Why I decided to go back to FM11.

[Los_Culés]

The purpose of this writing is to explain why I finally decided to go back to FM11. I hope that some of my points will be considered in future releases in order to make the game more appealing for players of my sort.

Little background: I have been playing CM/FM for a long time. My first version was CM 01/02. Good old times J.  But I do not miss them much as in my opinion the game as a whole was improving with each release…..up until FM11 for me.

Then the game started bloating with a lot of unnecessary features. So I skipped FM12-15. Mainly too much media and team talks (instead of being excluded or left as a simple tool with a few options, team talks were further extended). My opinion is that these areas (media, team talks) are so difficult to be simulated (and not be annoying and repetitive) that it is better to exclude them completely. FMT is currently growing in popularity. In my opinion in no small part as a result of many players not wanting to deal with these features that add precious little to „the core“ and rather break game immersion.

However FMT in its current state is not a long term solution for me (that means I am not inclined to start a long term save) as many features from full fat version that I consider important are missing (notes, number of staff/players is limited, no youth teams, no data editing tool, very few skins…).

Nevertheless I decided to buy FMT16 for a few quick saves to see the engine, tactical possibilities etc.

Lets begin with the most glaring ME issues .

In FM16 engine there are simply a few things I find gamebreaking for me.

1) Terrible positioning of fullbacks in zonal defence (I simply can not stand it, there is no point in emulating real life tactics when something like this is constantly happening).

2) Overpowered crosses (too accurate and enhanced by fullbacks’ terrible positioning).

3) Too many ridiculous passing mistakes in wide areas over short distances (ball goes past the touchline too much).  Really difficult to watch it happening over and over.

4) It is hard to distinguish clinical strikers from the regular ones. Sometimes I have a feeling that finishing ability does not really matter.

FM11 engine seems to be much more balanced to me as a whole. I do not see so many bad/stupid/inexplicable decisions from my players, It can be argued that pacy strikers are overpowered but the fact that with a correct setting my striker with ACC 6, PAC 9, FIN 12 is currently scoring more that his striker partner with ACC 16, PAC 15, FIN 14 shows me that the FM 11 engine is not only about pacy strikers. I can play variety of styles and  even without collision detection and other defensive improvements done in later releases I am able to consistently keep a strong defensive record (with good teams of course) and play the way I want. Something I am not able to do in FMT16. Why? Well apart from the FM16 engine gamebreaking issues (gamebreaking for me) there is something more I have in FM11.

And this is players role customization. I simply can not accept that in order to minimize match engine exploits, instead of investing more time into AI improvements (human managers will always have an advantage anyway), I am forced to set all my players to some preset roles with fancy names that have some settings in stone that can not be changed.

So all my deep lying strikers have to hold up ball, all my shadow strikers have to dribble much, all my attacking winbacks have to cross often , I can not instruct my central defenders to run with ball more when they have a plenty of space ahead of them etc.

Moreover I can not influence individual positioning of my players via mentality without automatically changing other things, when I decide to play fluid/compact I have to live with the fact that my players will have higher creative freedom (should be IMO complete opposite when trying to be compact off the ball) and many other things like this.

There are thousands of players round the world and not everybody fits the preset roles. Every player is different, every manager wants something different from their players.  Eg. 10-15 meters in players positioning can be very important. I can accept that the sliders might have not been the best solution but they were at least giving to players like me tactical freedom to influence players behavior/positioning outside of preset roles. I do not aim to exploit, but to create/emulate real life formations/tactics with a bit of touch from myself and I just feel very limited with the current tactics creator.

Well, seeing how the things are developing, seems that I will have to stay with FM11 for a few years more :).

[Ceching You Out]

Not to sound dismissive, but I think you're pointing out easily rectified issues (outside of FM16's ME flaws). 

You can set a staff member to handle all your media responsibilities and team talks. They'll still happen in the background but you'll no longer need to care about them.

You can create a huge number of customized roles by taking the most vanilla at each position and adding PIs. For example, you can recreate a SS that doesn't dribble by taking an AM(a) and adding Play Riskier, Close Down More, etc. Nearly any real-life role can be replicated outside of Pep's/Bielsa's WBs that drift to CM in possession.

[theopert]

Work conditions are important.

Example,

Narrow formations make good work conditions for central players and bad conditons for wide players, whereas wide formations make good work conditions for wide players and bad work conditions for central players... because of isolation reasons... although I'll say having room to flex your own muscle is also important.

Because the game is played through a computer screen, the intentions may be lost in the translation.

People get word document programs like microsoft office to write text when their free notepad program can be just as effective.

 

 

 

[HUNT3R]

If you like fast strikers ruling the world by ghosting through decent defenders, robotic movement, tall strikers being useless because headers aren't dangerous, counter attacking being too weak and the AI not being as advanced in its decision making as it is today, then stay with FM11.

 

The instructions are a lot more flexible than you realise and also the PIs are there for a reason in some of the cases.

A Shadow Striker gets into very dangerous areas ahead of pretty much everyone else. So all the Dribble More does is to influence the role to run with the ball (because there wouldn't be anyone to pass to) to get into positions to shoot. What would happen if it wasn't active? He'd shoot immediately, which isn't optimal. If it bugs you, use the generic Attacking Midfielder role that allows more customisation.

A DLF is supposed to hold up the ball. He won't do it every time, but it does encourage him to. He'll wait that little bit longer before feeding a midfielder or striker. You haven't said why this is such a crime? Again though, if you have such an issue with it, why not a False 9 for instance?

Wingbacks can be influenced in many ways. Either use Support duty wingbacks or use your Attacking wingbacks, but Work Ball Into Box to reduces crosses.

Central Defenders can bring the ball forward if there's space. Dribble more will encourage them to take players on, which is very dangerous for a defender to do. Saying that, you may see roles in the future (or tweaks to existing ones) that's more of the ball carrier type we're seeing lately though.

If you want to move to Fluid to get players closer together, just use the TI for them to be more disciplined.

[sporadicsmiles]

It has been a long time since sliders reared their ugly heads! I shall preface this entire post by saying if you are happy with FM11 and enjoying playing, then good for you.

I find it hard to see how it is possible to claim that FM11 is better than FM16, however. Or rather, I do not. It was very easy to set up a tactic to exploit the ME in FM 11, and to go on to rule the world by doing so. Games are always more enjoyable when you are winning all the time! 

The FM16 match engine is not perfect, but it is by far the best available to date. Many of the issues you describe can be fixed tactically (there are some weird full back behaviours, but I find they relate mostly to their match rating, and I do think there is too much crossing in general). In terms of being "forced" to play players in certain roles. This is simply not true, since you have the freedom to change things up as you want with PIs. 

Take your shadow striker. This is a specific role, which is defined to do a specific thing. It is really part of a specialist tactic which is designed to incorporate this set of specific behaviours. Do not like it? Use a standard AM, and then you can customise until your heart is content. The key element to FM16 is knowing what you want your players to do. Do you want a no nonsense midfielder general, but are playing a 2 man midfield so cannot tolerate excessive closing down which leaves holes? CM(D) with tackle harder rather than BWM. Do you want a wide player who cuts inside and is a major goal threat, but also tracks back? IF(S) with "gets further forward" rather than IF(A) could work.

The upshot it, use the specliased roles if they do what you want them to do. If not, you have to tinker; which in fairness is exactly how a football management game should be.

[Los_Culés]

Hey guys,

Thanks for replies.

@HUNT3R

I have started three games in FM16, in South Africa, Russia and Uruguay and in all these saves after a handful of matches it was clearly visible that something is just not right (positioning of fullbacks, crosses, misplaced passes in wide areas....). FM11 engine surely is not perfect, but seems to be much more balanced to me. Also as I have said my slow striker (ACC 6, PAC 9) is currently scoring more than my pacy striker (quite a few from headers/crosses as well), so FM11 is not only about pacy strikers. And due to quite a lot of tactical options I do not feel intimidated by opposition pacy strikers and can deal with them quite plausibly (unlike with the crosses in FM16 without distorting my tactical plan too much/concentrating on opp fullbacks, having a GK with average/poor aerial ability makes things even more ridicuous). FM16 contains engine issues that break my game immersion and they are too apparent. I can not say that FM16 engine is balanced at all.

Hold up ball for DLF can be a crime for me, because when I eg. have a player with decent ACC and DRI who is otherwise fairly average, I want him to go deep, pick up the ball and run, not to hold up the ball and wait to be tackled (enhanced by poor/average decision attribute). This is a perfect example where I simply need to turn off unwanted factors that influence his decision making. And I actually do not see any other role that would be fitting for him (roles with more Creative freedom/Risky passes, like false 9 are no no).

Wingbacks. What do you recommed is suboptimal. Because in order to change one simple instruction for my attacking wingbacks I will influence behaviour of the whole team (Work Ball into Box). Changing their role to support means change in their behaviour (mentality), also not an option. I just want a very attacking wingback who does not cross at every opportunity and instead primary looks for one twos and passing combinations (Marcelo, Dani Alves).

Roles customization is something which is needed IMO.

[Guest]

Surprised you went for FM11 consider FM12 has the same ME but with a few of the exploits/very annoying bugs removed.

[Los_Culés]

Hi Barside,

Mainly because FM12 already has that annoying extended team talks and there is no Touch version :). I can leave it to assistant but knowing how much impact team talks/morale can have (important word is can) and that they are still "going" in the background discourages me.

[Guest]

That's reasonable enough, it's all about finding the version you feel provides the most enjoyment for you during your free time.

[Lord Rowell]

@Los_Culés

First of all I loved FM11, because I had my best ever save there, with Sunderland and went right up to about 2045. I kept it going because I had the finest newgen I've ever had and likely to have. I managed him from 16-17 to 36. I got a stadium named after me and Sunderland were the greatest team in the world.

But, truth be told, without any intention of trying to find exploits, the brutal truth is that with a pacy striker and the tiniest bit of tactical nous, you could overperform. FM11 was also where I got Dinamo Zagreb to win the Champions League within I think 4-5 seasons (same as Sunderland). Not the same tactics but ultimately relying on similar principles.

As for attacking set pieces. Yikes! All good fun at the time but it was so, so easy to get your CBs to score 5-10 goals a season without even trying. I think in a non-league save I got one to score 20!

I've been watching Golden FM on Youtube, a regular Vlogger who is really great and he has recently revisited an old FM11 save. Great fun to watch but the flaws came flooding back to my memory.

FM16 does have issues, I think we all agree re. FBs & crossing, though that said the more intelligently I use OIs I'm starting to limit this - be warned T & TF I may be brave enough to start a thread soon.

As said, do play how you enjoy as the game is for fun. I may yet revist FM11 myself for a nostalgia trip. We all play the game different ways. I like a challenge, but must confess to, in my current Ajax save, adding a very talented very young man via the editor with the surname of ... Cruyff...

[samuelawachie]

@sporadicsmiles, I really don't think the FM 16 ME is the best there is to date. Where did you get that from? and on what evidence?

In my opinion, and this also tallies with the opinions of a most of the people i know who play the game, the FM 14.3 ME is better than the ME for the last patch of FM 16. It's better balanced, more varied goals, no fullbacks dominating the ratings stats and a few other things. The overall game FM 2016 may be better, but the FM 14 match engine is definitely better. You really don't have to take my word for it though. Go back and play your FM 14, and see for yourself.

[Federico]

Everybody is entitled to like every ME he wants. But when someone states FM 14 ME is the best... ok that makes me fuming really .

Compared to FM16, we're talking about two different sports really. If you find FM16 weak defensively speaking, try to think that FM14 was far way worse. I remember how impossible was to set a decent and disciplinated back 4 and all the blames thrown to my DC stepping out so easily and never covered by his teammates. Or all the faults from my GK. And finishing was... oh man. And with all the common sense I can put it, I struggle to understand how a product 2 years older can be even close to be good as much as something just released. Unless you're one of those who say "Fifa 16 is good but Kick Off 2 was the best" (well ok i'd kind of agree about that).

Now you can say "Ok i like FM14 more because..." and "I instead like FM16 more because..". But no, "FM14 defintely better" no... I can't accept that sorry

[Wavelberry]

I always really struggle going back to old games.

CM03/04 and FM07 were two versions I had excellent saves on but having gone back to them it's really jarring. Also went back to FM10 a little while ago and that was madness as well. I spoil myself by early adopting I think and then once I get used to the features I find it really odd to be without them.

[grade]

Here is the thing, no one has it right here.

Some people will like a ME better then the other, not even the moderators have it right. What SI can do is in their best of their abilities improve the ME with each version.

Everyone has one they prefer for example still prefer FM07 ME. Why? I don't know it feels like real football to me. Am I wrong? No... Am I right? Yes in my point of view... and No in other people's point of view.

If the OP doesn't like FM16 ME, then thank you for sharing your point in a very honest and critical view. These kind of threads should be welcome, so that SI can read them and push to improve the ME and correct the issues people have with the ME and the game in general.

[Neil Brock]

Yeah I had some incredibly fun games with some of the older titles, partly down to having a lot more free time to play them, especially when I was a student. But in honesty I don't think I could really go back now and play an older version, especially with how unrealistic I found the match engine in that version. It was before proper collision detection was put in, so pace really was king for a long time. I personally feel the game as a whole has always taken a step forward with each version. That's not to say that every version has been perfect out the box or had features that I was 100% happy with, but as a whole, they always seemed to me at least, to be heading the right way.

From what I've seen of 17 so far, I'm confident that'll be the case again this year. But as Barside said earlier, whatever floats your boat!  

[Cougar2010]

A lot of people seem to judge the a version of the ME on how much enjoyment/success they had with it.

Speaking from an unbiased basis I would say FM15 has the most balanced.  You saw a good variety of goals from all areas of the pitch, could successfully play both attacking & defensive football and have success with a range of formations & shapes.

FM16 has definitely got some improvements on FM15 in some areas but has also become less balanced overall.

[Los_Culés]

My enjoyment from FM11 comes more from the fact that I can really play the way I want (lets confess that the sliders give me a lot of possibilities to create "my" roles, to incorporate my visions how the players should act on the pitch and in which space). With wibble/wobble  I would have even more opportunities. Shame that back in the CM 01/02 days there was no engine so I could not see effect of my changes :). At the same time in FM11 I do not feel intimidated by the opposition doing certain things that the match engine clearly favours.

I have some sucessfull saves in FM11 but at the same time I can suck badly. I have my playing philosophy a adhere to it no matter what. Eg. I always favour technical players, I like south american game approach, I like short passing etc........I once fielded 40 years old legend Cuathémoc Blanco (still brutal technicals, but Pace 2 haha) just because I like him :).

@grade

Thanks and I agree with what you said.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

Yeah I had some incredibly fun games with some of the older titles, partly down to having a lot more free time to play them, especially when I was a student. But in honesty I don't think I could really go back now and play an older version, especially with how unrealistic I found the match engine in that version. It was before proper collision detection was put in, so pace really was king for a long time. I personally feel the game as a whole has always taken a step forward with each version. That's not to say that every version has been perfect out the box or had features that I was 100% happy with, but as a whole, they always seemed to me at least, to be heading the right way.

From what I've seen of 17 so far, I'm confident that'll be the case again this year. But as Barside said earlier, whatever floats your boat!  

I tried going back to FM14 which my memory tells me is the better ME of the recent releases, that is until I started seeing issues that annoyed me then & are no longer present in FM16. 

[BoxToBox]

I picked up a sealed copy of FM 13 the other day off Amazon, since that's the one quite a few rave about, including guys I talk to regularly.

I'll give it a few more weeks, but there's so much I miss from newer games, from menu stuff, to tactical stuff, and tbh, haven't found the sliders to be all that useful, nothing that I can't do in newer games in other ways.

That said, it's still good, and I'm having fun with it(enough that I'm happy to have a medium/long save with), but sans rose tinted spectacles, it just feels a tad outdated, and this is a recent version.....

[Danchinaski]

I have a similar problem going back to old versions. I know l got more enjoyment from playing FM07, and even FM15, than l have from FM16, but as soon as l boot up an old version l find myself missing the new features. There's no way l could play a version of FM that doesn't have a staff shortlist, for example. As soon as I've bought the current version there's no going back to older versions, which is why l might delay a purchase of FM17 - if l get it early, bugs 'n' all, I'll be stuck with it, so perhaps it's better for me to wait until patch #3 and gauge the reaction on here before committing.

[Ceching You Out]

On 8/23/2016 at 12:26, Los_Culés said:

Hold up ball for DLF can be a crime for me, because when I eg. have a player with decent ACC and DRI who is otherwise fairly average, I want him to go deep, pick up the ball and run, not to hold up the ball and wait to be tackled (enhanced by poor/average decision attribute). This is a perfect example where I simply need to turn off unwanted factors that influence his decision making. And I actually do not see any other role that would be fitting for him (roles with more Creative freedom/Risky passes, like false 9 are no no).

Wingbacks. What do you recommed is suboptimal. Because in order to change one simple instruction for my attacking wingbacks I will influence behaviour of the whole team (Work Ball into Box). Changing their role to support means change in their behaviour (mentality), also not an option. I just want a very attacking wingback who does not cross at every opportunity and instead primary looks for one twos and passing combinations (Marcelo, Dani Alves).

Roles customization is something which is needed IMO.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but you can currently customize to get the roles you describe. If you were to take a stab at it in a post on the TT&S forum, you'd find plenty of folks willing to help you hone the idea until it matches what you want. Off the top of my head and without having the game in front of me -- the WB you describe is something like FB(a) w/ Dribble More, Cross Less, Play Riskier Passes, Get Forward More, Play Wider.

Roles customization is already 95% available and the scenarios you're raising aren't that missing 5%. Now there's a gripe to be had that the roles themselves aren't more explicit about what they turn on and off, but it seems that you're not making it past the labels?

Anyway, as others said -- play the version that appeals to you. If that's FM11 (by no means flawless compared to more recent versions), more power to you.

[Los_Culés]

@Ceching You Out

"but you can currently customize to get the roles you describe"

Can I? I can not for example instruct FB(a) to cross less. But there is also another point. Instead of being allowed to make simple changes in roles (eg. turning off hold up ball, turning on cross less etc., alter individual mentalities) I have to search for complex solutions. Why? Because I would be able to create hybrid roles that AI would not be able to cope with? Ok, but this is a bad excuse for not allowing me to have options. As I have said I do not mean to exploit, that would be pointless for me and break my game immersion, I just want to have possibilities.

Lets take Trequartista for example. I understand that trequartistas usually offer little defensively, so they have "close down much less" by default. But why I can not change it? Why I have to search for other roles when I just want a Trequartista who closes down a bit more. I should be able to instruct him if I wish. How effective he will be doing so? Well, lets let his attributes to decide.

Another example is that I can not make 4-4-2 flat to be vertically compact (without moving forwards to AMC positions, man marking and other crazy stuff). I can play defensive/fluid and it will be compact but it would also bring other problems. What if I want to have more aggressive/control mentalities at the back (first thought is a forward pass, second thought is a sideways pass, third thought is a back pass) and more conservative/counter upfront (forwards who play the ball back and sideways instead of always looking for killer balls/dribbles, forwards who help in defending and making the formation compact) without any effect on other instructions?

Telling me that with the current tactics creator I have same possibilities as with the fully customizable roles (FM11) is just not true.

 

 

[Guest]

Roels are just one part, if you select a player with high work rate & teamwork attributes in the Trequartista role the should still be more proactive in closing down that another player with lower attributes in those areas. For me the roles are more about loose definitions of what's who consider to be more important for the player in that position, if closing down & harrying the opponent is more important then the compromise will naturally be in where they position themselves in anticipation of a turnover in possession & for that role it's about being immediately available to other players as an attacking option which cannot be maintained if they are massively out of position having chased down a loose pass.

[Ceching You Out]

Fair enough -- you can not create every single combination of instructions you wish, the way you wish. You can certainly get very close to all but a few real life roles though. While you're unhappy with "complex solutions", what you're describing isn't any simpler. Asking for a DLF that doesn't hold up the ball seems clear, but at that point you're modifying an instruction that's (in SI's opinion) part of the very definition of a DLF. Taking the idea further -- if I want to tell my SS to stay deeper and play more conservatively, well then I don't really want a SS do I? That's describing a separate role -- I'm looking for a very aggressive AM(a) with SS-like PI. Or if I want a BBM to hold his position more -- I don't really want a BBM do I?

If you want complete flexibility, you can get close for most positions. Try a FB(s) with get further forward, cross less, play riskier passes, stay wider, etc. -- that will still approximate the behavior you describe. Perhaps it's not as simple as you wish, but you're asking for a very specialized set of instructions that ultimately isn't as instructive as you think. As @Barside mentions, your player attributes will have a huge influence as well, and critically so will the circumstances they find themselves in. For example, one of the worst culprits for excessive long shots isn't the role in and of itself, it's an aggressive forward that gets isolated such that shooting looks the best option.

I've played a 4-4-2 that gets vertically compact using standard/fluid. Granted I'm on FM15, but it should translate fairly well. All of what you describe is possible with a fairly decent degree of accuracy depending on the roles, shape, mentality, and (crucially) players. If you're serious about getting those tactics, post your attempt in TT&S and people will help you get get there. I won't promise that every single corner case is possible, but if fellow FMers can recreate most of the famous tactics used over the last 5 decades I bet they can help with what you have in mind.

[noikeee]

I share a lot, a lot of the same feelings in the opening post. I've only not went permanently back to FM12 (in my case) because there's been other features introduced since that I can't live without, mainly little UI things like adjusting the text size to high resolution monitors etc. But in terms of match engine and tactical limitations... heh, I'm not that sure FM16 is any better. It's far less exploitable but it doesn't mean it's any more realistic if you don't play to those exploits. It's also extremely frustrating in some areas. My compromise has been to go back to FM15 which I found the better version of recent games.

I'll write a bit more in detail when I have a little more time, need to go out right now.

[Los_Culés]

@Barside

Yes, I realize that. My point is that treqartista with high teamwork/workrate with "closing down much less" instruction would (or rather should) act differently than the same trequartista with "closing down normal" instruction. The fact is that the second option is not allowed which I do not agree with. In FM11 my trequartista has closing down normal (in slider terms 10) and acts as I want him to act.

@Ceching You Out

" in SI's opinion " ..... exactly, but not in mine :). To get the vertical compactness in FM11 I simply decrease the mentality of my strikers and that's it, no need to change anything else. I do not understand why these simple solutions should not be allowed like in the past. Or rather I do, but I do not agree with the "official" reasoning.

Honestly I do not think I am able to recreate football I envision in FM16 due to limitations mentioned. But thanks anyway for your advice and suggestions. I still have FMT16 installed so might post something to T&T forum to make a bit of challenge for fellow FMers :).

@noikeee

Looking forward to more detail mate ;).

[Ceching You Out]

1 hour ago, Los_Culés said:

 

@Ceching You Out

" in SI's opinion " ..... exactly, but not in mine :). To get the vertical compactness in FM11 I simply decrease the mentality of my strikers and that's it, no need to change anything else. I do not understand why these simple solutions should not be allowed like in the past. Or rather I do, but I do not agree with the "official" reasoning.

Honestly I do not think I am able to recreate football I envision in FM16 due to limitations mentioned. But thanks anyway for your advice and suggestions. I still have FMT16 installed so might post something to T&T forum to make a bit of challenge for fellow FMers :).

Well, I think that leads us down a rabbit hole -- what is a role and who defines it?  can there even be shorthand for roles in that case? -- so I'll leave it at that. Didn't lowering the mentality of your strikers in FM11 impact more than positioning (i.e. riskiness of passing)?

No worries, cheers for a polite conversation! And glad that you've found something that works for you.

[HUNT3R]

9 hours ago, Los_Culés said:

@Barside

Yes, I realize that. My point is that treqartista with high teamwork/workrate with "closing down much less" instruction would (or rather should) act differently than the same trequartista with "closing down normal" instruction. The fact is that the second option is not allowed which I do not agree with. In FM11 my trequartista has closing down normal (in slider terms 10) and acts as I want him to act.

@Ceching You Out

" in SI's opinion " ..... exactly, but not in mine :). To get the vertical compactness in FM11 I simply decrease the mentality of my strikers and that's it, no need to change anything else. I do not understand why these simple solutions should not be allowed like in the past. Or rather I do, but I do not agree with the "official" reasoning.

Honestly I do not think I am able to recreate football I envision in FM16 due to limitations mentioned. But thanks anyway for your advice and suggestions. I still have FMT16 installed so might post something to T&T forum to make a bit of challenge for fellow FMers :).

@noikeee

Looking forward to more detail mate ;).

Limitations to roles are there for a reason. Some instructions you can't change as it is seen as part of the role itself. Changing it will see the role start to lose its identity.

 

You can change that with Mentality yes, but that completely changes how they play. Every single decision they make is now heavily affected. You can do it, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The formation has always been your defensive shape, so if you want your strikers that close, move them back a strata.

[herne79]

16 hours ago, Los_Culés said:

@Ceching You Out

"but you can currently customize to get the roles you describe"

Can I? I can not for example instruct FB(a) to cross less. But there is also another point. Instead of being allowed to make simple changes in roles (eg. turning off hold up ball, turning on cross less etc., alter individual mentalities) I have to search for complex solutions. Why? Because I would be able to create hybrid roles that AI would not be able to cope with? Ok, but this is a bad excuse for not allowing me to have options. As I have said I do not mean to exploit, that would be pointless for me and break my game immersion, I just want to have possibilities.

Lets take Trequartista for example. I understand that trequartistas usually offer little defensively, so they have "close down much less" by default. But why I can not change it? Why I have to search for other roles when I just want a Trequartista who closes down a bit more. I should be able to instruct him if I wish. How effective he will be doing so? Well, lets let his attributes to decide.

Another example is that I can not make 4-4-2 flat to be vertically compact (without moving forwards to AMC positions, man marking and other crazy stuff). I can play defensive/fluid and it will be compact but it would also bring other problems. What if I want to have more aggressive/control mentalities at the back (first thought is a forward pass, second thought is a sideways pass, third thought is a back pass) and more conservative/counter upfront (forwards who play the ball back and sideways instead of always looking for killer balls/dribbles, forwards who help in defending and making the formation compact) without any effect on other instructions?

Telling me that with the current tactics creator I have same possibilities as with the fully customizable roles (FM11) is just not true.

 

 

Speaking as one of the Tactics Forum mods, sorry but there's very little here I agree with.

I do agree that you can't make fully customisable roles, but simply because you can't define a specific player as a "playmaker" or a "target man" like we used to be able to do.  So whilst you can define the Central Midfielder to be a pseudo-playmaker by altering PIs, he'll never act as a "ball magnet" in the same manner as an actual playmaker.

But there's a reason for that - if you need to use lots of PIs to shape a role, you're using the wrong role.  The TQ example is a good one - if you want a TQ that closes down a lot, then in reality you don't want a TQ, you want a different role.  By taking away several PI options from the TQ role makes the TQ now play as intended.  And that's the difference compared to older game versions - roles now work as intended.  A TQ that closes down a lot isn't a TQ, he's an attacking midfielder or a shadow striker or whatever.

Of course you could simply put in a player with high Aggression and Work Rate to the TQ role and you'd get a TQ that does close down a lot - but again that isn't really a TQ.  I don't remember Zidane, Riquelme or Kaka being known for their closing down abilities.

The attacking fullback is another good example.  Attacking fullbacks (or wingbacks) are supposed to aggressively get into advanced positions from where they'll have good crossing opportunities.  That's their intended purpose.  If you want a fullback who is going to cross less and thus be more of a passing option, then that's a supporting role not an attacking role.  If you aren't happy with how advanced your support duty fullback gets, use the PI to encourage him to get further forward, or change him to a wingback.  There is also a PPM that helps.

Then we move onto other aspects such as compactness.  You don't need to change Team Shape or switch your striker(s) to the AM strata to achieve a compact unit.  TIs such as defensive line, shorter passing and retain possession will do that.  Alternatively use a Fluid Team Shape along with Be More Disciplined if you want to avoid the extra creative freedom.

But anyway, if you are happy playing FM11 then continue to do so.  It's whatever you find most enjoyable that's most important.  I just wanted to jump in here because there seemed to be things being said about the current game that I thought needed clearing up a bit .

[noikeee]

On 23/08/2016 at 06:27, HUNT3R said:

If you like fast strikers ruling the world by ghosting through decent defenders, robotic movement

Funny because I feel FM16 is far more robotic than FM12/11 with its neverending identical crosses to the back post goals.

 

 

Let me dissect Les_Culés' opening post and offer my lenghty observations on it, mostly in support... :

On 22/08/2016 at 18:50, Los_Culés said:

Lets begin with the most glaring ME issues .

In FM16 engine there are simply a few things I find gamebreaking for me.

1) Terrible positioning of fullbacks in zonal defence (I simply can not stand it, there is no point in emulating real life tactics when something like this is constantly happening).

2) Overpowered crosses (too accurate and enhanced by fullbacks’ terrible positioning).

3) Too many ridiculous passing mistakes in wide areas over short distances (ball goes past the touchline too much).  Really difficult to watch it happening over and over.

4) It is hard to distinguish clinical strikers from the regular ones. Sometimes I have a feeling that finishing ability does not really matter.

This is kinda similar to what I feel about the FM16 match engine, although with some slight differences. I've already written plenty of essays in the past complaining about it, specially the behaviour around the wide areas of the pitch, but essentially:

- I'm not sure it's just the fullbacks positioning but yes the defending around the wide areas is completely wrecked and attacking fullbacks find extreme amounts of space. This is the main reason why crossing seems overpowered - players that cross have too much space to do so. Weirdly this becomes clearer when the attacking team plays a narrow formation, it draws the entire defensive team into the middle of the pitch and suddenly there's a huge highway for the atacking fullback to run into.

- I don't actually agree crossing accuracy in itself is overpowered. I've had loads of problems through my almost 20-year-long career trying to play into crosses, where my team would make like 60 of them in a match and only 3 would hit the target. Maybe I'm doing something wrong (the fact after a few seasons it's really hard to find any regen fullbacks that can cross and dribble doesn't help). HOWEVER - when the crosses do hit the target, the finishing is suddenly magically really good. Specially when a forward/winger is unmarked as he receives a cross, doubly so if at the back post. The finishing in these situations is extremely more accurate than in one-on-ones. This is obviously very unrealistic as it should be harder to hit a flying ball than one that you've controlled and is going down by the floor! Not the other way around.

- I'm not particularly bothered by passing mistakes around the area although I've seen a laughable amount of misguided backpasses to the keeper that go straight into goalkicks. I see this more as an isolated bug than a huge problem with the ME.

- Yes, finishing is just generally sh*t no matter the player, when you're playing down by the floor. Not if it's a cross. Then it's really good.

The end result of all of this? It makes for a very frustrating playing experience. No doubt this is partly down to the fact there's no obviously optimal system to play in, so yes I am frustrated because I cannot win easily. This is tough luck for me, as this is exactly what SI wants to achieve, a ME with no obvious exploits, so fair play to that. But unfortunately, the different tactical systems are all balanced for all the wrong reasons:

- it's very very easy to dominate possession and play passing football (almost too easy), but even if you manage to generate chances down the floor, the finishing from those chances is atrocious. Few things are more frustrating that creating loads of perfectly good looking chances match after match and your technically gifted, composed forwards don't put them in.

- it's also easy to create a system in which you can play by the wings and put in absurd amounts of crosses, and they are so, so dangerous when they do find a forward, but unfortunately very few of them make the targets in the box. It's like the opposition defence is a wall and none of the attackers can beat them to a header ever... the only time the attackers are at a (huge) advantage is when they beat the defenders in a race for a tap in at the back post.

- a narrow formation is probably the most optimal as you can easily swamp the opposition with passing through the middle and then open up highways for your own fullbacks to run into. HOWEVER, this also gives you no cover whatsoever for the wings when it's time for the opposition to attack.

As you can see there's no obvious perfect system which is balanced and realistic. However all the disadvantages/advantages of each particular system are all illogical and unrealistic. If you play possession football it should be hard to penetrate the area to create chances, not to put in one-on-ones. If you play down the wings, the dynamics are also screwed up, you should be able to outmuscle opposition instead of waiting for or trying to generate free tap-ins at the back post. If you play a narrow formation, you shouldn't be able to dominate the wings like you do now. If you play a wide formation, your advantage shouldn't be merely defensive to cover the wings better compared to a narrow formation, it should make you more dangerous attacking down there as well. It's all completely screwed up.

No wonder FM11/12 felt better, yes pace was ridiculously overpowered and if you wanted to use set piece exploits you could, but other than that it was all much better balanced than all this convoluted nonsense. Each system played like you'd expect, not with all these weird side-effects. And I've not even reached all the weird side-effects of fluidity...

 

On 22/08/2016 at 18:50, Los_Culés said:

And this is players role customization. I simply can not accept that in order to minimize match engine exploits, instead of investing more time into AI improvements (human managers will always have an advantage anyway), I am forced to set all my players to some preset roles with fancy names that have some settings in stone that can not be changed.

So all my deep lying strikers have to hold up ball, all my shadow strikers have to dribble much, all my attacking winbacks have to cross often , I can not instruct my central defenders to run with ball more when they have a plenty of space ahead of them etc.

I've run into quite a few of these situations myself as well. There might be loads of roles (too many even, maybe), but they just aren't as flexible as they could be.

To clarify, I DON'T WANT THE SLIDERS BACK. Please don't bring them back, ever. The tactics creator is a great evolution that makes things so much easier and so much closer to the real language of football. I get all of that and most definitely praise SI for moving in that direction. However, the current version is just too limiting, and I don't understand why people are so fierce in defending that SI's vision of the roles are the only valid ones, and that we should use some super-convoluted workarounds if we want slightly different behaviours. Like using "work ball into box" if we want our fullback to cross less, mate that affects the whole team, even central players, it's a different thing. And I thought the tactics creator was supposed to simplify things, not make it more convoluted? Hell, I only know what "work ball into box" does because I'm here in the forums, if I hadn't read so many things about tactics in FM over the years, I'd have no clue how to work around this issue.

Here's a list of situations that you cannot currently do with roles (I'm writing this from memory, maybe some might be innacurate):

- tell a fullback/wingback to cross less so he can hold onto the ball more
- tell a deep-lying forward to hold onto the ball less so he doesn't stop the tempo if you want quick moves
- tell a centre-back to run up with ball if he's Beckenbauer
- tweak a complete forward to get rid of one of his instructions such as dribble more or play more through balls, if you have a forward that's "almost complete"
- tell a roaming playmaker to dribble less, what if I have a guy that I want to be all over the pitch and be the heart of the team as he's brilliant at everything BUT he can't dribble
- tell a deep-lying forward to play less through balls, again what if he's crap at passing
- by contrast tell a target man to play more through balls, what if I have Zlatan
- have a selfish hub of the team so a "playmaker" but who plays for himself, ie, doesn't play through balls (a guy asked for this on the tactics forum a few months ago and was basically attacked by everyone as if he was offending FM and SI by posing a question, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question)

The standard answers for all of these complains are
a) it's not SI's vision of the role therefore it must be wrong and/or a stupid idea
b) use another role
c) use team instructions
d) use a "blank"/standard role and tweak it

As for a) we are grown-ups here, let us fail on the pitch with a stupid tactical idea if it's so rubbish. As for b) and c) it's everything but straight-forward, again you need a large amount of knowledge about the tactics engine to know about these options, I thought the tactics creator/UI was supposed to simplify things instead of forcing you to these convoluted solutions? And as for d) there's no standard roles for every position and some of them are not fully customizable.

This can all easily be solved by continuing to give us the current pre-prepared roles (and they are great!), but just let us tweak them more instead of setting in stone most of the options for them.

And "oh it opens up the game for exploits" isn't a good enough answer neither. Might as well bin all the tactics and force us all to play a pre-prepared 4-4-2 then, if you're not gonna let us build the system we want for our players, in fear of exploits. It's not as if I'm asking for an enormous exponential increase in options like if we brought the sliders back, just a little bit more freedom.

 

 

On 22/08/2016 at 18:50, Los_Culés said:

Moreover I can not influence individual positioning of my players via mentality without automatically changing other things, when I decide to play fluid/compact I have to live with the fact that my players will have higher creative freedom (should be IMO complete opposite when trying to be compact off the ball) and many other things like this.

Oh yes, the dreaded fludity setting. By my rant above on roles it must've sounded like I'm extremely aggrieved about roles, on the contrary I think that's just a minor thing and the current situation is relatively acceptable. But fluidity, I've been campaigning a lot for revamping it because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, I believe it's the single biggest issue with the tactics creator at the moment.

The problem is fluidity fuses 2 different concepts (it's actually 3 different concepts, but we'll get into that in a bit) in one, in an attempt to simplify things. That is vertical compactness (vertical spacing between players, the difference in mentality between each strata), and the expressiveness of players (creative freedom, the amount of freedom each player has to ignore your specific instructions and do their own decisions on what actions to take). The idea is that in more "fluid" systems the players participate in more phases of the game, ie a defender will also attack, so they need to be closer together and are given more freedom to do more. "Structured" systems are the opposite.

So far it's fine, this makes some sense. The problem is that many, many real-life football teams don't operate like this. Simeone's Atlético Madrid, a model which is starting to get copied more and more across Europe, is extremely compact vertically (hence in-game would be "very fluid"), but the players are given very little creative freedom (hence in-game would be "very structured"). An opposite example in my opinion would be Scolari's Portugal teams around 2004-2008, the team was very spread apart on the pitch (hence "very structured") but players were given huge individualistic freedom to do what they wanted (hence "very fluid").

A counter-argument is that we have the "be more disciplined" / "be more expressive" shouts to allow us to do this. I don't believe they're enough as they're far too subtle. Consider a scale in which 1 is very little creative freedom and 5 is a lot:

1 - very little creative freedom
2 - less creative freedom
3 - average creative freedom
4 - more creative freedom
5 - a lot of creative freedom

And the same on vertical compactness:

1 - lines very spread apart
2 - lines spread apart
3 - normal positioning
4 - more compact
5 - lines very compact

Currently "very structured" is a 1 in both, and "very fluid" a 5 in both. I believe if you use the "be more expressive" shout in a "very structured" system it raises that 1 in creative freedom to a 2 or a 3. Conversely, if you use "be more disciplined" in a "very fluid" system the creative freedom drops from 5 to 4 or 3.

That's not good enough. I want to be able to set a 1 in a scale and 5 in the other. Hell, like Los_Culés I very much share the feeling in most cases it should be exactly the other way around by default. More compact systems tend to be more disciplined, not the other way around like it is.

As for the counter-argument that if you want your team to be more compact, then drop your strikers into the AM strata, sorry that's another convoluted workaround that's far from obvious at first, and is only an option if you have a deep knowledge of the ME and tactics creator. There's a reason why Griezmann and Torres are set as STs and not as AMCs in the database. Again, the tactics creator exists to simplify things for the users, not to force them to use unclear options to get the behaviours they want.

 

 

But wait, there's even more problems. Remember I said there's a 3rd different concept about fluidity? Fluidity behaviour changed from FM16 onwards, I'm not entirely sure how it works but I can only speak from what I've experienced anecdotally: in FM16, when it comes to roles that naturally move away from their default positions, like fullbacks on attack role, strikers on roles that drop deep, etc; the more structured you go the more they move away from their position. I had the absolutely ridiculous situation of watching my attacking fullbacks get offside multiple times in a match in structured systems, but not in fluid systems.

Think about it for a second - this is entirely illogical and conflicting. Structured systems on FM keeps players further apart and with the least creative freedom. BUT, when you use roles like this, structured also make them overlap between lines the most. Wait, what? By contrast fluid systems keep players together, with loads of creative freedom... but they move less according to the roles, therefore tend to be more static. Does this really sound like "fluid"? Fluid is more static. What?

Honestly, just bin fluidity, bin the be more expressive/disciplined shouts, and replace it by a couple completely separate team options on spacing between lines, creative freedom, and maybe even an option for more/less overlap between lines. All separate extra options. Sometimes having more options is better and clearer. Because what we have right now is nonsensical, it's too limiting for us tactically-adept users, and too vague and confusing for the newbies that don't get fluidity. So it helps nobody. Maybe fluidity was a great concept back then in the FM09/FM10 days when people were writing manuals to help us decode the sliders, I have huge respect for the people that came up with those systems, but it's had its time.

The current solution isn't even any good in terms of footballing language, I've heard of FM players switching fluidity mid-match, have you ever heard of a football manager tell players to be more fluid or more structured? Would they know wtf are you talking about? They sure as hell would get it if you told them the lines should be closer, though.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

Okay, this should be enough, thank you for reading my absolute mega monster rant. To clarify, I am not bashing SI, I am a huge fan of the game and think they've done a fabulous job over the years in so many areas, including yes many components of the tactics and the ME. I just want the game to become better in every way I can help with feedback, and it frustrates me that so often people just resort to canned responses in defence of the current state of the game, instead of thinking for a second and being critical about it. People are more than entitled to disagree with any of my ramblings, but I get the feeling many try to be defensive first, than even consider to question the way things are done. This doesn't actually help SI at all...

Personally, I've binned FM16 and went back to FM15. Some of these problems are common to FM15, and FM15 has its own, such as an overblown number of squad harmony issues, and a clear inability of the AI to deal with overly attacking systems that creates too many goals. But it's a nice compromise for me as it retains most of the features in the newest games I need, and the ME is much more enjoyable than FM16's even if not perfect. Here's hoping for a great step forward in FM17.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, noikeee said:

Funny because I feel FM16 is far more robotic than FM12/11 with its neverending identical crosses to the back post goals.

 

Yeah, and if you press 1 button, you fix all of that. It's just simply wrong. The movement is robotic in FM11/12. There's very, very little lateral movement and support, for instance.

[noikeee]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Yeah, and if you press 1 button, you fix all of that.

Is this supposed to be directed to me? I'm well aware it's not a quick fix as everything's extremely complex and interconnected.

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

It's just simply wrong. The movement is robotic in FM11/12. There's very, very little lateral movement and support, for instance.

To be honest it's been quite a while since I last loaded up FM11/12 so yes there might be a little of nostalgia, it's just the general feeling I have from what I remember from both games. FM16 felt robotic and dull. FM11/12 felt flowing. Admitedly I was very successful in those games so of course it helps.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, noikeee said:

Is this supposed to be directed to me? I'm well aware it's not a quick fix as everything's extremely complex and interconnected.

To be honest it's been quite a while since I last loaded up FM11/12 so yes there might be a little of nostalgia, it's just the general feeling I have from what I remember from both games. FM16 felt robotic and dull. FM11/12 felt flowing. Admitedly I was very successful in those games so of course it helps.

I quoted you, so yes. And no, I actually do mean it is EASY to fix issues with crosses at the back post. There's no sarcasm there.

 

I did try FM12 and 13 earlier the year after it was claimed that it's more 'realistic' and 'better'. It was just BS.

[herne79]

@Noikeee

You raise some valid discussion points there.  Some I'd agree with, some I think would perhaps need further discussion.

But don't turn it into a rant or try to turn issues that you see into some sort of general problem.  Example:

56 minutes ago, noikeee said:

Yes, finishing is just generally sh*t no matter the player, when you're playing down by the floor.

No it isn't.  If that's your experience then I'd suggest you have tactical/personnel/morale issues.  Unless I purposely want to set up a tactic to specifically target crossing, my experience is the exact opposite - most chances made /goals scored are "playing down by the floor" and not from crosses.  Does that mean I think playing on the floor is overpowered?  No it just means that's how I've set things up.

I'm not trying to belittle your essay or be one of those people that "give canned responses" (), just try to keep frustrations you experience in perspective without confusing them into generalisations.  Yes there are issues with the ME (everyone acknowledges that) and some changes have left people scratching their heads or even down right against them, but that's where constructive debate rather than ranting can really make a difference.

[noikeee]

1 hour ago, HUNT3R said:

I quoted you, so yes. And no, I actually do mean it is EASY to fix issues with crosses at the back post. There's no sarcasm there.

Maybe that's a specific bug, but the rest of the whole wide areas dynamics isn't an easy fix, SI said as much when they decided not to touch the ME much in the final patches, because the fixes had too many repercussions that had to be tested better.

10 minutes ago, herne79 said:

@Noikeee

You raise some valid discussion points there.  Some I'd agree with, some I think would perhaps need further discussion.

But don't turn it into a rant or try to turn issues that you see into some sort of general problem.  Example:

No it isn't.  If that's your experience then I'd suggest you have tactical/personnel/morale issues.  Unless I purposely want to set up a tactic to specifically target crossing, my experience is the exact opposite - most chances made /goals scored are "playing down by the floor" and not from crosses.  Does that mean I think playing on the floor is overpowered?  No it just means that's how I've set things up.

I'm not trying to belittle your essay or be one of those people that "give canned responses" (), just try to keep frustrations you experience in perspective without confusing them into generalisations.  Yes there are issues with the ME (everyone acknowledges that) and some changes have left people scratching their heads or even down right against them, but that's where constructive debate rather than ranting can really make a difference.

Okay fair enough, maybe I'm letting frustration get in the way of objectivity and exaggerated here and there.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, noikeee said:

Maybe that's a specific bug, but the rest of the whole wide areas dynamics isn't an easy fix, SI said as much when they decided not to touch the ME much in the final patches, because the fixes had too many repercussions that had to be tested better.

I'm well aware of the issues with defending crosses, but since you bring up SI, they said there are issues in some setups. A minority, in fact.

It's still an easy fix. Either more pressure on the crosser or a lower D-line. The big scapegoat here is FM15. Because the AI managers were so poor and defensive, it made users become faaaaaaar too attacking and that has been brought over into FM16. Sensible setups don't get exploited much.

[jayahr]

On 24.8.2016 at 00:30, Lord Rowell said:

@Los_Culés

 

FM16 does have issues, I think we all agree re. FBs & crossing, though that said the more intelligently I use OIs I'm starting to limit this - be warned T & TF I may be brave enough to start a thread soon.

 

Please do. Annoys the hell out of me (at the same tiem it's just too obvious the easiest way to score, which is also no fun)

[jayahr]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

@Noikeee

You raise some valid discussion points there.  Some I'd agree with, some I think would perhaps need further discussion.

But don't turn it into a rant or try to turn issues that you see into some sort of general problem.  Example:

No it isn't.  If that's your experience then I'd suggest you have tactical/personnel/morale issues.  Unless I purposely want to set up a tactic to specifically target crossing, my experience is the exact opposite - most chances made /goals scored are "playing down by the floor" and not from crosses.  Does that mean I think playing on the floor is overpowered?  No it just means that's how I've set things up.

I'm not trying to belittle your essay or be one of those people that "give canned responses" (), just try to keep frustrations you experience in perspective without confusing them into generalisations.  Yes there are issues with the ME (everyone acknowledges that) and some changes have left people scratching their heads or even down right against them, but that's where constructive debate rather than ranting can really make a difference.

Tbf I sort of agree with Noikeee here. My strong impression that this style of play leads to an unrealistically high amount of chances which would irl lead to a lot more goals than they do in FM, i.e. a 'right' amount of goals is scored, but you get mad along the way because you see chances galore and they are not scored properly. There should be less great chances with a higher conversion rate.

[Los_Culés]

@HUNT3R

I think we both know that there are also different reasons than just roles losing their identity. I would even say that this is a convenient excuse. Moreover the roles identity is set up by SI/game developers and does not have to always match with FMers perception of what the players should do. Lets have some preset roles. I have absolutely no problem with that, I even welcome that (especially good for newcomers). But at the same time please allow full role customization (by other means than sliders if sliders are perceived as evil). Can real life managers create "hybrid" roles? Yes, they can. Can they ask their players to do whatever they want? Yes, they can. Do the players always follow their instructions? No, because every player is different, but this is where player attributes are decisive factor.

To the second part. I am aware of other consequences that decreasing of mentality brings, but luckily they are also beneficial for my style of play (ie. means strikers do not rush their actions, they look for back passes, side way passes to onrushing players --> they can have the lowest mentality in my team, something that I can not do in FM16). I would like to also add that I do not feel that altering players defensive positioning should be done through mentality, but there is really no other way, As noikee pointed out droping strikers into the AM strata is a convoluted workaround, not a solution as there are other side effects.

Also as noikeee mentioned, and I did not want to talk about it at first as it is probably a highly subjective thing, but FM16 engine really looks dull and robotic to me, whereas FM11 looks more flowing. What surely is more realistic about FM11 is that I have much more options how to influence the way my team plays (fully customizable roles).

@herne79

Hi Herne, I know who you are. I follow T&T forum closely ;).

An btw. I have a great respect for you (nice to see you taking time in helping people there).

"A TQ that closes down a lot isn't a TQ" 

Well, firstly I did not say "a lot", normal closing down would be enough for me, but even then why? Why a TQ that closes down is not a TQ anymore? A TQ with closing down is a TQ with closing down, nothing else. And because SI/game developers associate TQ with closing down much less I am stuck with it. The real players you named did not/do not do much closing down but it is more due to their attributes like aggression, bravery, work rate. Not because they were not told to help with closing down by their managers (and even Riquelme was able to sacrify himself defensively in certain matches for Villarreal because Pellegrini wanted him to do so, although I admit when it was the case he was acting more like "wide trequartista"). But lets leave TQ. It was meant to be just an example. Noikee summed up above pretty nicely what currently can not be done with the roles.

Compactness

Exactly what I am talking about. Instead of a simple change (ie. being able to for example set my strikers to a different mentality than the rest of my team) I have to search for other solutions (d-line, retain possession, "fluidness" etc.), but what if I do not want as I feel these instructions being detrimental for my style of play in other aspects? 

@noikeee

 "  Each system played like you'd expect, not with all these weird side-effects.  "

[HUNT3R]

3 minutes ago, Los_Culés said:

@HUNT3R

I think we both know that there are also different reasons than just roles losing their identity. I would even say that this is a convenient excuse. Moreover the roles identity is set up by SI/game developers and does not have to always match with FMers perception of what the players should do. Lets have some preset roles. I have absolutely no problem with that, I even welcome that (especially good for newcomers). But at the same time please allow full role customization (by other means than sliders if sliders are perceived as evil). Can real life managers create "hybrid" roles? Yes, they can. Can they ask their players to do whatever they want? Yes, they can. Do the players always follow their instructions? No, because every player is different, but this is where player attributes are decisive factor.

To the second part. I am aware of other consequences that decreasing of mentality brings, but luckily they are also beneficial for my style of play (ie. means strikers do not rush their actions, they look for back passes, side way passes to onrushing players --> they can have the lowest mentality in my team, something that I can not do in FM16). I would like to also add that I do not feel that altering players defensive positioning should be done through mentality, but there is really no other way, As noikee pointed out droping strikers into the AM strata is a convoluted workaround, not a solution as there are other side effects.

Also as noikeee mentioned, ans I did not want to talk about it as it is probably a highly subjective thing, but FM16 engine really looks dull and robotic to me, whereas FM11 looks more flowing. What surely is more realistic about FM11 is that I have much more options how to influence the way my team plays (fully customizable roles).

 

Full role customisation would make the existence of actual roles meaningless. Then you may as well scrap the whole system and go back to sliders. Will not happen. Full role customisation also leaves it wide open for exploits, which is also something clearly SI want to minimise. The point is real world concepts that people can understand, not fiddling with individual Mentalities and at least not giving us too much of an advantage over an average AI.

So you're complaining about having to drop strata, but you're absolutely fine with a poor decision to completely drop Mentality on strikers? I'm out. Enjoy FM11, but don't sell it as better or more realistic, because it isn't. If you enjoy it more, then that's absolutely fine.

[noikeee]

I think a simple solution on how strict roles are, is just to lock out less options. I don't agree with letting the users fiddle with the mentality or creative freedom of a role, but the roles' standard settings for instructions(throughballs/run with ball/forward runs/etc) could be a little more flexible. That would be enough to feel less restricted.

I don't see why this would open huge potential for exploits. It's not even rocket science for the AI to use these options themselves. AI's thinking: my DLF is great at DLF except for having crap passing - well turn off throughballs then.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, noikeee said:

I think a simple solution on how strict roles are, is just to lock out less options. I don't agree with letting the users fiddle with the mentality or creative freedom of a role, but the roles' standard settings for instructions(throughballs/run with ball/forward runs/etc) could be a little more flexible. That would be enough to feel less restricted.

I don't see why this would open huge potential for exploits. It's not even rocket science for the AI to use these options themselves. AI's thinking: my DLF is great at DLF except for having crap passing - well turn off throughballs then.

There should be a generic role in each position. The AF, DLF, CM, DM etc are all just that. Where SI have admitted one is needed, is at AML/AMR. The finer points of what should be unlockable in a specific role is always up for debate and specific issues can be brought up in the bugs forum for SI to look at. The key point is that the role must not lose its identity though.

[Los_Culés]

@HUNT3R

" Full role customisation also leaves it wide open for exploits, which is also something clearly SI want to minimise. "

I know, but then IMO development should be concentrated on improving AI, not on having a rigid tactics creator and stripping the FMers of options.

Why it is such a poor decision to eg. have strikers on lowest normal mentality when playing control? And btw. I only express my opinions. I do not sell anything to anyone, unlike some SI people ;).

 

[herne79]

Here's my dirty little secret - I like sliders.

Of course I also like the current system, but yeh with the old sliders it gives you almost total freedom in a "sandbox" game.  I load up FM13 occasionally to get my fix.

And I think therein lies the key issue - SI have moved away from this "sandbox" game to something more akin to realism.  So out go the sliders and "full" customisation and in comes Shouts and relatively defined roles.  So like I said before, we now get attacking fullbacks who are intended to get into dangerous areas and provide crosses; supporting fullbacks who won't cross as much but will provide passing options; and trequartistas who do what "real life" TQs do.  It is still possible to influence these roles (to an extent), but it is a little more tricky now - and rightly so (imo) as we are now trying to manipulate intended behaviour instead of mucking about in a sandbox.

On the flip side we do still have some "sandbox" roles (such as the wide midfielder) that come without pre-programmed instructions.  Personally I'd like to see a couple more of these for the AML/R and striker slots, but if I want a striker who isn't going to hold the ball up (for example) I'm quite happy to select a different role.

Swings and roundabouts.

[Los_Culés]

@herne79

"  SI have moved away from this "sandbox" game to something more akin to realism "

I can accept that to an extent, but:

1) How much more realistic is telling some obscure player to play as "Raumdauter/False nine" instead of giving him a clear set of instructions how to play and where to position himself on/off the ball (by means of sliders or anything else)?

2) You say "intended behaviour". Problem is that the behaviour is intended by SI/game developers, not by the managers/FMers. I just have a different opinion on how certain roles should be played (within my style of football) and I should be allowed to introduce my ideas (ie, create customized roles). 

 

[kevin3]

1 hour ago, Los_Culés said:

I know, but then IMO development should be concentrated on improving AI, not on having a rigid tactics creator and stripping the FMers of options.

Exactly this. Restricting a user from logical tactical choices is not a solution for poorly-implemented AI. It's just papering over the cracks. Real managers are not restricted by pre-defined roles.

I'm not looking for granular control over mentality or creative freedom (although an individual "Be More Expressive/Be More Disciplined" instruction would be nice ). I just would like roles that are generic, or roles that are based on off-ball movement, to be a lot more customisable in terms of on-ball instructions such RWB, TTB, crossing and shooting.

The beauty of roles in FM should be for allowing quick tactical shortcuts or for implementing unique behaviour that's not possible with the generic roles, such as Half Back or Wide Playmaker. However, roles shouldn't come at the expense of user creativity or flexibility in designing roles that suit the strengths of each player.

 

[Lord Rowell]

3 hours ago, jayahr said:

Please do. Annoys the hell out of me (at the same tiem it's just too obvious the easiest way to score, which is also no fun)

I fear I may disappoint!!! Maybe

[isignedupfornorealreason]

2 hours ago, Los_Culés said:

1) How much more realistic is telling some obscure player to play as "Raumdauter/False nine" instead of giving him a clear set of instructions how to play and where to position himself on/off the ball (by means of sliders or anything else)?

Telling them to play as a "False 9" or whatever, is giving him a clear set of instructions.

 

Those instructions are within the role explanation *and* the role instructions. I'm not entirely sure your point stands.

[Los_Culés]

6 minutes ago, isignedupfornorealreason said:

Telling them to play as a "False 9" or whatever, is giving him a clear set of instructions.

 

Those instructions are within the role explanation *and* the role instructions. I'm not entirely sure your point stands.

I meant it in a way that it is more realistic to give each player manual instructions what to do. Not giving them preset roles. Do the managers IRL tell their players "you will play as Raumdauter", "you as False Nine" etc? I doubt it, they give players individual instructions what to do and where to positions themselves (ie. they create own roles, depending on players they have) and are not limited by some instructions set in stone.

[Cougar2010]

40 minutes ago, Los_Culés said:

I meant it in a way that it is more realistic to give each player manual instructions what to do. Not giving them preset roles. Do the managers IRL tell their players "you will play as Raumdauter", "you as False Nine" etc? I doubt it, they give players individual instructions what to do and where to positions themselves (ie. they create own roles, depending on players they have) and are not limited by some instructions set in stone.

You have the wrong idea tbh.

IRL a manager would sit down with the player and go through all the instructions maybe taking up to an hour to explain them all.

In FM you do exactly the same but to cut down on the number of mouse clicks you select a role & duty.  So with two clicks you give many instructions rather than what people complained about in the past which was too much clicking!

You are actually complaining that SI listened to the community and created a sort of macro to speed up issuing instructions.