a great step forward, at least in my opinion anyway.

[noikeee]

Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but before FM16 I don't recall wing-backs on support being as attacking as they are now. I've got one WB/S on the DL position and sometimes he runs almost all the way into the byline. Admitedly it's a late run and he doesn't do it all the time, but if your player is that keen to go upfield, why go even more offensive on an attack role, specially if you've got another wide player ahead of him.

[carrunion22]

It's the danger of guides becoming regarded as factual instructions. This year we're seeing more and more systems evolving where there are fewer Attack Duties as the realisation is dawning that a more pragmatic approach often delivers "better" football. It's a great step forward, at least in my opinion anyway.

I have seen the discussion of the fact the guides were just guides to help people get started come up a lot in threads recently, with them being regarded as fact by some users. I used them for that (eg. the old specialist roles and team shape link was something I never stuck to), with certain things just sticking. although my account tells me I signed up to here a while back, I only actively started browsing here during FM14. I was having some trouble so I Googled either Ozil or Arsenal, and came across the Ozil+10 thread - I believe it was actually noikeee that started that thread (interesting with him popping up with the latest post here). I was amazed by the intelligent use of roles and duties having a player tuck in and create the overlap etc. and I thought about how a lot of teams have that one wing back who gets further forward. I went to the guides from there, and now am really into these forums and the tactical side of the game. I started off with them giving me a template and adapted from there - in longer saves I tended to change system each summer to some extent. I had a system in one season where on the flank with the attack duty in defence, I moved the player into the WB position with no one in front of him, so it was basically just his flank to run.

I lost my way a little there so back to your post...this year I'm finding the tactical side even more stimulating - I find myself on cig breaks at work just playing around with possible combinations in my head. I think Cleon has done well to really kick on this thought process (was excited when someone mentioned in another thread that this one was up), and from my own experience in game I'm finding attacking duties almost as something to try and avoid, at the very least completely minimise. As an average player who found some help and inspiration in these forums, it adds to the longevity and creativity in that it's moving me away from the things that had become starting points of the way I set my teams up. It's excellent.

[noikeee]

and came across the Ozil+10 thread - I believe it was actually noikeee that started that thread (interesting with him popping up with the latest post here).

This is funny because I had no idea what I was doing and just happened to write a lot. Eventually I got frustrated with the average results and abandoned that savegame.

It's also funny because I'm also right now preparing a thread that's vaguely similar to that one.

[Svenc]

I don't know about anyone else, but this is one thing I've found to be a big change this year. FM15, no matter what shape I used, I had one DL or DR on attack and the other on support. I had been doing it for a few versions since reading wwfan's guide using it to set up an initial template and then evolving my tactics from there. This one always stuck, with the side swapping based on the players at my disposal, and obviously the AMR/L in front with the opposite duty. This year I naturally used this basis and I have found it much more difficult to have success with a tactic like this than with matching duties on the flanks. Not to say I have had no success, just that it's something I have found more difficult to get consistently working. It's obviously an easy thing to adjust, it just seems so strange to move away what has become such a basic for me!

I'd have either of the wide backs either on:

attack (generally linked to "gets further forward/runs from deep always") -- when they are meant to push forward into the final from their defensive position third with every attack (that's been the primary original conception of duty, arguably, as wwfan didn't explicitly state in the guide for the newcomers, but which was the reasoning to encourage there to be someone on attack duty -- it also means different kinds of assists if somebody pushes all up. It wasn't intended a hard and fast rule, it was a quickie to avoid the most common player mistakes, such as setting all defenders by default on defend duty, midfielders on support and attackers on attack, for instanace. Additionally just following it to a T created a) movement between the lines and b) several types of chances rather than one-dimensional play which can backfire on occasion)

support (generally linked to "runs from deep mixed" or nothing chosen specifically as a fwd run instruction ever since FM 2015) -- when they are meant to step up and support the midfield, and generally be a bit more cautious when pushing all the way up (which they still did when it was on)

defend (generally linked to "runs from deep never" or "hold position") -- when they are meant to cover / just keep their defensive position, which they did. The AI often had both backs on defend duty for prolonged periods of play, I mostly ever did it when seeing out a game, as you really won't get caught of position/shape.

Same for midfield, arguably in a 4-1-4-1 if you want aggressive movement centrally to support the lone forward, you'd really better have an attack duty still there, as that's still linked to the regular forward movement (gets further forward, previously runs from deep/forward runs always). The exception being the playmaker roles. That's it for the most part. Doesn't get very much simpler once you had that worked out. It also ties in roughly with how football teams are set up. You have, very simply put, players getting at the end of moves (A), those supporting them (S) and those covering (D). A different mix here could make a side more cautious/balanced/encouraged to positionally overload (generally or a certain area of the pitch, say the left flank with several attack duties employed there) all by itself. You could also manually create overlaps, say with the right midfielder set on a defend duty, and the right back on an attack duty, and at the same time this didn't suddenly make either of them much more cautious/more aggressive in their general play, and more*. As said, I'm often a "rigid guy", and having but a single attack duty (positionally regular forward runner) or defend duty (positionally covering player) in particular in central midfield does seem to disrupt the intended play.

Therefore whilst I see a couple of points, I still don't fully understand the thinking behind the overhaul, or what duty is now meant to primarily represent, both in the game as well to what it compares to in real football in particular as it appears to cover more now. It's not that duty used to be exclusively about attacking movement/forward runs from the default position, but that was amongst its primary functions. On a lot of roles/duties the RFD/forward runs instruction ("hold position"/"gets further forward") is actually locked therefore, manually tweaking it is mostly limited. Roughly similar in terms of strategies -- there is arguably limited sense to still keep them/outmoding the old theorems if the gaps are that big as the entire thought behind them, which evolved from community theorem, was to have tight bands so that players would be reasonably linked together in their "attack mindedness" or risk taking, whatever you want to call it. If you have players in the team encouraged to be super safe whilst at the same time the other half of the team would encouarged to be super aggressive and attacking then that's not an overarching strategy anymore.

The reason why I'm quoting wwfan all the time is that he was one of the core people who developed the tactical concepts as they are still in the game now, from strategies/mentalities over duties to team instructions, etc. Whilst this dates a few years back and he likely would have done it differently on FM 2015, it's no mistake that his "Barcelona interpretation" includes several attack duties, as that previously didn't disrupt general play an inch. He did this due to positioning reasons, to have wingbacks who get forward always, etc. I'm still on a 2015 save too though I can't part from currently, managing in Down Under, so no immediate biggie.

* The balanced fluidity was a bit special in that, but it equally didn't wholly spread out the individual mentalities as apparently(?) on rigid now.

[Os]

I'm not sure whether this has anything to do with the preceding discussion but I played a game today as Spurs with a 442 formation against an Arsenal team with their 4123 formation.

I started out with my 2 Cms as a basic cm(D) and CM(S) combo, after a few minutes I noticed that the Arsenal 2 CM were dominating my midfield not by numbers but by the positioning of my CM(D) who was far too deep and on top of my CB's.

I ended up changing him to CM(S) just to close the gap, meaning me having 2 CM on support which worked a treat but felt logically wrong.

Also upon switching to a 442 in another game against Juve I tried to stagger my front 2 by playing DLF(S) and AF(A) in order to create a link to my midfield, however the 2 forwards were literally parallel to each other and a massive gap appeared between my midfield and front line.

These 2 instances occurred within a structured philosophy.

I have consigned my 442 to the bin now post patch.

[Svenc]

I'm not sure whether this has anything to do with the preceding discussion but I played a game today as Spurs with a 442 formation against an Arsenal team with their 4123 formation.

I started out with my 2 Cms as a basic cm(D) and CM(S) combo, after a few minutes I noticed that the Arsenal 2 CM were dominating my midfield not by numbers but by the positioning of my CM(D) who was far too deep and on top of my CB's.

I ended up changing him to CM(S) just to close the gap, meaning me having 2 CM on support which worked a treat but felt logically wrong.

Also upon switching to a 442 in another game against Juve I tried to stagger my front 2 by playing DLF(S) and AF(A) in order to create a link to my midfield, however the 2 forwards were literally parallel to each other and a massive gap appeared between my midfield and front line.

These 2 instances occurred within a structured philosophy.

Not sure about the DLF(s), but overall this ties in absolutely, in particular on going more structured as you did. Going by the posts by RT and others, it seems they're perfectly comfortable with things work ever since so would be interesting to hear how they step by step go through the process. I outlined mine some which seemed pretty much in line with what the original authors of the TC did, but since it's seen an overhaul by SI, it cannot apply anymore 100%. As outlined by THOG in the first post, you are also encouraged to pick support dutys over attack dutys if your aim is a more probing possession based style, and that attack duty players are playing a far more adventurous, mentality-wise more aggressive game, is also on intent, the mix-up was done by SI on purpose. Vice versa on defend duties. You have one of the conflicts such mix-ups create when all linked to a single function/TC concept (duty) outlined perfectly. Still therefore there must be a logical process in behind to go through setting up things. Otherwise AI teams would be a mess, as how they deal with things, whilst being highly dynamic, is governed by SI too.

That said, with the FM 2015 save still going and the holidays around the corner I'm taking a time off now from FM 2016 (and beyond) anyways, merry Christmas to all of you for now! :-)

[THOG]

Os, the vertical compactness of 3-strata formations is an issue for me as well, meaning you can't really set up a very compact 442 like Atletico or Leverkusen without going strikerless. That will hopefully be addressed in future versions.

Svenc, I just said support duties are now more possession-oriented, not that you can't use attack duties in a possession style. A lot still depends on the specific formation, roles, TIs and PIs used. I think if you just want to sit on the ball and have the opposition chase possession, then it does make more sense to use more support duties instead of having a lot of forward movement. But that's not the only way to play a possession game and probably not the best strategy against a parked bus. IMHO, I think people run into trouble by trying to create one tactic that will do both when, in reality, even Guardiola-era Barca mixed up their approach quite often.

[Loversleaper]

zip......................

[THOG]

It's kind of pointless debating about what instructions should do here. The mods aren't staff, and while we do our best to explain what the tools we're given do, we have no more control over design decisions than any other user. If the TC isn't matching your expectations, the best course of action is to provide several pkms and screenshots on the bug forums illustrating the issue. SI do take detailed, well-reasoned feedback seriously, moreso than most other developers.

[themadsheep2001]

It's kind of pointless debating about what instructions should do here. The mods aren't staff, and while we do our best to explain what the tools we're given do, we have no more control over design decisions than any other user. If the TC isn't matching your expectations, the best course of action is to provide several pkms and screenshots on the bug forums illustrating the issue. SI do take detailed, well-reasoned feedback seriously, moreso than most other developers.

Well said. A PKM was asked for some time ago and has yet to appear. Little anyone can do but move on entirely now

[GlesgaKillie]

Inspired by Cleon's excellent thread on training, I suppose it's a good idea to take note of some key tactical differences between FM15 and FM16.

First, the Team Shape setting has been streamlined to make it less convoluted and easier to understand. It still affects differences in mentality and creative freedom, but now, "Very Fluid" means the team will tend to be more compact (with more creative freedom) whilst "Highly Structured" means the team will tend to spread out more back-to-front (with less creative freedom) with Fluid/Flexible/Structured simply being sequential steps between those two extremes.

I.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Dr. Hook]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

In what way do you find it insensible?

[GlesgaKillie]

Very fluid you would expect to indicate to mean a more creative and open style not compact. Highly structured would make more sense being compact with less creative freedom.

I the above quoted descriptions make no logical sense whatsoever. I was assuming it as a typo until you responded. I still am unconvinced it's not a typo because surely the OP can see how illogical that post is.

[noikeee]

It isn't a typo, it's how it works. It can make some sense because very fluid means an evolved type of football where all players contribute to all phases of play (defenders are expected to attack, attackers to defend) hence the team tends to be more compact as defenders go up and attackers go back; structured is the inverse.

However I still feel it's crap that we can't set it up like you're asking to - a compact team with low creative freedom (ex Simeone's Atlético); or a spread out team with high creative freedom (ex the Scolari teams where it's all about the individuals expressing themselves).

[GlesgaKillie]

With respect it makes no sense if it isn't a typo. It's completely counterintuitive. I mean this from a real life coaching perspective as well as in game.

Fluidity should relate to movement. I.e. a very fluid team moves more and be more expansive. Not be more compact.

Not picking a fight but if that is not a typo then this is a discussion that has merit.

[noikeee]

I definitely agree it's counterintuitive, but that's how it is and how it's been in the game for years now.

Notice the compactness isn't a huge effect, it's relatively minor between different levels of fluidity. The biggest difference is in creative freedom. Though then it makes no sense we have a TI to adjust the creative freedom (be more expressive/more disciplined), and no TI for compactness.

To make things more absurd, you often actually need to be a bit less compact if you want to impose yourself on the game and play attacking. This is in order to find space for your team to play in. Which is completely at odds to what people usually think of what fluidity is (ie, the more fluidity you use the more expansive and dangerous you are); and at odds to the creative freedom you need for playing a more expansive game. It's just a really convoluted, unclear system of setting up tactics.

Of course I do understand why things are as they are, as they evolved from the old, mathematical guides of how to set up the sliders for mentality and creative freedom, but perhaps it's time we further evolve away from those concepts that have long disappeared from the visible part of the game.

[Dr. Hook]

I definitely agree it's counterintuitive, but that's how it is and how it's been in the game for years now.

Notice the compactness isn't a huge effect, it's relatively minor between different levels of fluidity. The biggest difference is in creative freedom. Though then it makes no sense we have a TI to adjust the creative freedom (be more expressive/more disciplined), and no TI for compactness.

Yeah you beat me to it here Noikeee, but I was going to say as well that you really don't even notice the compactness difference. What also isn't sensible to me at this point aside from what you mentioned is the roam/hold position. In a fluid system you expect players to roam. As we've said in other contexts and hope SI will take it on board, is that team shape needs to be jettisoned. It has no useful purpose any more and should be able to be controlled by team instructions as you already can do for the most part. Beyond that it is one of the things that constantly causes misunderstandings and issues for folks and it needn't be that way.

[GlesgaKillie]

Yeah, thanks for discussing guys. Just scratching my head when making tactics, thinking "this makes no sense to me".

Cheers guys

[ibrahim.akbyk]

Yeah you beat me to it here Noikeee, but I was going to say as well that you really don't even notice the compactness difference. What also isn't sensible to me at this point aside from what you mentioned is the roam/hold position. In a fluid system you expect players to roam. As we've said in other contexts and hope SI will take it on board, is that team shape needs to be jettisoned. It has no useful purpose any more and should be able to be controlled by team instructions as you already can do for the most part. Beyond that it is one of the things that constantly causes misunderstandings and issues for folks and it needn't be that way.

Dr.Hook, I noticed you mentioned about roaming. I did read team shape is no affect on roaming(I guess on Stupid Questions Thread). Did it change or I get it wrong ?

[Dr. Hook]

Dr.Hook, I noticed you mentioned about roaming. I did read team shape is no affect on roaming(I guess on Stupid Questions Thread). Did it change or I get it wrong ?

What I meant in this thread is that you can choose very fluid, which should have a lot of player movement shifting to cover space etc. and yet you can select hold position, and in very structured, you can choose roam from position. This is not really sensible from a game setup standpoint. I think it does have some effect on roaming, but not that much- you can't select "very fluid" and get Total Football which is what it should do for you.

[summatsupeer]

In addition to that, now all team shape settings incorporate mentality differences between duties (just like the old Flexible setting used to work). So on any Team Shape setting, 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.

Can you confirm if individual creative freedom levels are also adjusted to the duty like the mentality now is? It's hard for me to tell from just watching the game.

[PassMaster]

Mark me down as a player finding either something fundamentally wrong with the game or my tactic. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to blame the game but my tactic doesn't contradict itself and all roles are set to balance the team correctly between attacking capability but also defensively sound and able to cover if we lose the ball.

No matter how much I drop my back four and instruct full backs to close down less (part of trial and error) I still get beat every game by a through ball that has no business being played as the player is harrassed by midfielders, or finding its target as my defender is in a position to cover, or recover. Right now I'm leaning towards it being something in the match engine and something that's fundamentally changed in instructions.

[HUNT3R]

Mark me down as a player finding either something fundamentally wrong with the game or my tactic. I'm not going to be so arrogant as to blame the game but my tactic doesn't contradict itself and all roles are set to balance the team correctly between attacking capability but also defensively sound and able to cover if we lose the ball.

No matter how much I drop my back four and instruct full backs to close down less (part of trial and error) I still get beat every game by a through ball that has no business being played as the player is harrassed by midfielders, or finding its target as my defender is in a position to cover, or recover. Right now I'm leaning towards it being something in the match engine and something that's fundamentally changed in instructions.

The easiest way to find out would be to read the Asking For Help sticky thread and create your own thread, providing the details needed.

[Farina]

Speaking of the link between compactness and creative freedom with FM's team shapes, is this based on reality? Is there a good reason SI game couldn't also have decoupled them and given us simply 5 levels of compactness and 5 levels of creative freedom to choose from?

Can you confirm if individual creative freedom levels are also adjusted to the duty like the mentality now is? It's hard for me to tell from just watching the game.

Creative freedom, along with vertical runs, always have been the most defining characteristic of a specific duty and I'd assume that still is the case. You can also infer this from the fact individual creative freedom can't be changed in PIs.

[edit] seems I was beaten to it questioning the link between compactness and creative freedom.

[Luizinho]

I'm seeing a lot people in FM16 using successful systems that don't give an 'Attack' duty to any of their players.

I've always believed that you needed at least a couple 'Attack' duties in your team to give penetration to your play?

[herne79]

I'm seeing a lot people in FM16 using successful systems that don't give an 'Attack' duty to any of their players.

I've always believed that you needed at least a couple 'Attack' duties in your team to give penetration to your play?

There's no hard and fast rule. It's far more important to ensure you have a balanced system. One of my saves uses 0 attack duty players, a different save uses 4.

So if you like to have a couple of attack duties, and they work in your system, then carry right on using them .

[Bitner]

Hey,

For me fluidity it's like the glue who makes the team work as a Unit(very-fluid) to the strict sectorial division (Highly Structured), and the other instructions, like high/lower line or High/lower pressure should be matched by them and the roles properly, and if not, you'll createa disjointed team who will never work.

Cheers,

Bitner

[Rashidi]

I'm seeing a lot people in FM16 using successful systems that don't give an 'Attack' duty to any of their players.

I've always believed that you needed at least a couple 'Attack' duties in your team to give penetration to your play?

I have a system which has 2 players on attack and one which has 3, and all of them use fluid. I use different shapes for different reasons. If I want to compress play, and play with a big more swagger and take more risks, chances are I will play fluid. However, the shape in itself lends to a very simple interpretation.

Highly Structured - More depth, isolated defense, isolated attack...need to compensate. Great for counter attacking, really dangerous if deployed effectively.

Highly fluid - compact, compressed, loads of creativity, lines are blurred. Hard to break down if they are on a run, if they camp, and you can't get the ball back, you are finished. Very vulnerable if you are using the wrong players.

Shapes work for all kinds of team. One teams shape is not going to work on another. Its how you put everything together. And for once I am actually thinking about shape. In an upcoming Youtube video on the Torino Diaries, I think its from episode 14-16, I go into a "eureka" moment, when it suddenly dawns on me how I was not using shape right. And it culminates in episode 16 in one of the best performances I've had this season. There are so MANY VISUAL CUES to tell you that you need to do something. It could be a role change, a wrong player or a shape change. The beauty is it could be all 3 together too.

THOGs explanation is spot-on.

[rokkeo]

One thing I would like to see is creative freedom being separated. What I mean by that is having 2 levels of CF. One having when ON the ball and 2nd when OFF the ball. For me it makes a lot of sense, but not sure does it make any when it comes to coding and overall vision of match engine functionality by SI.

[noikeee]

I don't think creative freedom at the moment makes any difference whatsoever to the player's decisions without the ball? I don't understand what you want, what exactly does creative freedom without the ball mean?

[Kcinnay]

I don't think creative freedom at the moment makes any difference whatsoever to the player's decisions without the ball? I don't understand what you want, what exactly does creative freedom without the ball mean?

I think it does. I've played some test games in FMT, to see the differences in team shape. In everything above structured, I've seen my defenders take lots more 'bad' initatives in positioning, even when I added the 'be more disciplined' shout. I'm talking about unnecessary position swaps, defenders being dragged out of position, a defensive mess. With the exact same settings, very structured was the only team shape that made my bank of four positionally solid. That's where the creative freedom without the ball kicks in.

I too think creative freedom shouldn't be related to team shape. I love a very compact vertical shape, but also a very disciplined, well-drilled team with very low creative freedom overall. And I have lots of difficulties to find the right balance.

[rokkeo]

I don't think creative freedom at the moment makes any difference whatsoever to the player's decisions without the ball? I don't understand what you want, what exactly does creative freedom without the ball mean?

Actually it does according to SI. When you choose team shape as very fluid for example, that means your player will have much CF to move around more freely rather to stick to his position but that also means he will be more creative on the ball (playing risky passes etc...). The reason why I would like something like this to be separated I will explain on a Marcel Schmelzer example: his vision and passing ability are nowhere near as good as his off the ball movement. So ideally I would like him maybe to roam into space and link up play without fear that his lack of vision or technical ability will compromise our defense. Now, I KNOW that in that case I can solve this by using more structured approach (more creative freedom will not be spread equally across all your players, but will rather be given more to playmakers), but this also means I will lose that compactness that fluid shape brings.

[noikeee]

I think we're talking 30 different things all at the same time.

First, we don't have a direct creative freedom modifier at the moment. Team shape in old slider terms affects both creative freedom and MENTALITY. Which is why defenders are more keen to move out of their positions when defending under some settings - it's because their MENTALITY is different, not because of the difference in creative freedom.

This is the old debate we were having a few months ago (in this thread?) of why we want creative freedom to be completely split from team shape. It's confusing, we should have one setting that only touches mentality (which effectively becomes "vertical compactness"), and another that only touches creative freedom. At the moment they're lumped in together in a Frankenstein mishmash that's a consequence of very old theories on different match engines and different settings for tactics, and makes little sense under the current TC.

Second, I misunderstood what I mean, you seem to want a separate creative freedom for when your team has the ball but your player doesn't. I thought you meant you wanted a different setting for creative freedom for when your team doesn't have the ball and is defending! That sounded weird. Still, I don't think it makes much sense. You already have a setting for telling a player to "roam from position more", if you want Schmelzer to play like a robot with the ball but roam freely, then you can give him a fairly basic role, then tick "roam from position more". I think it'd be overcomplicating to have even more settings to allow different levels of roaming and freedom to move without the ball!