enigmatic Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 On 23/10/2018 at 12:34, Experienced Defender said: I don't see why would this formation (including roles and duties) be considered a "cheat"? Only because it's strikerless? Nah There's a good argument that strikerless is a bigger "exploit" than three strikers, since the main purpose of playing it as your main tactical system is to exploit the likelihood the AI defensive line and marking systems haven't figured out how to handle it. (The other reason was if you wanted your forward-most player(s) to drop deeper and help out with defending, which is a lot less of an issue in FM19.). If you just want a striker that comes deep to link up with the midfield and arrives later in the box, there are striker roles for that, but of course the AI has been designed to try to mark them like normal strikers... I mean, the tactic is likely inferior to plenty of striker-ed ones and the rest of the tactic's perfectly standard but you have to ask yourself whether any real life managers are sitting there thinking "nah, I'll play a shadow striker instead of a regular forward, the opposition will totally get confused by that" 11 minutes ago, Miravlix said: The problem is we have no clue when something breaks the ME. For all we know putting an AMC in AMCL or AMCR is all it take to break what the ME can handle. (It sure leads to the same as the Ops extream winning performance for in FM18 and now 19 for me and I'm fairly sure I'm not football tactical genius). I feel like the ME is a coloring book, as long as you color within the lines it's fine, but for someone who can't even see the lines, it's quite easy to paint outside them. This is also very true. You could gain a pretty massive advantage doing very normal things like crossing a lot in FM16 or playing an extra man in midfield in FM17, and it's difficult to argue that players should feel guilty about doing that when it would almost be weird not to. But doing things which are unusual in real world football like three centre forwards or no centre forwards or no wide players or overloading all game definitely seems to be probing quite hard for match engine flaws cf my vanilla 4-2DM-3-1 with tweaks based on what the players should be good at and very standard tactical theory. Overperforming alarmingly in the few games I've played in beta, and would probably spank the strikerless formation, but I don't feel guilty about playing it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Svenc Posted October 24, 2018 Share Posted October 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Miravlix said: I feel like the ME is a coloring book, as long as you color within the lines it's fine, but for someone who can't even see the lines, it's quite easy to paint outside them. I think that's actually a beautiful analogy. Outside of defensive exploits, from my end an "exploit" is pretty easily identified though -- at least its core symptoms. This has never changed ever since the "glory" days of Diablo. You consistently get average/sides outperforming all their ability (even if you don't do anything but belting continue). As most "exploits" are attacking ones, you also get average forwards converting at fantasy rates (and rates completely out of reach of the AI anyway). F'r instance, last season's exploit tactics got average side to convert up to 25% of their seasonal shots. That's a goal in basically up to every fourth attempt. The AI average is about 10% (1 goal in every 10th shot) -- Man City last season converted 16% of their shots (1 goal for every sixth attempt). At such an advantage unheard of in all of competitive football, you have basically invented another sports. Now why that specifically can be possible, for a more detailed discussion see this last season's thread. Which also outlines that things can be some subjective too. However, yeah, it's a choice technically. It also has knock-ons on other areas of the game. Such as that your forwards may never be considered for an award, no matter how many goals they score. Or that you may rarely get decent offers for your forwards considering their strike rates.... Often times, this is then reported as a bug, when arguably it should be something else. We may argue what an "exploit" is, ultimately. But if other modules of the game react that weirdly, then you may have not merely painted a bit outside of those lines -- but smashed and broken that coloring book a bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Experienced Defender Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 10 hours ago, Svenc said: We may argue what an "exploit" is Well, I have a very simply definition of an exploit in FM. It's any tactic by which you are regularly smashing the opposition (AI) in FM, but if you used that same tactic in real-life football, then your team is the one that would be smashed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajsr1982 Posted October 25, 2018 Share Posted October 25, 2018 11 hours ago, enigmatic said: There's a good argument that strikerless is a bigger "exploit" than three strikers, since the main purpose of playing it as your main tactical system is to exploit the likelihood the AI defensive line and marking systems haven't figured out how to handle it. (The other reason was if you wanted your forward-most player(s) to drop deeper and help out with defending, which is a lot less of an issue in FM19.). If you just want a striker that comes deep to link up with the midfield and arrives later in the box, there are striker roles for that, but of course the AI has been designed to try to mark them like normal strikers... Well, how many teams actually play without a striker? Hardly any. Spain did it because they were bloody ridiculous at the time and they could get away with it. Why did they do it? Well, to combat teams parking the bus against them. To overload the midfield and attack from deeper areas, and to help keep the opposition penned back, as well as closing the gaps between players for their gegenpress. It's also worth pointing out that they didn't do it very often, and it was generally less successful than playing with a striker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
53bast1an Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Am 21.10.2018 um 19:08 schrieb herne79: It's not a cheat (although others might disagree). What it is is unrealistic, so if you input something unrealistic (e., the tactic) you might get unrealistic results as the output. But at the same time the tactic creator and match engine should be applauded for being this flexible. We're free to play the game however we choose. We can choose to play as realistically (or not) as we want to. Everybody plays the game differently. It is of course perfectly possible to get similar results playing in a more realistic manner if you want to, it just may take a little more time as you develop the squad further. TL;DR play the game however you enjoy playing it. I wrote about this a few weeks ago: https://53bast1an.wordpress.com/2018/08/30/the-non-exploit/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maradonna Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 why not make it impossible to put three strikers upfront anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cez Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 funny thing is, Juventus in serie a in FM constantly uses 433 narrow and they smash everyone with it having crazy scores like 5-0 etc.... so i guess even the AI knows how to exploit itself Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sporadicsmiles Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 8 hours ago, 53bast1an said: I wrote about this a few weeks ago: https://53bast1an.wordpress.com/2018/08/30/the-non-exploit/ That it is a real tactical thing (or can be) does not mean it is not an exploit. In this case, the AI cannot handle the 3 advanced strikers, and it does not respond properly to them. It does not, for instance, switch to 3 at the back which may help. It carries on, and loses. That is why it is an exploit. You are exploiting some limitations in the AI. Whether you use it or not is up to you, but the justification that it is not exploitative is false. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyyakuza78 Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 People should be free to play how they wish. If you want to play with 3 strikers , knowing it’s unrealistic and basically an exploit, then go ahead. But I don’t see the appeal, it makes almost any decision you make in the game irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
53bast1an Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 vor 4 Stunden schrieb sporadicsmiles: That it is a real tactical thing (or can be) does not mean it is not an exploit. In this case, the AI cannot handle the 3 advanced strikers, and it does not respond properly to them. It does not, for instance, switch to 3 at the back which may help. It carries on, and loses. That is why it is an exploit. You are exploiting some limitations in the AI. Whether you use it or not is up to you, but the justification that it is not exploitative is false. Start the editor and give every manager an (alternative) tactic with a back 3 or back 5 Then the AI has the tools to handle this "exploit". The limitations are coming from the database not from the AI itself. If you're telling the AI to turn left or turn right, it will always turn left or right and never go straight forward Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
y0lo Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 As the formation is never used in real life and has shown to be an exploit, you should allow 2 maximum strikers like you have 1 maximum goalkeeper. Can anyone give recent examples of three central strikers used? Either that, or you nerf the impact of three strikers without breaking the ME - probably not possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robson 07 Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 5 hours ago, 53bast1an said: Start the editor and give every manager an (alternative) tactic with a back 3 or back 5 Then the AI has the tools to handle this "exploit". Really? Come on now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
53bast1an Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 vor 1 Stunde schrieb Robson 07: Really? Come on now. You should read (and understand) my full comment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedroig Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 6 hours ago, y0lo said: Can anyone give recent examples of three central strikers used? Liverpool v Roma 2018 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
y0lo Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 6 hours ago, Pedroig said: Liverpool v Roma 2018 433 wide not 443 narrow Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugatti Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 On 25/10/2018 at 00:41, SD said: 3 strikers may or may not be an exploit in and of itself, but the problem is compounded by AI managers inability to react to it. A good rule of thumb for me personally is: Does this tactic resemble that of any real life team? Of course, ideally we'd have a bulletproof ME and sometimes there's a thin line between exploit and genius, but three attacking central strikers, an attacking mentality along with every TI possible is definitely not one of these close calls. This does raise a question for me though. Some people here (including the moderators) have stated that one should only use tactics resembling real life tactics. How does the game comply with the innovative/reactive nature of football tactics? Even though "history repeats itself", you no longer see the W-M tactic being used as it once was because of tactical innovation through the years. If (and only if) the game does not handle tactical innovation, then please say so explicitly SI. And if anyone here is interested in game theory; It's essentially up to the opponent to figure out a way to break you down once you have found a consistent way of breaking him - AI or not. Joga bonito! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cricketdave Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Whatever this tactic is, it sure works well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 15 hours ago, nugatti said: This does raise a question for me though. Some people here (including the moderators) have stated that one should only use tactics resembling real life tactics. How does the game comply with the innovative/reactive nature of football tactics? Even though "history repeats itself", you no longer see the W-M tactic being used as it once was because of tactical innovation through the years. If (and only if) the game does not handle tactical innovation, then please say so explicitly SI. And if anyone here is interested in game theory; It's essentially up to the opponent to figure out a way to break you down once you have found a consistent way of breaking him - AI or not. Joga bonito! Warning: This is going to take a slight metaphysical turn, but since you brought up game theory I'm thinking you can handle at least small doses of abstract thinking. Real life tactics are bound by the rules of the game, but also by the laws of physics and the limitation of human physiology. In that regard, real world football is a bottom up "simulation" - whatever outcomes there are, they happen as a result of layers upon layers of inputs, interactions, whathaveyou, that the more you put under a microscope, the ever smaller they become. Plus, the very fact that it happens, makes a real life outcome plausible by definition. It's not the same thing with FM, which I see as a top down simulation. Not in a match engine sense, but in a conceptual, game development sense. When conceiving the game, the developers start from the top - having plausible outcomes, resembling those of real life football. And then they go downwards and try to reverse engineer what rules they need to put into place to achieve those outcomes. But the main criteria for the success of the dev's endeavor is still how close they can get to those real life outcomes they try to emulate. With all the progress it's made over the years, FM as a simulation is still far from being high enough resolution to see any such "innovations" as anything other than the result of an flaws in the rule-set. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugatti Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 On 30/10/2018 at 01:45, SD said: Warning: This is going to take a slight metaphysical turn, but since you brought up game theory I'm thinking you can handle at least small doses of abstract thinking. Real life tactics are bound by the rules of the game, but also by the laws of physics and the limitation of human physiology. In that regard, real world football is a bottom up "simulation" - whatever outcomes there are, they happen as a result of layers upon layers of inputs, interactions, whathaveyou, that the more you put under a microscope, the ever smaller they become. Plus, the very fact that it happens, makes a real life outcome plausible by definition. It's not the same thing with FM, which I see as a top down simulation. Not in a match engine sense, but in a conceptual, game development sense. When conceiving the game, the developers start from the top - having plausible outcomes, resembling those of real life football. And then they go downwards and try to reverse engineer what rules they need to put into place to achieve those outcomes. But the main criteria for the success of the dev's endeavor is still how close they can get to those real life outcomes they try to emulate. With all the progress it's made over the years, FM as a simulation is still far from being high enough resolution to see any such "innovations" as anything other than the result of an flaws in the rule-set. Yes, I agree. The limitations have always been there as it most definitely is "only" a game, but the nature of tactics are reactive, and - as you say - after all these years, the game developers really should know about all the tactical possibilities and limitations. Even though if there are thousands upon thousands of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Ace Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 I've just changed to a narrow 4-3-3 with a Liverpool save because I was getting frustrated with Salah being too deep in a 4-1-2-2-1 system, the last few games have gone well & he's playing more like how I want him. Is it an exploit? I don't know & or care, it was in the default formations list Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 4 hours ago, nugatti said: after all these years, the game developers really should know about all the tactical possibilities and limitations. Even though if there are thousands upon thousands of them. No, I'm afraid I've been misunderstood here. My point was not a critique aimed at the developers, but at the idea we should view these 4-3-3 tactics as innovations rather than exploits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodentofDoom Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 On 28/10/2018 at 06:20, Maradonna said: why not make it impossible to put three strikers upfront anyway? Because it reduces player agency. If a team used the formation in real life they are choosing 3 things To have less influence over wide areas of the pitch. To have less influence over the midfield strata of the pitch. To have a higher influence in the oppositions area. The limitations of the ME notwithstanding, but it IS a viable formation. imho certainly more so than "strikerless" or asymmetric ones, so lets have those blacklisted too ... just because. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TinFM Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 On 29/10/2018 at 04:23, y0lo said: 433 wide not 443 narrow Like this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wkdsoul Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 really enjoying this at the min, preseason started with a bang, one striker scored all 5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex1234 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 7 minutes ago, wkdsoul said: really enjoying this at the min, preseason started with a bang, one striker scored all 5. How is that possible ? 8 sec and 5 goals Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wkdsoul Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 6 minutes ago, alex1234 said: How is that possible ? 8 sec and 5 goals Sorry thats the replay. the final score was 5-0. this is the kick off. from the screengrab. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcbeast Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, wkdsoul said: Sorry thats the replay. the final score was 5-0. this is the kick off. from the screengrab. wheres the link to tactic lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wkdsoul Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 minute ago, nufcbeast said: wheres the link to tactic lol about post 4/5 on the first page Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamemodapk Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 I played more than 100 hours (FM18) utilizing diverse mixes of 523 wb thin. Also, there is something odd about OP. West Ham is anything but the best group yet not a transfer hopeful. An exceptionally hostile 523 wb mix could produce somewhere around 6 chances for every amusement. However, in OP there are produced underneath 5 chances for each diversion. A decent group playing 523 wb can score 10 objectives for every 25 shots. A decent group (loaded with world-class strikers) can score (Subway Surfers Apk) 10 objectives for each 20-22 possibilities. Yet, in the OP are scored 10 objectives at every 19 shots. Is West Ham group brimming with world class strikers? I don't think. Their strikers are quality players however not world class players. There is an approach to score many objectives from a low number of chances? Indeed. Having a considerable measure of fortunes ... or then again utilizing reloads. Indeed, even the way that was created a relatively low number of chances is fascinating. It implies that I can all the more likely adapt to farfetched strategic guidelines and setups. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lashley Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 Doesn't seem that broken to me, the tactic on post 5, getting results I'd normally expect thus far Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintrainhard Posted June 7, 2019 Share Posted June 7, 2019 On 22/10/2018 at 19:13, Experienced Defender said: An example of exploit 3-striker tactic: AF AF AF CMa APMa CMa (C)WBa CB CB (C)WBa (+ offensive mentality and an abnormal amount of aggressive TIs) An example of non-exploit 3-striker tactic (with the same 433 formation): DLFs DFd P CAR CMa DLPs FBa CB CB WBs One of my favorite tactics are the above tactics in case for players count efficiency, but more of 4-1-2-1-2 actually, because 1 holding midfelder(BWM / DLP) with 2 support / Box to box mid are the best combo As for the 3 striker can be varied as : 1 DLF and 2 AF/ PF 2 support forward with 1 goal getter (poacher) / CF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.