Real Life-Tactics success in FM - When?

[Toonrock]

Hi

So, have employed and tried out several (real life) tactics, including those who looked ´non-broke´ tactics from the forums, and the question still remains;

Will there come a day, when the Football Manager-genre generates more success to the tactics, that you actually see being carried out IRL  –  and not those who are never to be seen anywhere in modern day football(?)

Last years ´17 edition, it was the ´Strikerless-year´ (as in ´no strikers´)… - A false 9 could have been acceptable… IRL, teams always have some kind of ´up-front marker´ to keep the oppositions defensive line from getting too high up the pitch and in order not to lose the play/possession in midfield - The balancing of the two teams would be distorted otherwise, with the team playing with its ´front players´ too low on the pitch being the unmistakeable losing side.

- This year, it´s the ´Fisherman´s Friend-year´ (me and friends have given it that name), the tactic always has three man up-front ´fishing´ (Don´t know if this is the right term in English; But means that the three FWs stay up front, without doing any runs back to help the team when not in possession). Simply waiting for a counter-ball, while they stay across the halfway-line…

IRL, if you had three men ´hanging´ up-front like that, without at least one helping out a bit defensively, the midfield would simply be overrun and out-played, and you would lose.

As example, Barcelona have a three man constellation up-front, with fx. Messi, Suarez and Coutinho (But at any given time, at least one of them will seek to help out when not in possession, especially Suarez and Coutinho).

 

My friends and I have talked about whether a solution could be, if SI could be ´coding´ their way out of the problem with unrealistic exploider-tactics?

Or perhaps, is it possible to build the ME, so that IRL-tactics get a better success-rating?

In general, I hope, and guess is also the ambition of SI, the aim is to make the game as close to Real Life-football as possible.

Cheers,

Toonrock

[RBKalle]

Until around FM15-16, 4-2-3-1 wide was all the rage, and the safest bet to succeed IIRC.

Whether that was a fair reflection of its real-life counterpart, that's another thing,..

[Toonrock]

14 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Until around FM15-16, 4-2-3-1 wide was all the rage, and the safest bet to succeed IIRC.

Whether that was a fair reflection of its real-life counterpart, that's another thing,..

Yeah but at least the formation makes sense As it does with 4-4-2, 3-5-2, 4-5-1 etc. and 4-1-2-3, 4-3-3, 3-4-3 etc (But where at least one of the forwards are not fishing and are helping out the team).

[Andrew_Goats_Gruff]

2 hours ago, Toonrock said:

Hi

So, have employed and tried out several (real life) tactics, including those who looked ´non-broke´ tactics from the forums, and the question still remains;

Will there come a day, when the Football Manager-genre generates more success to the tactics, that you actually see being carried out IRL  –  and not those who are never to be seen anywhere in modern day football(?)

Last years ´17 edition, it was the ´Strikerless-year´ (as in ´no strikers´)… - A false 9 could have been acceptable… IRL, teams always have some kind of ´up-front marker´ to keep the oppositions defensive line from getting too high up the pitch and in order not to lose the play/possession in midfield - The balancing of the two teams would be distorted otherwise, with the team playing with its ´front players´ too low on the pitch being the unmistakeable losing side.

- This year, it´s the ´Fisherman´s Friend-year´ (me and friends have given it that name), the tactic always has three man up-front ´fishing´ (Don´t know if this is the right term in English; But means that the three FWs stay up front, without doing any runs back to help the team when not in possession). Simply waiting for a counter-ball, while they stay across the halfway-line…

IRL, if you had three men ´hanging´ up-front like that, without at least one helping out a bit defensively, the midfield would simply be overrun and out-played, and you would lose.

As example, Barcelona have a three man constellation up-front, with fx. Messi, Suarez and Coutinho (But at any given time, at least one of them will seek to help out when not in possession, especially Suarez and Coutinho).

 

My friends and I have talked about whether a solution could be, if SI could be ´coding´ their way out of the problem with unrealistic exploider-tactics?

Or perhaps, is it possible to build the ME, so that IRL-tactics get a better success-rating?

In general, I hope, and guess is also the ambition of SI, the aim is to make the game as close to Real Life-football as possible.

Cheers,

Toonrock

1000000000.000000000% Bang on.

 

Stupid formations with way over detailed game, makes no sense. If I want to be successful with Burton Albion, I should be able to use MY FAVOURED 4231, I was recommended to use 3 strikers, no idea about dodgy tactics, I set up 3 strikers, o my life I now destroy the aston villas and win games comfortably whilst using a formation I have zero interest in playing. But you have to use it. What is the point.

[Toonrock]

On 17/1/2018 at 14:10, Andrew_Goats_Gruff said:

1000000000.000000000% Bang on.

 

Stupid formations with way over detailed game, makes no sense. If I want to be successful with Burton Albion, I should be able to use MY FAVOURED 4231, I was recommended to use 3 strikers, no idea about dodgy tactics, I set up 3 strikers, o my life I now destroy the aston villas and win games comfortably whilst using a formation I have zero interest in playing. But you have to use it. What is the point.

So spot on - I love the 3-5-2, and it is also proven IRL to work (play similar to Juventus back when they had Pirlo, Pogba and Vidal in that 3-Man triangle).

Why should one be forced to play something they don´t want to, and that is besides ´broken´...(?)

[themadsheep2001]

Well, yes is the answer. You probably should have opened this in the tactics section where you'll see people playing with plenty of emulations. Last time I checked, my Bayern 4-2-3-1 deep, united lopsided 4-1-4-1 and City 4-3-3 emulations were tearing through sides. This idea that you're forced to play a certain way has no factual basis 

[Toonrock]

27 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Well, yes is the answer. You probably should have opened this in the tactics section where you'll see people playing with plenty of emulations. Last time I checked, my Bayern 4-2-3-1 deep, united lopsided 4-1-4-1 and City 4-3-3 emulations were tearing through sides. 

Also really like a 4-1-4-1, but trouble getting it to work.

Would you share your 4-1-4-1 .fmf with me so I could test it?

[herne79]

32 minutes ago, Andrew_Goats_Gruff said:

But you have to use it. What is the point.

 

25 minutes ago, Toonrock said:

Why should on be forced to play something they don´t want to

 

19 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

This idea that you're forced to play a certain way has no factual basis 

Exactly as TMS says above.

Some people may find it "easier" to set up and have success with a 3 striker formation, but that does not equate to being forced down that road.  Take a quick look at the emulations / recreations pinned at the top of the Tactics forum - not a single 3 striker formation.  Have a look at the current great threads from Cleon for example - again you won't find a 3 striker formation there either.  Personally I've never used a 3 striker formation, nor felt the need to.  I've mainly been playing 4-4-2 variants for the last 3 iterations of FM, whilst dabbling with 4231s and 4123DMs.

All I'd suggest is that if you can only find success with a 3 striker formation but you want to use something else and can't because it all goes to hell, look for help in the Tactics forum .

[Toonrock]

14 minutes ago, herne79 said:

All I'd suggest is that if you can only find success with a 3 striker formation but you want to use something else and can't because it all goes to hell, look for help in the Tactics forum .

The problem is that 3 striker formations in this years edition are unrealistically good (As was last years strikerless-formations).

Had a friend try it out with Levante, and he won La Liga in the first season.. It´s simply unrealistic.

And in someways, it is a little ´being forced down a road´ that if you fx. play online against someone who uses that sort of tactic, then it´s not a contest really.

Btw, lots of 3 man-FW tacs in the Tactics forums, but don´t know which forum you were looking in 

[Double Indemnity]

AI is hard. Like, really, really hard. Football is a weird, fluid, dynamic game, and a lot of how it works in real-life depends on thousands of tiny calculations and adjustments by live, thinking humans.

Is that an excuse for the often clunky ways FM plays out? Not entirely. But just respect that it's an incredibly hard thing to replicate with any degree of accuracy.

[herne79]

29 minutes ago, Toonrock said:

Had a friend try it out with Levante, and he won La Liga in the first season.. It´s simply unrealistic.

And I got Plymouth Argyle (predicted to finish bottom of League One) promoted in my first season using a 4-4-2 variant.  Also unrealistic.  A friend of mine took San Marino to Champions League glory without using a 3 striker formation.  Unrealistic as well.  If you want to go for a 3 striker formation, you can.  But you're not forced to, which is what you are saying above.  Is it easier?  Some people think so sure, but nowhere near the impossibility you believe.

32 minutes ago, Toonrock said:

Btw, lots of 3 man-FW tacs in the Tactics forums, but don´t know which forum you were looking in 

I only look at one, which is the one I help moderate https://community.sigames.com/forum/19-tactics-training-strategies-discussion/ and the one I suggested above that people visit if they want help or to see plenty of others successfully not using 3 striker formations.

[*losestonon-league*]

Help my tactic doesn't work

[Andrew_Goats_Gruff]

1 hour ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Well, yes is the answer. You probably should have opened this in the tactics section where you'll see people playing with plenty of emulations. Last time I checked, my Bayern 4-2-3-1 deep, united lopsided 4-1-4-1 and City 4-3-3 emulations were tearing through sides. This idea that you're forced to play a certain way has no factual basis 

Try using those “tearing” formations with rubbish sides then before making that point.

[Jansen]

I am in doubt if I should buy this game again. I am very worried, because I think the strength of the right combination of players should be the key of winning and not (only) the tactic. Do you have the right balance of aggressive players, and creative players in cobination with the tactic. 

But in fm2017 it does not matter which players you buy.... It is only a puzzle to the right tactic and you win.

So fm2018 is no different? It is again only a tactical puzzle?

[HUNT3R]

3 minutes ago, Jansen said:

I am in doubt if I should buy this game again. I am very worried, because I think the strength of the right combination of players should be the key of winning and not (only) the tactic. Do you have the right balance of aggressive players, and creative players in cobination with the tactic. 

But in fm2017 it does not matter which players you buy.... It is only a puzzle to the right tactic and you win.

So fm2018 is no different? It is again only a tactical puzzle?

Tell that to everyone copying tactics in the tactics forum and it not "working" for them. It's (as always and IRL) a combination of tactic and players, plus in-match decisions.

[themadsheep2001]

37 minutes ago, Andrew_Goats_Gruff said:

Try using those “tearing” formations with rubbish sides then before making that point.

Been there done that twice in FM18. Next point? 

Rashidi is flying up the leagues with Gloucester. As said earlier, theres no factual basis 

[Jansen]

18 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Tell that to everyone copying tactics in the tactics forum and it not "working" for them. It's (as always and IRL) a combination of tactic and players, plus in-match decisions.

That sounds already better then my experience about fm2017....

But the weight of the tactic in fm2017 is much too heavy...

Is this still the problem in fm2018?

I am afraid that the developers discovered that they sell more copies when you easily win the CL with their favorite clubs, no matter which one.

[themadsheep2001]

2 hours ago, Toonrock said:

Also really like a 4-1-4-1, but trouble getting it to work.

Would you share your 4-1-4-1 .fmf with me so I could test it?

I'll post it tomorrow. Drop me a message to remind me. It's not a flat 4-1-4-1. Its the lopsided United shape 

[*losestonon-league*]

20 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Tell that to everyone copying tactics in the tactics forum and it not "working" for them. It's (as always and IRL) a combination of tactic and players, plus in-match decisions.

copy pasting tactics is not the way to go, because really you want to have a tactic that fits with your team, not a copy pasted one promising unbeaten seasons 

[isignedupfornorealreason]

3 hours ago, Toonrock said:

Yeah but at least the formation makes sense As it does with 4-4-2, 3-5-2, 4-5-1 etc. and 4-1-2-3, 4-3-3, 3-4-3 etc (But where at least one of the forwards are not fishing and are helping out the team).

The 4-2-3-1? I doubt that. The 4-2-3-1 most people line up with in FM is generally a long way away from anything resembling a 4-2-3-1 IRL.

 

 

[Rashidi]

1 hour ago, Jansen said:

I think the strength of the right combination of players should be the key of winning and not (only) the tactic. Do you have the right balance of aggressive players, and creative players in cobination with the tactic. 

Actually that's how I play the game now.  I looked at my Kingstonian team which is an LLM side and decided that the best way to play them would have been using a combination of a 4132 and a 4123, so we designed our system around this with the players we had. @themadsheep2001 Gloucester was last season :-(

It became a challenge thinking about finding the right mix of players to take to the pitch. Knowing that we would be vulnerable to crosses, I sought out the services of the best header in LLM football I could find willing to come to my club on trial. And we did, much to my joy. A player with jumping reach of 18 for VNS which was a huge lift to my style of play. Knowing now that I could at least defend some crosses, we focused on adding steel to midfield, with one player added for some guile. With the steel formed now it was time to find two mad harriers who could...bolt forward when an opportunity presented itself. So I looked for one striker who could at least hold up the ball and another who could run. 

We knew that most teams would attack us which makes it a lot easier to plan this around so I decided not to sit back too deep. If I take a really defensive mentality we'd just invite people over for lunch near my penalty box. Not a wise choice when we don't really have a good keeper or good defenders. So we decided to win the ball higher up the pitch. That steel midfield would have to do. Now with that sorted, all I had to figure out was how I wanted to play. Fluid would just be a bad idea, not because we're a bad side, nah. I just need a few players to think that we can go out and win. Those chaps are going to be the attacking group, of which I reckon we only had 5 who thought that way. Structured would be the best shape. Lets get players to focus on their jobs, here in LLM land I don't need everyone to defend...when I do and I want to plant my ass in my box playing defensively, without a thought for attacks, maybe I will play contain fluid. Here, though, I planned to win a few games, so control structured with literally 5 players on defend duty in the defensive strata would have to do.  Any PIs? nah. Don't need em. What about shouts, simple ones should be enough, so we got the keeper distribution closed down, we didn't want to be too deep defending so we pushed up and that was about it.

So off we went.  Simple enough. Most sides came out gunning, oh and my boys at the back the roles were deviously simple. DCB would kick without thinking and the BPD would think before kicking. It worked like a charm. My defenders ended up picking up 10 assists between them in our first 20 games. Yes, we played a simple form of football, come hither and open thyself up to my attacks.

With some thought we can get a lot done. Yes there are flaws in the engine, I am not here to start a debate about the obvious ones, but it is possible to find success in this game and it begins by making a reasoned choice of the players you want playing within a system that creates the goals you envisage. 

[LCpl]

2 hours ago, *losestonon-league* said:

Help my tactic doesn't work

Disturbingly, it does? (I've had nothing better to do today)

The opposition literally man marks, even the 2nd striker hangs back. 

[*losestonon-league*]

6 minutes ago, LCpl said:

Disturbingly, it does? (I've had nothing better to do today)

The opposition literally man marks, even the 2nd striker hangs back. 

I might try this tactic again XD

[Wavelberry]

You can absolutely have success with different types of tactics. No question.

At the same time 4-3-3 is overpowered/exploitative in this match engine.

These are not two diametrically opposed statements. Both are true.

[Andrew_Goats_Gruff]

3 hours ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Been there done that twice in FM18. Next point? 

Rashidi is flying up the leagues with Gloucester. As said earlier, theres no factual basis 

The point originally made is silly formations are way over powered and ARE better than your standard real life formations.

[Toonrock]

1 hour ago, Andrew_Goats_Gruff said:

The point originally made is silly formations are way over powered and ARE better than your standard real life formations.

Thanks for getting it back on track 

As I said to begin with and the actual point to the thread; If you were to use strikerless-formations or 3 strikers ´lazing away´ up-front, then IRL your team would be shredded to pieces.

- And since the over-all aim of this game is to make it as real life-football as possible, ´broken´ tactics should never be out-performing actual football tactics

There is a reason top-coaches around the world employ them, and not an exploiter-tactic that wouldn´t stand a chance in modern day football.

[herne79]

1 hour ago, Andrew_Goats_Gruff said:

The point originally made is silly formations are way over powered and ARE better than your standard real life formations.

 

37 minutes ago, Toonrock said:

And since the over-all aim of this game is to make it as real life-football as possible, ´broken´ tactics should never be out-performing actual football tactics

ok a different perspective.  If you want to play with a "silly formation" with 3 strikers "lazing away" up front, you can.  Many people who play this game only want to do that.  They just want the next "winning tactic".  For whatever reason that's all they want to do, it's how they have fun and good luck to them.

On the flip side, many other people want to play the game in a more "realistic" way.  And they can absolutely do that too and have fun playing in that manner.

I'm actually quite pleased the game, tactics creator and match engine are flexible enough to allow us all to play the game how we want to - how we enjoy it.  Nobody gets excluded based on their own game play preferences.  I think that's pretty cool and would much rather have a game like that than one that actively tries to stop some people having fun.  Can you imagine the outcry if SI removed that flexibility?

So, when you say things like:

10 hours ago, Toonrock said:

Or perhaps, is it possible to build the ME, so that IRL-tactics get a better success-rating?

Success based on what?  You want to be able to use an "IRL tactic" to take Levante to the La Liga title in season one just as the 3 striker tactic did?  That wouldn't reflect the "realism" that you are after though.  Alternatively perhaps you want this "new ME build" to allow you to take Levante to the La Liga title over a period of time in a realistic manner?  Well you can do that today, right now.  You already have all the tools you need to do that.

[RBKalle]

43 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

They just want the next "winning tactic".  For whatever reason that's all they want to do, it's how they have fun and good luck to them.

I completely disagree, and I think that's a very convenient way to dismiss otherwise very valid points, that, incidentally, have little to do with winning games...

As of a late, most tactical-oriented topics in GD are about people's formation not working like it should (or like they think/expect), regardless of the actual results (which, in most cases can still be achieved, albeit accepting compromises and a certain amout of "oh well..." fatalism).

We've been debating about wide play and frequent crosses happening in many, apparently narrow, tactics, about AI's tactical limitations and discrepancies compared to real life managers, about midfielders being "lazy", about horrific closing-down and marking, about ineffectual instructions and plenty of other topics.
NONE of which have a thing to do with "I want to randomly pick my tactic and team and then win the CL with Lincoln Red Imps by 2020".

 

The OP's question is valid IMO and is something many FM'ers have pondered... "Should I invest a lot of time and effort to get my 3-5-2/5-3-2 to work the way I envision it, or should I just say '**** it!' and settle for 4-4-2/4-2-3-1/Whatever is working for this ME build?"

I accept some may have the desire, the inclination and the time to painstakingly test their dream tactic until the ME gets it (as) right (as it can). But other may not be willing or able to do so. Then their choice is either keep trying and finally get it working by the time FM19 Demo will be out, or they'll give up and go with a more reliable tactic or will download every "supertactic" under the sun, much to no avail, as most of those work with a specific club or with CA >160 players.

 

Bottom line: I think it's unfair and disrespectful towards users (like @El Payaso, @MBarbaric and also @Svenc)who have been presenting excellent arguments (and counter-arguments), to pretend it's just about winning games.

[herne79]

@RBKalle Wow, you've not only taken something completely out of context but also completely missed the point.  Good job .

[RBKalle]

4 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

@RBKalle Wow, you've not only taken something completely out of context but also completely missed the point.  Good job .

How so?

You stated many people only care about winning no matter with what formation. And that others don't. And that the TC is flexible enough to allow both ways.

Which is only a partial truth, because, as we've been debating about for months, what we see on the TC is often very misleading and the ME "does what it wants" because, for some reason, the WYSIWYG factor is much less prevalent than it's supposed to be.

Still, those who are complaining/discussing about those tactical difficulties are NOT doing so because they aren't winning... Au contraire, the OP was complaining because he was winning too much with a formation that:

a) shouldn't be as successful
b) is successful because players' bad tactical behaviour isn't punished enough
c) is completely unfeasible in real life, at least the way it works in the ME

 

1 ora fa, herne79 ha scritto:

Success based on what?  You want to be able to use an "IRL tactic" to take Levante to the La Liga title in season one just as the 3 striker tactic did?  That wouldn't reflect the "realism" that you are after though.  Alternatively perhaps you want this "new ME build" to allow you to take Levante to the La Liga title over a period of time in a realistic manner?  Well you can do that today, right now.  You already have all the tools you need to do that.

Taking Levante to win La Liga in 1 (or 2) seasons shouldn't be possible, period.

Taking Levante to win La Liga over a realistic period of time should be possible, but NOT if the only (or fastest) way to do so is fielding a 2-2-3-2-1 formation just because the AI can't handle a specific formation/set of instructions.

Which is the OP's complaint, as far as I can tell.

[Toonrock]

8 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Taking Levante to win La Liga in 1 (or 2) seasons shouldn't be possible, period.

Taking Levante to win La Liga over a realistic period of time should be possible, but NOT if the only (or fastest) way to do so is fielding a 2-2-3-2-1 formation just because the AI can't handle a specific formation/set of instructions.

Which is the OP's complaint, as far as I can tell.

Spot on ! 

[Svenc]

12 hours ago, Toonrock said:

This year, it´s the ´Fisherman´s Friend-year´ (me and friends have given it that name), the tactic always has three man up-front ´fishing´ (Don´t know if this is the right term in English; But means that the three FWs stay up front, without doing any runs back to help the team when not in possession). Simply waiting for a counter-ball, while they stay across the halfway-line…

Toonrock

 

That's an outstanding way to call it. It's been a bit of a thing ever since at least FM 15 though. Actually, it's been one of my bugbears in particular as to AI. Many AI mans prefer that as their favorite "attacking formation". So they can switch to that mid-match, sometimes just for a few minutes. If you overcommit, you're quickly undone on the break. It also introduces a dynamicism to the match where a simple opposition formational switch can turn the match dynamics upside down. There was one guy uploading a match complaining and raging, and as usual, he didn't watch out here. At HT, it was like 3-1. The AI made its switch, and in between the 45th and 60th minutes had multiple breaks that way upon intercepting the guy's attack -- boom, comeback. Upon the equalizer, the AI reverted to its starting formation...

I personally always deliberately shy away from stuff that may be "overpowered". I always simply try to let the sides play the football I want (as far as possible anyways....). The argument thus that you need to play a certain way to have success doesn't apply -- no less as AI opponents are coded to prefer a multitude of stuff. The thought that "hey, this may be slightly OP, let's play this", doesn't cross their line. That's also the only way to learn the game. It's also the only way to play that gets you your money's worth imo. If you can simply "troll" the game to the point that AI opponents can't compete even with vastly superior squads, 90% of the time the SI staff must spend their year on is drawn obsolete. Simply "fish" for what's currently a bit overpowered, and your game is going to play out just like last season's, and that season's before, no matter how much time they spend on trying to improve their game -- outside of database changes, it's guaranteed to be the same experience forever. It's a big concern for online multiplayer though (which is a part of the game if you want). If FM were a competive multiplayer game, in my opinion it'd be dead. In a competitive online environment, everybody takes any means possible to win...

[herne79]

50 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

a) shouldn't be as successful
b) is successful because players' bad tactical behaviour isn't punished enough
c) is completely unfeasible in real life, at least the way it works in the ME

a) Why shouldn't it be successful?  Just because it's not "realistic"?  Because it isn't "real life"?  You'd prefer a TC/ME that only reflects realism?  That'll alienate a sizeable chunk of the player base.

b) Define "bad".  In this context it's coming back to the same realism / not realism argument as above.

c) Yeh it is unrealistic, but we aren't purely dealing with realism.

Some in this thread seem to only want realism.  That's fair enough if you do, but what about others?

57 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Taking Levante to win La Liga in 1 (or 2) seasons shouldn't be possible, period.

Why?  Some people want to play like that.  Others don't.  Why take away the choice?

58 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Taking Levante to win La Liga over a realistic period of time should be possible, but NOT if the only (or fastest) way to do so is fielding a 2-2-3-2-1 formation just because the AI can't handle a specific formation/set of instructions.

Taking Levante to win La Liga over a realistic period of time is already possible.  Why do you think it isn't?  The fastest way may be to field some unrealistic formation, but it is quite definitely not the only way to do it, at least over a realistic time period.

1 hour ago, RBKalle said:

Bottom line: I think it's unfair and disrespectful towards users (like @El Payaso, @MBarbaric and also @Svenc)who have been presenting excellent arguments (and counter-arguments), to pretend it's just about winning games.

I want to address this as I'm apparently being disrespectful to certain people and "pretending" things (ie., I'm lying).  I'm fully aware of the posts these guys (and others) make, probably more so than most people.  I've never said "it's just about winning games", pretence or not.  Why you are twisting my words I don't know, but it isn't appreciated and I suggest you stop doing it.  Any comments I've made in this thread are about this topic, nothing else.  And that topic is, to quote the OP:

13 hours ago, Toonrock said:

My friends and I have talked about whether a solution could be, if SI could be ´coding´ their way out of the problem with unrealistic exploider-tactics?

Or perhaps, is it possible to build the ME, so that IRL-tactics get a better success-rating?

In general, I hope, and guess is also the ambition of SI, the aim is to make the game as close to Real Life-football as possible.

All I am saying is why should we no longer have the choice of having "unrealistic tactics"?

I've also made comment where people believe they are "forced" into using these tactics.  If you want an almost guaranteed quick win then sure.  If that isn't what you want then we are absolutely not forced into anything unless we are attempting to do something that the TC/ME is simply not capable of.  There's plenty of that and the people you quote above (and others) post about such capabilities.

Yes, the TC can be improved.  Yes the ME can be improved.  That's not even a debate.  But I'm not talking about that.  I'm talking about choice, plain and simple.  

1 hour ago, RBKalle said:

Taking Levante to win La Liga in 1 (or 2) seasons shouldn't be possible, period.

Taking Levante to win La Liga over a realistic period of time should be possible, but NOT if the only (or fastest) way to do so is fielding a 2-2-3-2-1 formation just because the AI can't handle a specific formation/set of instructions.

Which is the OP's complaint, as far as I can tell.

 

1 hour ago, Toonrock said:

Spot on ! 

And you both seem to want that choice removed.

[Artin]

it is quite hilarious though! i'm chasing promotion and every time i'm up against a tough opponent, i cheese it up and use the 3 striker formation and i think i'm 15-0 so far.

you have to realize that absolutely no one at SI uses 3 strikers during all their Q&A testing (because it's not a valid IRL tactic) so the match engine doesn't know what to do. i have no doubt they'll fix it eventually but when that happens, it's time to use a FOUR striker formation instead lol!

[Svenc]

5 hours ago, herne79 said:

a) Why shouldn't it be successful?  Just because it's not "realistic"?  Because it isn't "real life"?  You'd prefer a TC/ME that only reflects realism?  That'll alienate a sizeable chunk of the player base.

And you both seem to want that choice removed.

I agree with that sentiment: Why should anybody care? However, it's not so much whether it's a choice or not. Most of the time this is only possible due to a blatant game weakness, a major flaw, which affects everyone. And be it in the form of an AI manager that temporarily say, switches to three central "fishing" forwards -- and you not being  aware of that dynamicism at play with them not tracking overly much back [GAME MUST BE SCRIPTED! CHEATING AI!]. Real football matches usually aren't turned "upside down" by a formational switch most of the time, at least not to that degree that can happen in-game. The above would lose some bite immediately if sides weren't to play such a simple numbers game, with up to three players just waiting for the clearance more or less, and nobody in the opposition side adapting by "common sense". The opposite argument naturally is also reasonable. That's three players barely getting involved behind the ball for the defending team... that may hurt them on their end some. To a degree it's oft not the input -- it's how the game responds to it. Going adventurous is plenty cool in my gaming book.

That "choice" also keeps a huge portion of the player base from learning how to play and understand the game. For some, it has for decades. Such stuff has happened in the past. The then mods had lots of stuff to clear up. They do still now, in the form of players claiming the "patch broke their tacticz" most prominently. Or players being under the impression that purely tactics are intended to be the difference between a relegation battle and a championship fight -- madness. Even worse --  players being under the impression that the game would intentionially reward gibberish, and punish them for something that seems more "football" based. Frustration guaranteed. There's better options for a "fantasy" experience than having a code deliberately full of flaws, and on occasion I take them too: Heading into the editor for instance. That's not anybody's decision anyway... Si are monitoring such because it highlights flaws typically. They don't want to alienate. They may also want people getting to grips with how things interact with one another. Not going to happen if a purely tactical choice draws most the stuff moot -- starting right with the players available.

Having such a "choice" thus isn't accessibility/easyness. It's an illusion of such. It seems a quick fix, but doesn't tackle the problem of "understanding the game". And it comes crashing down every time the flaw is fixed, either deliberately or as a knock-on of other tweaks. But indeed you aren't forced to play "unrealistic / gamey " tactics. That's not true. What's more, the core logics themselves rewarded for a decade have been the exact same ever since. If they wouldn't, that'd be a bad sign. It would also be a bad sign for AI development, as they can't possible code AI around any temporarily game flaw on each patch/iteration, or else things wouldn't progress anywhere. For as long as the game will exist, there will likely be always flaws to focus on. You can cheese AI in complex strategy games too. It's a choice... it'd be a better one if players would be aware of it though. From my experience, they oft aren't [which is also the reason why fansites dominated by such are also dominated by the most curious myths about the game].

[HUNT3R]

 

6 hours ago, RBKalle said:

Taking Levante to win La Liga over a realistic period of time should be possible, but NOT if the only (or fastest) way to do so is fielding a 2-2-3-2-1 formation just because the AI can't handle a specific formation/set of instructions.

It may be faster to use an exploit, because that's what it is - an exploit. It doesn't mean you can't do it at all with "normal" tactics. That's what a lot of us do - overachieve with perfectly normal, realistic setups.

[sporadicsmiles]

11 hours ago, Toonrock said:

Thanks for getting it back on track 

As I said to begin with and the actual point to the thread; If you were to use strikerless-formations or 3 strikers ´lazing away´ up-front, then IRL your team would be shredded to pieces.

- And since the over-all aim of this game is to make it as real life-football as possible, ´broken´ tactics should never be out-performing actual football tactics

There is a reason top-coaches around the world employ them, and not an exploiter-tactic that wouldn´t stand a chance in modern day football.

I do not get you at all here. You state these are not normal tactics, so you are feeding the ME something that is unusual and unrealistic. Why are you shocked that you are being unusual and unrealistic results?

There is absolutely nobody who tells you that you absolutely have to play with tactics that exploit the ME. There is nothing that stops you having success with other tactics, many other people do. If you are exploiting tactics you know are unrealistic, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

To me, it sounds like you want to be able to replicate the success of exploitative tactics without being obvious about using one. In the end, just play the game how you enjoy.

[Cap'nRad]

13 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

I do not get you at all here. You state these are not normal tactics, so you are feeding the ME something that is unusual and unrealistic. Why are you shocked that you are being unusual and unrealistic results?

There is absolutely nobody who tells you that you absolutely have to play with tactics that exploit the ME. There is nothing that stops you having success with other tactics, many other people do. If you are exploiting tactics you know are unrealistic, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

To me, it sounds like you want to be able to replicate the success of exploitative tactics without being obvious about using one. In the end, just play the game how you enjoy.

The AI uses these formations as well.

[RBKalle]

8 ore fa, herne79 ha scritto:

All I am saying is why should we no longer have the choice of having "unrealistic tactics"?

Well, I've always thought FM's biggest goal, and main selling point AND point of pride, was REALISM...

Of course it's a game, so there must be plenty of "concessions" and  liberties to keep the game entertaining and appealing to a broader audience (I agree, nobody would bother to buy a punishing hardcore simulation where you'll likely have marginal chances of ever making it out of the Vanarama National League, or your best finish with Levante will be a hard-earned 14th...)

HOWEVER

FM has currently more than enough "loopholes" that can give players a bit of an extra advantage (first and foremost, better judgement than AI in terms of squad building, which can circumvent almost any tactical deficiency), so I don't think it's outrageous asking for a better and more streamlined tactical setup.
Which, BTW, doesn't mean "unless you spend 10 hours tweaking your tactic AND watch full matches you can't win". It's just about a better reflection of what works in real-life, and how and why, compared to what works in the ME.

A 4-3-3 in real life is hardly unfeasible, BUT two of the three strikers must track back to help the team. Otherwise you'd be crushed by the opponents' sheer numerical superiority when they have the ball.

Last, but not least, it works the other way around too, so if AI switches to 4-3-3 or to any other "overpowered" tactic during a game and you aren't aware of that, or you miss it, you'll end up losing a game you were winning without even knowing why. And cue the angry rants about "FM is cheating!!!" in GD...

 

 

8 ore fa, herne79 ha scritto:

I've also made comment where people believe they are "forced" into using these tactics.  If you want an almost guaranteed quick win then sure.  If that isn't what you want then we are absolutely not forced into anything unless we are attempting to do something that the TC/ME is simply not capable of.

It's human nature...

It's like cheating during a test... You may have studied hard, but if there's a complicated question you're stuggling with and you happen to know there's the right answer just under your desk, how long can you resist before you take a peek?

Nobody "forces" the OP to play a 4-3-3, but maybe that was a formation he wanted to try (because, again, it's a realistic one to an extent, it's not as if he was trying a 1-1-8), and when it turned out it's a gamebreaker, because the ME can't handle it despite it being far from absurd, well... Opportunity makes the thief.

Not to mention that a less "scrupulous" player would have just thought: "OMG!!! I'm a tactical genius! I can win La Liga with Levante in my first season with this amazing tactic!", which leads to the input-output shortcircuit @Svenc pointed out.

Again, if the TC/ME can't handle a rather basic formation, what does that say about the state of the game? It's the Corner Exploit all over again... Apparently trivial stuff that somehow, somewhat, becomes the modern equivalent of the Diablo Supertactic.
I'd have no qualms if "cheating" the ME would require going out of our way to find a complicated and outlandish set of instructions... But if a rather meh 4-3-3 is enough...

[Toonrock]

21 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

A 4-3-3 in real life is hardly unfeasible, BUT two of the three strikers must track back to help the team. Otherwise you'd be crushed by the opponents' sheer numerical superiority when they have the ball.

Exactly the main point and reasoning why exploiter-tacs should never work in the first place.

 

21 minutes ago, RBKalle said:

Well, I've always thought FM's biggest goal, and main selling point AND point of pride, was REALISM...

...And; YES!

[MBarbaric]

It has to be hard for SI to cater for all the playstyles people use when they play this game. I agree that anyone should be able to play the game however he wants. The problem is, the game currently simply can't replicate some basic things in football which then causes all sorts of problem in the me.

There's no proper play from the back behaviour. Positions players occupy when this is selected in the TC, simply aren't what they should be. To make it worst, that is no problem as the ME isn't capable of replicating properly high pressing so not having proper play from the back behaviour is not a problem apart it kills the immersion as Guardiola's teams play nothing like in real.

The biggest problem the game has, and it is what allows "Fishing", appears with defensive positioning and inability of the ME to replicate defending as a unit. Not only that you can leave three players up front, paradoxically, you can get away with it during the defensive phase. And this, is the most telling fact of the current state of the ME. Under no circumstances should the team be able to consistently defend relatively well with 30% of the defensive unit missing. Even when Juventus was in SERIE B with squad significantly better than other teams, they never did it.

This strange paradox where strikers (two, three...) stay high but the defence is still working relatively well, is the killer for the game.  It means that the defending team with only 7 players effectively covers the whole width and length of their half of the pitch. That simply doesn't happen in competitive football. Since the opposition isn't able to consistently break down the teams leaving 2,3 players high up the pitch, one has to wonder about the offensive part of the ME.

How come 7 or even 8 players aren't able to (consistently) break down the opposition despite having numerical parity and whole half of the pitch 55x60m? That is huge space for only 7 players to cover, especially when they don't have the numerical advantage.  

I won't speak of FM 18 as I have only played the demo, but the same problem drags on from FM 16. What I've noticed there is, beside general lack of movement in the offensive phase, central players are rulactant of passing the ball through the middle even when there is space, time and the receiver (or multiple receivers). They frequently just play towards the flank for the full back who is in more space. I play the game on full latley a lot and number of these situations where the ball is played from flank to flank instead in the box is alarming. 

I reckon it is the way for the ME to represent somewhat realistic results and stats, otherwise, the goals scored would plummet. 

 

 

 

[herne79]

ok, one last try.  From the opening post:

On ‎17‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 10:42, Toonrock said:

 

My friends and I have talked about whether a solution could be, if SI could be ´coding´ their way out of the problem with unrealistic exploider-tactics?

Or perhaps, is it possible to build the ME, so that IRL-tactics get a better success-rating?

In general, I hope, and guess is also the ambition of SI, the aim is to make the game as close to Real Life-football as possible.

If you want to play in a realistic fashion you can do that today with FM18.  Want to take Levante to the La Liga title over the course of a few seasons?  You can.  Want to take Barcelona to Champions League glory with a tiki taka style system?  You can.  Want to use an old fashioned English type of 4-4-2?  You can.  Want to employ an Italian Sweeper system?  You can.  Want a Brazilian Box?  You can.  Want to do a load of other "realistic" things?  You can. 

So what precisely does building the ME to get IRL tactics "a better success rating" actually mean?  Because you can use IRL tactics today and achieve great success.

However, there are of course limitations and room for improvement.  Pressing especially could use some work to name but one area.  Tactical descriptions are another (and a particular bug bear of mine).  We're not in a game world of perfection but if we so desire we can play - today - in a "realistic" fashion.  That's not to say what you see in the match engine and 3D graphics engine will always be a 100% accurate reflection of real life.  As complex as they are, they're not that good.  But you can certainly set your game up to reflect real life with the intention of playing in as much of a real life style simulation as you can.

Conversely of course, if somebody wants to play in an unrealistic manner to help them over achieve more immediate success, they can do that as well.  We're free to choose how we want to play.

The AI switching to these "fishing" tactics if they're struggling for a goal has also been mentioned.  But why shouldn't the AI do that?  If I were needing a goal, especially in an important match, I'd probably throw on an extra attacker or two, go more direct and try to pressurise the opposition defence into submission.  Teams can do that in real life as well.  What's unrealistic about it?  Wouldn't it be more unrealistic if the AI didn't do that?

If we don't know how to cope with that strategy when/if the AI does "go fishing", isn't that part of our learning curve?  Does Mourinho in real life just carry on regardless and ignore things when the opposition are chasing a goal and throw on attackers?  Or does he bring on 6 defenders and withdraw everyone into their own half to protect the lead?  Yes some of the ME issues don't exactly help us when we're trying to cope with this in a match, but it's nowhere near an impossibility.  If it were, only AI managers would ever win anything.

The only unrealistic thing I see in this thread is the ability of people to heavily over achieve by constantly employing your so-called "fishing" tactics.  And what's so wrong with that if that's how they want to play?

[Naor5563]

12 minutes ago, herne79 said:

ploy  these "fishing" tactics if they're struggling for a goal has also been mentioned.  But why shouldn't the AI do that?  If I were needing a goal, especially in an important match, I'd probably throw on an extra attacker or two, go more direct and try to pressurise the opposition defence into submission.  Teams can do that in real life as well.  What's unrealistic about it?  Wouldn't it be more unrealistic if the AI didn't do that?

 

 

Why would I play this tactics only when needing a goal, instead of start with this tactic and probably win cleanly?

If you ST's are fast, it's almost impossible to AI deal with them.

In RL there in no magic solutions like this one. Bottom of line, FM18 is just easy as I stated few times. Attacking FB's and 3 ST's staying up just win easily.

[Dave1990]

38 minuti fa, MBarbaric ha scritto:

It has to be hard for SI to cater for all the playstyles people use when they play this game. I agree that anyone should be able to play the game however he wants. The problem is, the game currently simply can't replicate some basic things in football which then causes all sorts of problem in the me.

There's no proper play from the back behaviour. Positions players occupy when this is selected in the TC, simply aren't what they should be. To make it worst, that is no problem as the ME isn't capable of replicating properly high pressing so not having proper play from the back behaviour is not a problem apart it kills the immersion as Guardiola's teams play nothing like in real.

The biggest problem the game has, and it is what allows "Fishing", appears with defensive positioning and inability of the ME to replicate defending as a unit. Not only that you can leave three players up front, paradoxically, you can get away with it during the defensive phase. And this, is the most telling fact of the current state of the ME. Under no circumstances should the team be able to consistently defend relatively well with 30% of the defensive unit missing. Even when Juventus was in SERIE B with squad significantly better than other teams, they never did it.

This strange paradox where strikers (two, three...) stay high but the defence is still working relatively well, is the killer for the game.  It means that the defending team with only 7 players effectively covers the whole width and length of their half of the pitch. That simply doesn't happen in competitive football. Since the opposition isn't able to consistently break down the teams leaving 2,3 players high up the pitch, one has to wonder about the offensive part of the ME.

How come 7 or even 8 players aren't able to (consistently) break down the opposition despite having numerical parity and whole half of the pitch 55x60m? That is huge space for only 7 players to cover, especially when they don't have the numerical advantage.  

I won't speak of FM 18 as I have only played the demo, but the same problem drags on from FM 16. What I've noticed there is, beside general lack of movement in the offensive phase, central players are rulactant of passing the ball through the middle even when there is space, time and the receiver (or multiple receivers). They frequently just play towards the flank for the full back who is in more space. I play the game on full latley a lot and number of these situations where the ball is played from flank to flank instead in the box is alarming. 

I reckon it is the way for the ME to represent somewhat realistic results and stats, otherwise, the goals scored would plummet. 

 

 

 

Allow me to spell one thing to your great post. The problem of tactics overpowered with three strikers already exists from FM14, but until the March patch of FM15 the strikers set up to support were back to defend (even too much), and that's why any striker now doesn't provide any defensive support. If until March 2015, however, there was a logical explanation of why the tactics with 3 strikers worked well, now there is no longer any logical explanation of why these tactics continue to work well.

[shadster]

Well, in my opinion you can recreate most of real life tactics, if you know the game well enough. I can give two examples, one from FM 18 and one from past editions. From FM 18, I started the game playing a 4-2-3-1 formation, where my vision of it was to have two inside fowards cutting to the midle, opening spaces to the wing backs to go up and help on the attack. On FM 17 this worked, but on FM 18 I was never able to play exactly as I wanted, despite having good results. On FM 17 I played a 41221 formation, so I tried that one too, but didn't work as well. Now I started a new save with a 433 formation, 3 strikers, and the team plays exactly as I wanted to on the 4231 formation, despite of some unbalanced things I still think the ME has. My two DLF play exactly how I wanted the IF to play, and consequently my Wing Backs play the way I want. On my opinion, this is only because of my lack of knowledge of the game. I'm sure it is possible and simple to implement the style I wanted on 4231, but I can't do it.

The other example. My team, Benfica, some years ago had a great team. David Luiz, Fabio Coentrão, Javi Garcia, Pablo Aimar, Di Maria, Saviola, etc.. And that year they played a 442 formation. But it had some tricks. They played with Javi Garcia and Aimar on center mildfield, and as Aimar was very weak at defending, Ramires (who went to Chelsea) when team had the ball played as Right Winger, but when the team was without the ball, he played most of time as center mildfielder. I tried to recreate this in game, but never was able to do that. Is it possibly? Probably.  I think most times is more about my limitations, that the game.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

12 hours ago, RBKalle said:

Nobody "forces" the OP to play a 4-3-3, but maybe that was a formation he wanted to try (because, again, it's a realistic one to an extent, it's not as if he was trying a 1-1-8), and when it turned out it's a gamebreaker, because the ME can't handle it despite it being far from absurd, well... Opportunity makes the thief.

Yes, opportunity makes the thief. Some people will unwittingly fall into these 'traps'. I remember being successful in FM12, indeed, I remember a lot of people being successful in FM12, only for it to be pointed out that they were exploiting the lack of collision detection when they started struggling somewhat with 13. Not all of these people intentionally went into the game seeking to exploit (in my view) a major issue, but all of them fell foul of it. How many of them refused to move on and adapt because of the possible bad habits they picked up from there? That we can occasionally see in a rage in certain reviews wishing to go back to the easier times when things made sense etc.

 

10 hours ago, MBarbaric said:

I won't speak of FM 18 as I have only played the demo, but the same problem drags on from FM 16. What I've noticed there is, beside general lack of movement in the offensive phase, central players are rulactant of passing the ball through the middle even when there is space, time and the receiver (or multiple receivers). They frequently just play towards the flank for the full back who is in more space. I play the game on full latley a lot and number of these situations where the ball is played from flank to flank instead in the box is alarming. 

 

What's more concerning for me is that it is easy to see where the 'trigger' points are for a transition/event sometimes. You can argue it is part of football, and that's fair enough, but I see a lot of times scenarios occur where a team is too deep or too forward, and things are disconnected, not necessarily a tactical issue but because the trigger point hasn't been hit yet. You can see it sometimes when a team gets over the halfway line but everyone is still too deep. The players don't make the runs they need to until they hit a trigger, and yet they'd find it more beneficial if they hit that trigger earlier.

The most blatant signs of these triggers happen at set pieces, especially corners. Sometimes players don't get moving quick enough, they don't get out of the box quick enough, or out wide quick enough. Sometimes both teams languish in the middle, waiting for the ball to slowly get to the intended 'sweeper' back on the halfway line and no one 'reacts' appropriately. Then a trigger event happens and the floodgate opens and everyone's running at full pelt. This can happen IRL sometimes, but I think in-game it happens too often, it looks gamey, it looks artificial. It demonstrates a limitation of the match engine visuals sometimes - though this may be a completely unrelated thing to the topic anyhoo.

 

10 hours ago, herne79 said:

The only unrealistic thing I see in this thread is the ability of people to heavily over achieve by constantly employing your so-called "fishing" tactics.  And what's so wrong with that if that's how they want to play?

I'd actually say it is bad for those who are genuinely trying to learn to play the game realistically, as they may fall into these bad habits that will further impact their potential enjoyment when it stops working and they get frustrated. My nephew is a newcomer to the game, he's been extremely even-handed in his role distribution etc, which I'm very proud of, he actually employs a holding midfielder, which is more than most people do in some of their weird set ups! And yet, he was very happy today as he won everything playing a 4-3-3, and he's unaware it may be exploitative, but he says to me that he isn't happy with how it is working, it doesn't feel right. He's identifying some issue, but can't deny it is winning him the game. 

I don't blame him for persisting with what works, and what ultimately brings him silverware, but assuming in the future this 'fishing' gets adjusted so it isn't as exploitative, I imagine he will be stumped as to why it has stopped working, and I hope that doesn't lead him to spiral into a love-hate affair with the game y'know? (I don't have FM18 though, I don't know if it really is exploitative or whatever, I'm just going off what people are saying on here, don't get me wrong I completely agree that you should be able to play how you like, but I do think exploit tactics/formations have their pitfalls in the long term for the unsuspecting player which isn't good to encourage in my view.)

[Toonrock]

15 hours ago, isignedupfornorealreason said:

On 18/1/2018 at 12:44, herne79 said:

The only unrealistic thing I see in this thread is the ability of people to heavily over achieve by constantly employing your so-called "fishing" tactics.  And what's so wrong with that if that's how they want to play?

That´s one thing (which i still don´t think is ok, and cheating IMO) - But the other thing; What do you do when it´s not only the Human Manager that employs this fishing tactic ?

- I have now tried over and over again (56 times is my guess) test and play the same game against Inter (the AI) in Serie A (I was Lazio, at Home), with one tactic after the other, tweaked multible times, tried everything;  It´s very very rarely, that you keep The Three Fishermen from not scoring goals, and you lose the game multible times...

It really needs being looked into, as IRL, this is impossible to achive for at team playing with 3 fishing strikers (as described in my opening thread).

[HUNT3R]

@ToonrockI'm in a league where there are 3 strikers fairly often. I'm able to hold my own against them, so it's not like it's impossible to do. It obviously does need looking at, but it's not game over as soon as you face them.

[Guest El Payaso]

@Toonrock The in-game editor is an excellent tool for this as you are able to edit the formations that the AI uses. I have taken 4-2-3-1 away from every AI manager in bigger leagues and also edited some of the defensive formations so that the AI actually will try to play football against bigger teams away from home instead of hoofing the ball away. It's a bit of a bummer though that you have to consider also stripping the 4-4-2 off as it is so overpowering.

@HUNT3R the main question is though: are the AI teams able to hold on their own against it as these are things that influence the whole gaming world. For me for example Atlético destroying PSG and Barcelona 5-1 (and Bournemouth being able to do the same for big teams like Arsenal and Liverpool) just because they use the 4-4-2 is a bit of game breaker as I would like to see some common sense. For me it's quite easy to just use 3 CBs and that will do the job well enough but what can the other AI teams do?

[HUNT3R]

6 minutes ago, El Payaso said:

 

@HUNT3R the main question is though: are the AI teams able to hold on their own against it as these are things that influence the whole gaming world. For me for example Atlético destroying PSG and Barcelona 5-1 (and Bournemouth being able to do the same for big teams like Arsenal and Liverpool) just because they use the 4-4-2 is a bit of game breaker as I would like to see some common sense. For me it's quite easy to just use 3 CBs and that will do the job well enough but what can the other AI teams do?

Toonrock wasn't talking about AI teams and neither was I.