Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
thizaum

Too many roles / role similarity

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I'm putting this here as I think it concerns tactics more than suggestions for FM19. 

So, there's a topic about new roles for FM19. I, myself, would prefer less roles, possibly by grouping them and allowing more tweaks via PIs. If I'm counting right, we have 96 strata-duty-role combinations in FM18.

Furthermore, even having played FM forever, I honestly have some doubts in the differences 2 roles. For example: Anchor and DM-D, Regista and RPM, DM-S and VOL-S, FB-D and DFB, WB and CWB, WM and IW, AP-A and Eng, SS and AM-A, CF-A and Poacher.

And if you can answer one of them with: one has more creative freedom, or one gets further forward, why would you need 2 separate roles?

I would go even further. Why not have only 3 primary strata (defence, midfield and forward) and the roles themselves be the secondary ones? The 4-2-3-1 would still be a 4-5-1, the 4-2-2-2 would still be a 4-4-2, and so forth. I don't see the point of having both DM-D and CM-D, and the Segundo Volante, BBM and CM-A, if you could have a DM-S or a DM-A with Roam.

What do you think?

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's clear differences in the roles, doesn't take long watching them on the pitch to see them.

Before we had set roles we had to set every setting for each player which was easier to exploit the engine with but also easier to go wrong with.   Sounds like you want something in between what we had and the current TC? 

I think its better to have the defined roles with there descriptions that tell you what they're doing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, summatsupeer said:

There's clear differences in the roles, doesn't take long watching them on the pitch to see them.

Before we had set roles we had to set every setting for each player which was easier to exploit the engine with but also easier to go wrong with.   Sounds like you want something in between what we had and the current TC? 

I think its better to have the defined roles with there descriptions that tell you what they're doing.

 

No, don't get me wrong. I love the roles and duties system!

I just don't think we need 100 combinations, with every 2 years more getting added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, thizaum said:

For example: Anchor and DM-D, Regista and RPM, DM-S and VOL-S, FB-D and DFB, WB and CWB, WM and IW, AP-A and Eng, SS and AM-A, CF-A and Poacher.

 

I suggest 

as a great guide to what each role does. That guide is just fantastic overall anyway, but you do need to experiment and watch the roles yourself at some point to work out the differences. 

I think Cleon covers the newer roles in one of the sticky topics around here too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are differences between the roles, but I'd agree there are too many of them.  The choice can become bewildering, especially for new or inexperienced managers. 

There are also roles in the game which can be used in ways which should arguably have more restrictions on them - being able to use a Carrilero with wingers for example when the role is specifically for wingerless systems.  Further, this can have knock on effects to how other roles around them behave which may leave us scratching our heads wondering why our systems are so inconsistent.

And then there are roles which whilst not necessarily "broken" could certainly use some polish. 

Personally I'd rather see efforts made to rectify those two issues than continue to bloat our role choice.

48 minutes ago, thizaum said:

allowing more tweaks via PIs

The issue here is the AI.  If we are given more freedom to mess around with PIs then the AI managers also need to be smart enough to do the same otherwise we get yet another advantage over the AI.  Improve the AI then I'm all for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I suggest 

as a great guide to what each role does. That guide is just fantastic overall anyway, but you do need to experiment and watch the roles yourself at some point to work out the differences. 

I think Cleon covers the newer roles in one of the sticky topics around here too. 

I'm sorry, but that was not quite my point.

I read THOG's topic in 2015. All of it. I even have the PDF in my PC.

I'm not talking about knowing what each one does. That I know. And I've read plenty of Cleon's topics. He has my utmost respect and admiration.

I'm talking about how they differ from each other. If, in some cases, you cannot have a more elegant solution.

Think about new players or even players who haven't played for 4 years, for example. It's not easy for everybody to know what Segundo Volantes, Raumdeuters and Mezzalas are. These words are not used in every country and every language.

Carrilero, for example, is a wingback in a 3-5-2 in Spain, not an "off-centre central midfielder that may drift wide". It is not common sense and "read the in-game description" is not always the solution. 

I watch every match, I've played CM/FM every year since 99, and I honestly would not be horrified if Anchorman and DM-D became the same role.

Edited by thizaum
quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, herne79 said:

There are differences between the roles, but I'd agree there are too many of them.  The choice can become bewildering, especially for new or inexperienced managers. 

There are also roles in the game which can be used in ways which should arguably have more restrictions on them - being able to use a Carrilero with wingers for example when the role is specifically for wingerless systems.  Further, this can have knock on effects to how other roles around them behave which may leave us scratching our heads wondering why our systems are so inconsistent.

And then there are roles which whilst not necessarily "broken" could certainly use some polish. 

Personally I'd rather see efforts made to rectify those two issues than continue to bloat our role choice.

Yes, 100%!

 

5 minutes ago, herne79 said:

The issue here is the AI.  If we are given more freedom to mess around with PIs then the AI managers also need to be smart enough to do the same otherwise we get yet another advantage over the AI.  Improve the AI then I'm all for this.

Huh... never thought about it that way. You're right. But how does the AI cope with this today? I mean, we still have a huge number of roles and duties and the PIs. Or the AI never uses PIs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, thizaum said:

Huh... never thought about it that way. You're right. But how does the AI cope with this today? I mean, we still have a huge number of roles and duties and the PIs. Or the AI never uses PIs?

The AI can use PIs today, but nowhere near as cleverly as human managers can.  So we already have an advantage of sorts in this area, it would just increase if we had even more freedom without AI improvements as well.  Remember, over the last few years we've seen less and less PI choice in roles.  Pure speculation on my part but I wouldn't be surprised if we had further PI restrictions imposed in the short term before things loosen up longer term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sort of know what you're getting at. I think as long as SI improved the descriptions then infinite roles are fine. remember they're just a shortcut anyway. They're just a quick way to select a bunch of PIs.

I'll give you an example. The reason that the Winger role exists is because a newbie to the game might not know how to "design" a winger themselves. they know they want one but don't know which PIs to select. By there being a Winger role players can easily get the effect they were going for. The same applies for a CM(d). You might want the CM(d) because in your defensive shape he stays relatively central, whilst in attacking transitions he hangs back. An Anchor Man is going to sit in front of the back four at all times and Ball Winning Midfielder is going to have much more aggressive closing down. So the Role is something you'd want to design if it wasn't there, so the developers just give you a short-cut and stick the Role in the list of options. That, for me, is the sort of litmus test. Is this role something that regular player's would want to design on a fairly regular basis anyway. If they would then give them a shortcut.

The single biggest problem with the FM is a completely inadequate set of descriptions within the game. Want to know what Shape does? I wouldn't bother consulting the game because it is totally inadequate. Want to know what a DF's all-round game is? Don't consult the game. Want to know the difference between an Anchor Man and a CM(d)? Don't consult the game.

I realise that they're limited for space and nobody wants to read endless text but a graphical solution could potentially be found. A simple graphic to demonstrate the player's movement/position in the defensive transition and a simple graphic to demonstrate the player's movement/position in an attacking transition.

I think the descriptors for Shape need to be binned and for the developers to start from scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, herne79 said:

The AI can use PIs today, but nowhere near as cleverly as human managers can.  So we already have an advantage of sorts in this area, it would just increase if we had even more freedom without AI improvements as well.  Remember, over the last few years we've seen less and less PI choice in roles.  Pure speculation on my part but I wouldn't be surprised if we had further PI restrictions imposed in the short term before things loosen up longer term.

Interesting point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Atarin said:

I sort of know what you're getting at. I think as long as SI improved the descriptions then infinite roles are fine. remember they're just a shortcut anyway. They're just a quick way to select a bunch of PIs.

I'll give you an example. The reason that the Winger role exists is because a newbie to the game might not know how to "design" a winger themselves. they know they want one but don't know which PIs to select. By there being a Winger role players can easily get the effect they were going for. The same applies for a CM(d). You might want the CM(d) because in your defensive shape he stays relatively central, whilst in attacking transitions he hangs back. An Anchor Man is going to sit in front of the back four at all times and Ball Winning Midfielder is going to have much more aggressive closing down. So the Role is something you'd want to design if it wasn't there, so the developers just give you a short-cut and stick the Role in the list of options. That, for me, is the sort of litmus test. Is this role something that regular player's would want to design on a fairly regular basis anyway. If they would then give them a shortcut.

Sure, but the problem I see is that the roles do not do only that. There are the hard coded and hidden features like the playmaker drawing closer for the ball or the halfback and F9 drop deeper while attacking. I literally helped here a guy days ago who wasn't understanding why his playmaker wouldn't get further forward and another who did not know that the mezzala would drift wide. And they weren't noobs. They were having big problems just because of role selection.

1 hour ago, Atarin said:

The single biggest problem with the FM is a completely inadequate set of descriptions within the game. Want to know what Shape does? I wouldn't bother consulting the game because it is totally inadequate. Want to know what a DF's all-round game is? Don't consult the game. Want to know the difference between an Anchor Man and a CM(d)? Don't consult the game.

I realise that they're limited for space and nobody wants to read endless text but a graphical solution could potentially be found. A simple graphic to demonstrate the player's movement/position in the defensive transition and a simple graphic to demonstrate the player's movement/position in an attacking transition.

I think the descriptors for Shape need to be binned and for the developers to start from scratch.

Yes. And again, if we are going to talk about improvements, why not a more elegant solution to explaining things? I don't mean making the game easier. I mean making it easier for it to do what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, herne79 said:

There are also roles in the game which can be used in ways which should arguably have more restrictions on them - being able to use a Carrilero with wingers for example when the role is specifically for wingerless systems.  Further, this can have knock on effects to how other roles around them behave which may leave us scratching our heads wondering why our systems are so inconsistent.

Why is Carrilero only specifically for wingerless systems? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NabsKebabs said:

Why is Carrilero only specifically for wingerless systems? 

As I understand it, the role is meant to cover for attacking wingbacks in a wingerless system. If you have FB/WB and wingers/WMs/IFs then you don't need - and arguably shouldn't use - carrileros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, warlock said:

As I understand it, the role is meant to cover for attacking wingbacks in a wingerless system. If you have FB/WB and wingers/WMs/IFs then you don't need - and arguably shouldn't use - carrileros.

The other way to think about this is if you do use a carrilerroin a system that employs wingers you're usually going to find yourself being ng exploited through the middle because you're likely playing a three man midfield and having at least one of them vacate that space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think role/duty runs the risk of being gimmicky, dare I say gamey.  I base that a little bit on some posts I've seen on here.  It's frustrating when you see someone ask for help and people's first reach is to play down or nullify the effect of shape and then vaguely blame role combinations.  People sometimes make role/duty sound like this impossible combination lock.   Find a (player) mentality balance, yes.  But perhaps, for example, a playmaker is just a playmaker and leave the individual's attributes to dictate how they play the position more than the role name.  Hopefully we also get to view roles more for what they should be i.e. part of the jigsaw and not the be all and end all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, warlock said:

As I understand it, the role is meant to cover for attacking wingbacks in a wingerless system. If you have FB/WB and wingers/WMs/IFs then you don't need - and arguably shouldn't use - carrileros.

 

9 hours ago, khodder said:

The other way to think about this is if you do use a carrilerroin a system that employs wingers you're usually going to find yourself being ng exploited through the middle because you're likely playing a three man midfield and having at least one of them vacate that space.

If you use an attack duty AML/AMR, the carrilero can be a good choice to provide cover to that flank. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

I do think role/duty runs the risk of being gimmicky, dare I say gamey.  I base that a little bit on some posts I've seen on here.  It's frustrating when you see someone ask for help and people's first reach is to play down or nullify the effect of shape and then vaguely blame role combinations.  People sometimes make role/duty sound like this impossible combination lock.   Find a (player) mentality balance, yes.  But perhaps, for example, a playmaker is just a playmaker and leave the individual's attributes to dictate how they play the position more than the role name.  Hopefully we also get to view roles more for what they should be i.e. part of the jigsaw and not the be all and end all.

I think this is a very good point. It's all to easy to say 'you've got too many attack duties', 'who is linking the play', etc. While these points are often valid, it's also hugely important to realise that you need a good synergy between what you're asking players to do, and what they're capable of doing. In other words, is the most important thing in the game actually player attributes?

If you have a centre forward tasked with being your primary goal-getter, does it really matter what role you put him in if he has poor attributes for Finishing, Off The Ball and Composure?

A player with good playmaking attributes will surely look to dictate play and find passes, surely. It's really just a case of deciding how to position him and how you want him to distribute the ball, and this is where I think things can be a bit easier. Rather than having lots of different playmaker roles, I'd prefer to be able to tell my playmaker to look for the wide players, look in behind, or look to play the ball into the feet of my forward(s). One could argue I can do this already, but it's rather implicitly tied up in roles and duties of other players and TIs that have side effects.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end I get the impression that they have ultimately overcomplicated the process from zero to "the team playing how you want them to play". Just because of too many roles and bad explanations.

How many topics here begin with "help, my team is not doing what I want" and end up in "yes, now they're playing like I want".

I'm not a professional real life FM, but I would guess that the problem in real life is tweaking what you mean towards winning, not just reaching what you mean. That you can probably get in 3 matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thizaum said:

I'm not a professional real life FM, but I would guess that the problem in real life is tweaking what you mean towards winning, not just reaching what you mean.

Agreed - I've often thought this.

In real life, the problem would be whether what you've asked the players to do gets results, also influenced massively by how much you can get the players to buy in to what you've told them and actually do it. In FM though, a big part of the problem is translation - i.e. how do you even tell the players what you mean, given the tools the game offers you.

In my opinion, this could very easily be greatly improved by simply having better in-game descriptions of instructions etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Millsinho said:

Agreed - I've often thought this.

In real life, the problem would be whether what you've asked the players to do gets results, also influenced massively by how much you can get the players to buy in to what you've told them and actually do it. In FM though, a big part of the problem is translation - i.e. how do you even tell the players what you mean, given the tools the game offers you.

In my opinion, this could very easily be greatly improved by simply having better in-game descriptions of instructions etc.

I largely agree with this, but for balance, I think it's also important to point out that the main cause of over-complication is often the players themselves. Now, some of this is because the game allows us the freedom to do almost anything, so it's no surprise that people push the envelope. However, we've all seen the threads where someone is trying to cram a Libero, a Segundo Volante, a Regista, a Treq and a Mezzala into an asymmetrical strikerless system.

Most (successful) real life tactics follow quite a narrow set of rules/guidelines, with the finer details (PIs) and the abilities of the players making the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has given me an idea I’m bout to add to the suggestions. I feel there is a real lack of ingame info. A helpfile like Civilization’s Civlopedia would be far more helpful than the current system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, nick1408 said:

This thread has given me an idea I’m bout to add to the suggestions. I feel there is a real lack of ingame info. A helpfile like Civilization’s Civlopedia would be far more helpful than the current system

Maybe not exactly what you're after, but there is this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the majority of the roles you use will be generic with PIs

Then one or two specialist positions depending on formation and whether those players preferred moves and attributes fit their hard coded defaults.

 

If i use PIs to make a wide midfielders the same as a hardcoded winger who has them by default....would tgey behave the same way???

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

All the "specialist" roles seem to have hard-coded behaviour which the basic roles don't have. On the flip side, the basic roles seem to be more malleable to user adjustments (PIs). So if you have a player with a specialist role, he will do whatever he is hard-coded to do. On the other hand a player with a basic role will do (mostly) whatever you want him to do. 

Conclusion: the specialist roles provide flavour. Too many specialist roles and your tactics don't seem to play like you want them to.

P.S: This is based on my observations of the game, since I don't really know the code.

Edited by gauravsinghmd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was re-reading the FM18 new roles topic by Cleon yesterday. 

He mentions a few times that the same PI on different roles has different weights. Did you know that? I didn’t.

And also: does anybody have a list of “specialist roles”? And what defines them? Having hardcoded hidden moves?

Libero, all the playmakers, Reg, Treq, Eng, Mez, Car, Raum, P, CF? Any other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×