Team and players mentality

[Smx]

Hi to all. Im from Russia. Excuseme i dont speak english. My question is about the mentality. Im set to attacking mentality for my team. But my player with atackind duty  dont get this mentality. Their mentality very atacking. The players with a support duty in positive metality. Why is? 

Why not atacking mentality at players then team mentality setting as attacking? 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Smx

[noikeee]

Mentality is how aggressive and rushed a player will be with their choices with the ball (attacking = lots of forward passes for example), and also with their positioning and movement. Players on support will have lower mentality than players on attack, so they can stay a little behind and... support the others.

If your DLP had "very attacking" mentality he'd be running forward and wouldn't be playing as a DLP at all!

[Smx]

20 minutes ago, noikeee said:

Менталитет - это то, насколько агрессивным и поспешным будет игрок при выборе мяча (например, атака = много передач вперед), а также в зависимости от его положения и движения . Игроки на поддержке будут иметь меньший менталитет, чем игроки в атаке, поэтому они могут немного отставать и ... поддерживать других.

Если бы у вашего DLP был «очень атакующий» менталитет, он бы бежал вперёд и вообще не играл бы как DLP!

 

Im know this is a mentality. You do not understand me. Excuseme. My question is about the mentality of the team and the mentality of the players. My team is an attacking mentality, but my players with attacking debt are a very attacking mentality. Why? Why not attack the mentality of players with attacking duties?

Edited December 14, 2018 by Smx

[noikeee]

28 minutos atrás, Smx disse:

 

Im know this is a mentality. You do not understand me. Excuseme. My question is about the mentality of the team and the mentality of the players. My team is an attacking mentality, but my players with attacking debt are a very attacking mentality. Why? Why not attack the mentality of players with attacking duties?

Each player role/duty has its own mentality, which is what you see on "balanced" team mentality. Then if you change team mentality, it works as an extra modifier that multiplies it.

So for example that Trequartista:
On team mentality "balanced" he'll probably be "positive" mentality.
On team mentality "positive" he'll probably be "attacking" 
On team mentality "attacking" he's "very attacking"

As for the Deep Lying Playmaker/support:
Team mentality "balanced" he's probably "cautious" mentality.
Team mentality "positive" he's probably "balanced"
Team mentality "attacking" he's "positive"

Etc. If you want to see the "base" mentality of each role/duty, choose "balanced" team mentality which is the most neutral.

[westy8chimp]

Team mentality is the base... Role and duty modify. 

If you set team mentality to attacking and chose a centre back on defend duty... Would you still expect him to have an 'attacking mentality'? 

[woolymuffler]

Here is a something I made to help me visualize this (this sample shows the DLF-S and the DLF-A for comparison). Hopefully this helps; I know you said English isn't your first language, but it's much better than my Russian .

 

Near the top, you can see the player mentality for each team mentality for these two roles (as of patch 19.2; the mentalities are sometimes adjusted in patches):

[VinceLombardi]

Attacking player + Attacking Team = Extra Attacking

Support +Attacking Team = Almost normal attacking (positive)

Attack + Positive Team = ?

Player Duty more dominate than team mentality when determining individual player mentality. Maybe try and see what player mentality is with positive team instruction? Maybe normal attacking instead of extra attacking?

[woolymuffler]

12 hours ago, VinceLombardi said:

Attacking player + Attacking Team = Extra Attacking

Support +Attacking Team = Almost normal attacking (positive)

Attack + Positive Team = ?

Player Duty more dominate than team mentality when determining individual player mentality. Maybe try and see what player mentality is with positive team instruction? Maybe normal attacking instead of extra attacking?

I don't know for sure honestly, I'm only going by what the tactics module tells us in-game. But based on the information we are given, it seems that there isn't an additive/subtractive effect per se between Team and Player mentality, so much as the team mentality determines an individual player's mentality, based on their duty. 

A player with Attack Duty on a team with Positive Mentality has a Very Attacking Mentality. And this is true for every position with an Attack Duty, from Sweeper Keeper and Libero up through a Striker: if your team is Positive mentality, every player with Attack Duty has a Very Attacking Mentality, In fact, every position and role (other than strikers) has the exact same set of mentalities vs. team mentality for all team mentalities (the same is true for support duty and defend duty; every player with that duty, regardless of position or role has the same mentality vs team mentality chart, with some minor exceptions on the striker tier).

 

For example, for all non-strikers, here is the mentality range for an attack duty. Team mentality is the left hand column, the player mentality at that team mentality in on the right (this is just a sampling from multiple positions to show what I mean; I charted every position-role-duty combination and it's identical for all Attack duties other than strikers):

 

For all strikers, here is the mentality range for an attack duty (again, just a sampling to demonstrate; every striker-tier attack duty is the same set of mentalities, and is almost the same as non-strikers with attack duty except the player mentality for defensive and very defensive team mentalities is Attacking instead of Balanced):

[Smx]

Ok guys. Thank you. My english very bad. Maybe I seem stupid because of this. I know what a mentality is. My question is not about that. I will try again to explain.

Team mentality = attacking

Players mentality = balanced (defence duty). positive (support), very atacking (attack duty)

Why not transitional atacking mentality between positive and very atacking?

This does not allow a gradual transition from one mentality to another in the ladder of mentalities. Attacking players have a higher command mentality. This is strange. This too removes them from the players (support and protection), whose mentality is lower than the command one. 

As a result, in the type of football that I want to play, the lines are isolated from each other.

I cannot balance this due to the lack of structure (team shape).  

If we consider any team mentality, then the attacking players are too detached from the team basis.

Example: team = balanced, player with attack duty (no striker) = attacking mentality.  That is much higher than the basic mentality. Why not positive?

As a result, due to the over-inflated mentality of attacking players in all strategies and in the absence of team shape, this makes it impossible to use many attacking roles. This forces more support to bring mentalities closer to each other. But I do not want to do that. For me, the mentality of the attacking players seems too high.

Understand me, guys?)

[woolymuffler]

Yeah, I definitely see your point and I wasn't trying to necessarily defend how mentalities are set up, just illustrate it. And I definitely wasn't trying to say you were dumb

From what we are given in game, the only duties that come close to directly matching team mentalities are Automatic, but of course not every position has an Automatic option:

(Every Automatic duty has this same range of mentalities, FB, WB, MRL and CM)

[Rashidi]

On 18/12/2018 at 19:04, Smx said:

Ok guys. Thank you. My english very bad. Maybe I seem stupid because of this. I know what a mentality is. My question is not about that. I will try again to explain.

Team mentality = attacking

Players mentality = balanced (defence duty). positive (support), very atacking (attack duty)

Why not transitional atacking mentality between positive and very atacking?

This does not allow a gradual transition from one mentality to another in the ladder of mentalities. Attacking players have a higher command mentality. This is strange. This too removes them from the players (support and protection), whose mentality is lower than the command one. 

As a result, in the type of football that I want to play, the lines are isolated from each other.

I cannot balance this due to the lack of structure (team shape).  

If we consider any team mentality, then the attacking players are too detached from the team basis.

Example: team = balanced, player with attack duty (no striker) = attacking mentality.  That is much higher than the basic mentality. Why not positive?

As a result, due to the over-inflated mentality of attacking players in all strategies and in the absence of team shape, this makes it impossible to use many attacking roles. This forces more support to bring mentalities closer to each other. But I do not want to do that. For me, the mentality of the attacking players seems too high.

Understand me, guys?)

The way mentality has been set up has been the same for many years. 

Team Mentality - Sets it for the whole team

Individual Mentality - is set based on the role and duty the player performs. 

Yes you are right with some roles and duties you will find that they may perform differently. This is intentional. 

For instance you set a team up on Balanced Mentality - you are telling everyone to be on a balanced setting. This applies to everyone on support. BUT, those on defend duty will prioritise defending therefore they have a lower mentality, those on attack will have a higher mentality.

Now if you want everyone to be on the same wavelength and move together then you will be choosing everyone to be on support. here the whole team will be fluid and they will move as one unit.

It is not impossible to use attacking roles/duties within a balanced system. For example, in this system, played on Balanced, when we have the ball i know my support duties will keep the ball well and move as a unit, but my attacking duties will look to attack the spaces. Here my FB is expected to aggressively move into midfield when the ball moves from defense to midfield and my winger is going to attack the flanks or dribble across the penalty area because he has the player trait.

:

If the whole team was on the same mentality then the whole team will be affected by mentality. Here if i was defensive, my whole team would be defensive. Will we have sudden counter attacks, maybe, but it will not be as powerful since the priority of the whole team is to defend. That can be a strategy some people will want to follow so they set everyone to support or defend.

But what if i wanted some players to look to attack as early as possible even if the whole team is defensive? Then I choose which players are going to do that by choosing the right duty. 

In this example, my Winger and AF will attack the spaces and I will expect my playmaker in midfield to be the main creator for counter attacks.

I hope that helps clear things up for you.

Edit: Mentality is 0-20 in the game, and between duties there is a variance. I won't go into details, but some roles and duties have set mentalities so when you chance mentality, they go up. 

Balanced for example could be a mentality of 10, Support = 10, defend = 10-x, and Attack is 10+x where x is the variance between duties, And since we do not want this numbers to confuse too many people SI use words instead. So a player for example may see his mentality go from Balanced to Positive, because you changed his duty, instead of telling you its now 14 instead of 10, which is meaningless for everyone.

 

 

 

 

[Rashidi]

Here for example there are two fullbacks. I am playing on Balanced Mentality but i want my fullback to be more aggressive on the right flank even though I am playing on team balanced. This way i can make him aggressively move up the pitch and disrupt another team.

On the left flank my fullback is only on support, and this kind of behaviour  will not happen there with him. This is one of the ways we can use the staggered nature of mentalities in the game. The fullback on the right actually is playing on Very Attacking mentality.

 

[Smx]

@Rashidi

Your example with formulas is very good. I think now you finally understand what I asked)

Now in the game like this:

Team mentality = attacking = 17

Attack Duty players in attacking team mentality: 17+X (=3) = 20 = very attacking mentality

Support Duty players in attacking team mentality: 17 - X (=3) = 14 = positive mentality

Defend Duty players in attacking team mentality: 17 - X(=6) = 11 = balanced mentality

Why no dutys mentality = a team mentality?

Why is the formula different, for example:

Attack Duty or Support Duty = team mentality?

There is a big difference in mentality between players of support and players of attack.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Smx

[Rashidi]

I am not going to give outright formulae...support will always be equal to team mentality, the difference between mentalities is intentional. If you want players to play closer together in terms of mentality, which is to be on the same wavelength then you need to have them on support,

Support is X where X is Team mentality.

 

[woolymuffler]

On 21/12/2018 at 11:44, Rashidi said:

I am not going to give outright formulae...support will always be equal to team mentality, the difference between mentalities is intentional. If you want players to play closer together in terms of mentality, which is to be on the same wavelength then you need to have them on support,

Support is X where X is Team mentality.

 

From what the interface actually tells us, Support duties don't actually equal team mentality. They equal more or less neutral (for non-strikers, ranging from Cautious to Positive, for Strikers ranging from Defensive to Balanced). The upshot of this is that even at Very Attacking Team Mentality, your Support duties aren't going to be all that attacking. And more importantly, they aren't going to be as defensive as you might like on a Team Mentality of Very Defensive (for example when you are trying to kill off a match with a slim lead).

However, I know that what the interface actually shows us isn't necessarily the full story, but it's all we have to go on short of SI telling us differently. And as I enjoy mapping out data, I went ahead and charted the mentality ranges for every Position/Role/Duty combination vs. Team Mentality just to see what patterns there were. Is there any practical use for this information? Probably not, but I find it interesting...

 

Here is the mentality range of every non-Striker support duty in the game (from Sweeper keeper up through AMRLC). There are literally no exceptions to this range of mentalities for the Support-duty other than strikers (at least from what we are explicitly shown by the interface):

(Team mentality on left, Player mentality on the right)

 

Here is the range of mentalities for all Support-duty Strikers; exact same pattern except all mentalities are shifted down one (more defensive, presumably to bias them a bit towards lateral and back passes and fewer forward runs as there are few targets ahead of them and less space to run into):

 

Automatic duties are the only ones that (almost) align with team mentality; these would be the closest match with what the OP was asking for but obviously aren't available for all positions (again, based on what the interface explicitly shows us):

 

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by woolymuffler

[Rashidi]

28 minutes ago, woolymuffler said:

From what the interface actually tells us, Support duties don't actually equal team mentality.

You don't know the actual formula, and how it has all be worked. And that the interface and how it looks is largely meant as a guide.  The notches and value are removed because of discussions specifically like this. 

There are duties in the game, and there are hardcoded roles in the game, these hardcoded roles will have different mentalities, and I should know some of the mentality values were my recommendations, and the recommendations of other members from the dream team. That though happened a long time ago, but i understand the rationality behind the mentality values. The best way to approach the game, is to take support values = mentality, and yes there will be some roles that are divergent. These may include the more attacking or more defensive roles, since these roles are meant to be hardcoded, which explains why when you looked at automatic roles they had the mentality values i was talking about. 

Support duties may not always equate to team mentality, but more often than not they will be close. When they aren't,  the role is most likely going to be hardcoded. For instance just look at all the striker roles, the mentality is meant to influence their starting positions on the pitch. Mentality is a very big influence on the game, and it has a numeric value that ranges from 0-20. The only person who knows the exact values since the role revamp in FM19 is probably not talking and he won't cos he is the one behind the engine. The reason why these kind of discussions are usually off on a tangent eventually, is because people start thinking there is a magic formula. Then someone will come up with a program that purports to produce the best combination of roles and duties for a tactic and then claim that this is a foolproof way of playing cos it follows a formula. That is playing by numbers, and it won't really work .cos there is more to this game under the hood then simply those mentality values

The reason why i want to discourage this is not because  i am trying to be a pillock, but because i have actually been down this road before. A long time ago i worked along the same lines and then realised i wasted a lot of time when the simpler way of playing was simply this > How many support duties have you got? What mentality is your team on? Then look at how those duties and where those duties are distributed, chances are thats how your team will play. So if you were playing balanced mentality and most of your roles are support duties, those balanced duties are more inclined towards a 50-50 approach.  However, if you guys want to go along this route then by all means, i just wanted to save you guys some grief.

 

[robot_skeleton]

But why is player mentality an important factor? I mean am I missing something? I have team mentality and then players can be on support, defend and attack, basically only with those in mind I have ever created tactics.

[woolymuffler]

Oh I agree with you (believe it or not!) and I'm definitely not trying to come up with a magic formula (if fact, part of my motivation is to understand the Position/role/duty frameworks so I don't do things that are illogical and get an unfair advantage over the AI).

And I'm really quite bad at the game, so I'm not trying to claim any sort of insight (probably because I spend more time charting dubiously useful information than actually playing the game). My thinking on this particular issue is that even if (technically) a Support-duty player doesn't have large swings in Player mentality due to Team Mentality changes, their behavior on the pitch will still change as the players around them will behave differently. So for all intents and purposes, they follow team mentality (as you said) even if it's not 100% technically accurate. I was just trying to give technically accurate information to the OP, even if it's not all that practically useful.

One of the things I really enjoy about FM19 is that the revamped tactical interface really does encourage a less formulaic mindset regarding tactics, and it's the first one in several years that I've been able to get really invested in, precisely because the tactics feel more intuitive.

[woolymuffler]

2 minutes ago, robot_skeleton said:

But why is player mentality an important factor? I mean am I missing something? I have team mentality and then players can be on support, defend and attack, basically only with those in mind I have ever created tactics.

You are playing the game correctly and doing exactly what Rashidi recommends. I just have a tendency to get caught up in details that don't really matter in the long run (because I enjoy that sort of thing).

[Smx]

@Rashidi oh... in atacking team mentality a players with support duty = positive but not atacking (= team mentality). But is part of the problem.

At any one team mentalities a players with atacking duty have got a mentlity which much more than other duties. Example, in balanced team mentality a support duty = balanced, but atacking duty = atacking, but no positive. In defensive team mentality a support duty = cautious, but atacking duty = positive (if not forward), but no balanced. As a result, when in advanced positions a lot players with atacking duty, that a lines isolated from each other. This is due to a big gap in mentality. This is not corrected due to the lack of a team shape.

This is like a coding error in the game. Because when setting duties no transition from support to attack. Example, defend duty = very defensive (defensive team mentality), support duty = cautious (defensive team mentality) and atacking duty = positive (forward with atacking duty = ataсking), but no balanced. Numerically, it looks like this. 4, 6 and abruptly 10 (no forwards with atacking duty) or 12 (forwards with atacking duty), but not 8 or 10. 

This requires the use of a large number of support duties to a balance and  complicates the principles of playing with a large number of players with attacking duties in advanced positions.

Edited December 26, 2018 by Smx

[VinceLombardi]

I play attacking system a lot and get around this by using support duty with "gets further forward" and sometimes also "roam" player instruction. 

This makes a duty between support and attack. They are aggressive, almost as aggressive as attack, but only when there is space. When there isn't space, they avoid the other players and try to play around them -- much more support like.

[Robson 07]

I largely play on balanced team mentality these days.  I find that to be more consistent for me and how I set my teams up.  All the mentalities work of that I have little doubt but as this thread highlights you need to be aware of how individual roles/duties behave when combined with team mentality.  This can make it harder (for some) to simply flick between team mentalities mid match,  It all depends on your approach.

[westy8chimp]

On 23/12/2018 at 17:39, Rashidi said:

You don't know the actual formula, and how it has all be worked. And that the interface and how it looks is largely meant as a guide.  The notches and value are removed because of discussions specifically like this. 

This point is still key for me. 

If you poke around too much trying to understand exact formulas or exactly what everything does... It'll eventually take the fun away. 

It's all about discovery. Real managers don't give their players a scaled mentality... So whilst the game has to, we don't need to constantly check. 

There are a handful of roles and duties for the individual and a handful of team instructions... Its not that hard to use intuition and a little trial and error to get a good tactic. 

5 mins creating a logical 442 will serve far better than spending a week creating a mathematical formula you think is the right distribution of attacking mentality. 

 

[Robson 07]

4 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

If you poke around too much trying to understand exact formulas or exactly what everything does... It'll eventually take the fun away. 

Agree with the sentiment most of the way but as a customer (of SI) you pays your money and you can play the game how you like.  If someone wants to get out a calculator and a spreadsheet then carry on,  It's up to them.  Not so long ago football didn't use data analysts and look what they have added.  Sometimes it's okay to measure mechanics.

[woolymuffler]

I actually agree with that as well, and I'm really not trying to come up with a magic formula. The spreadsheet I made has no information that isn't straight from the tactics interface and there are no formulas at all. I'm accepting the information the game gives us at face value, I just laid it out in a form that works better for me personally. The mentality "rainbow" bit was actually an afterthought; the more useful part for me is the player instructions laid out side by side so I can directly compare PIs for different roles. It doesn't tell me which role I should pick (any more than the game does); I just like it because there are less clicks than in game, but it doesn't provide anything that isn't in the game.

And I just like spreadsheets (I'm a bit strange like that):

[melogroovy]

On 26/12/2018 at 08:13, VinceLombardi said:

I play attacking system a lot and get around this by using support duty with "gets further forward" and sometimes also "roam" player instruction. 

This makes a duty between support and attack. They are aggressive, almost as aggressive as attack, but only when there is space. When there isn't space, they avoid the other players and try to play around them -- much more support like.

It is essential to have "types" of players to link up play.  If I have two IF, one on support and one on attack, they'll operate on the same strata offensively.  However, the IF on support will track back deeper when defending, while the attacking IF will stay further forward.  The IF(s) (and other support players) will bring the ball out of the defense and link with the more attacking players. PI's, as you point out, will accentuate that function.  

[herne79]

TL;DR - Increase Mentality, player mentality increases.  Decrease Mentality, player mentality decreases.

I don't mean that to sound flippant, it's simply all I need to know.  For me, anything else is unnecessary complication and over thinking.  I appreciate others like/enjoy trying to spreadsheet the micro detail in this manner and if you do then great, just exercise a bit of caution if you do.  It's easy to get carried away with all the detail as it may lead to a) myths ("hey look at this spreadsheet, explains everything!!" - "err, SI have confirmed that have they...?") and b) confusing yourself even more due to information overload.

FM can be complex enough without adding even more complication ourselves .

[VinceLombardi]

58 minutes ago, herne79 said:

FM can be complex enough without adding even more complication ourselves .

Agreed. I think it was more useful in previous versions when you could further manipulate and fine tune player mentality with team shape. 

That said, taking a mathematical approach can lead to personal eureka moments and get you out of your conceptual box. It has value, but it's not essential to building a good tactic.

[Smx]

You're right. FM is not a math. And I also do not sit with a calculator when I play. I do not know if you will understand me because of bad English. I am not looking for any magic formulas. I touched on a problem that appeared in FM19. The lack of a team shape does not allow managing the personal mentality of the players. And for me the problem is that players with attacking duties have too high mentality compared to support. As a result, if I use a lot of players in advanced positions with an attacking duties, they become isolated from others. The support group just does not have time to assist them because of the gap in mentality. The same thing happens in the transition to defense. The support and defense group begins to defend too deeply in relation to the attack group. This limits the choice of attacking roles. Im can play with support. But I don’t want to play with support when I need for example a trequartista and raumdauter.

It seems to me that the mentality of the attacking players is incorrectly coded. Where their mentality must be attacking, they have a very attacking one, where a positive mentality is attacking.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Smx

[Smx]

I think if the SI removed the team shape, then the logic of the distribution of mentality should be as "step by step." However, step by step, this is only a transition from defence to support. For example, the defensive duties = cautious, the support duties = balance.

 

But the transition from support to attack is no longer a step, but a leap. The support duties = balance, but atacking duties = atacking, but not positive. 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Smx

[herne79]

28 minutes ago, Smx said:

The lack of a team shape does not allow managing the personal mentality of the players.

It does allow this, however instead of using Team Shape we use a combination of player roles and duties as well as the team Mentality setting.  But then that's how it always worked - Team Shape was just an additional layer over and above that to make even more adjustments.  It was perfectly possible in FM18 and before to simply leave Team Shape set to Flexible without ever changing it.

If you had to rely on Team Shape to get your team set up, you were either a) trying to achieve something very specific or b) didn't have your roles and duties set up correctly.  If the answer here is a) then there are now different ways of doing it.

33 minutes ago, Smx said:

As a result, if I use a lot of players in advanced positions with an attacking duties, they become isolated from others. The support group just does not have time to assist them because of the gap in mentality.

Then in all likelihood you need to experiment further with player roles and duties; team Mentality and other tactical settings such as Tempo.

Prior to FM19 you could do this sort of thing: set your forwards to be very attacking and then fiddle around with Team Shape to help adjust things.  But forget that now - unlearn what you have learned - and consider how the players themselves are going to support each other without having to rely on a now defunct tactical setting .

[VinceLombardi]

I think SMX has a point. Since they eliminated our ability to fine tune player mentality via team shape without a replacement tool, then it would be better if the player mentality was more gradual. For any given tactic, a2  jump from positive -> very attacking might be too much.

Alternatively if in future versions we could have a bit more customization on player mentality, through say a PI slider, that would be awesome. It fills the creative void of team shape and gives a useful tool. 

Right now I use get further forward and roam from position to create a more aggressive support duty. But it really only effects movement and is highly influenced by the players and space around them. I have to make sure the other player roles and duties don't squeeze him out. 

It would be nice to instead just tick a slider and have him play with a 1 tick higher mentality. Or if I had a true superstar, I could say tick him up 1-2 higher than his normal duty so that he could play with that much higher risk taking of a high mentality, without effecting my other players. Or I could set up a counter-attack tactic where I specifically identify which players go all out when we get the ball and keep the rest of the team in their defensive mentalities.

[Smx]

@herne79 ok.  One of my tactics in FM18: 

Spoiler

I used the control mentality and very fluid a team shape. It gave me a good balance. Even despite the fact that three players in advanced positions had an attacking mentality. I could also control the mentality of trequartista and raumdauter, making the mentality less due to the setting "look for overlap". The difference in mentality between the most defensive player and the most attacking player was small:

Spoiler

In the end, I had a balance and very diverse football due to such specific roles as trequartista, raum and f9.

When using such a combination of roles and duties in FM19, all I get is chaos and disorder due to too much difference in mentality. For example, the gap between my defensive central midfielder and trequartista obviously much more than before.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Smx

[herne79]

10 minutes ago, Smx said:

When using such a combination of roles and tasks in FM19, all I get is chaos and disorder

Of course you will, because you are still trying to use the same roles and duties you used to use when you could make adjustments using Team Shape.

But you can't use Team Shape now, so you need to find balance using player roles and duties instead (and/or other tactical setting such as Mentality).  You are still thinking in terms of Team Shape rather than focussing on player roles and duties and other tactical settings.  Forget Team Shape.

[Smx]

@herne79

 

I forgot the team shape) But the current mentality of attacking players does not look quite logical. Their mentality is too aggressive in comparison with support. At the same time, support and defence are very close to each other.

If we talk about roles. In fact, you tell me: do not use these roles, use others; adapt to the game. I could use for example an advanced playmaker on support. This will bring more balance, but the role itself acts differently than a trequartista. And a treruqartista role is unique. So why should I refuse it? It seems strange) In the game I want to use the maximum of what is available. But it turns out that due to the fact that it is impossible to correct the mentality, I will have to give up some roles. Because the game forces me to do this. 

 

And if we talk about balance, this is not a problem with third-party settings (tempo, pass and etc). This is the problem of the ladder mentality that is now.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Smx

[Experienced Defender]

2 hours ago, VinceLombardi said:

if in future versions we could have a bit more customization on player mentality, through say a PI slider, that would be awesome. It fills the creative void of team shape and gives a useful tool

I coudn't agree more 

[herne79]

@Smx  I think what we need to bear in mind regarding Team Shape is that it was Team Shape which forced roles & duties into unnatural settings which arguably should never have happened in the first place.  Now that it's been removed, we can no longer artificially and unnaturally adjust the roles we select in the same manner.

So now, to carry on your example, if you want to use a Trequartista it will act as a Trequartista is supposed to behave.  If you want a Trequartista that will behave differently (as you used to be able to do in FM18 via the Team Shape setting) then you don't actually want a Trequartista but something else instead.  Or you influence it's behaviour by other methods, such as Team Mentality, Team Instructions, Player Instructions, Traits and/or a different player with different attributes.

I'm not saying losing Team Shape is a good or bad thing.  I'm just saying use the tools we have at our disposal now and forget what we used to have.  There are some tactical settings which we no longer have that I'd like to have back, but we play the hand we're dealt.  Adapt and overcome .

[Smx]

Oh. If everything depended only on the roles) Now the situation is such that changing a  duties for one player can influence not only his mentality, but also the mentality of other players. It looks like an unassembled constructor) 

[Robson 07]

On ‎28‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 14:40, Smx said:

I forgot the team shape) But the current mentality of attacking players does not look quite logical. Their mentality is too aggressive in comparison with support. At the same time, support and defence are very close to each other.

Is that the same on all team mentalities or just the more extreme ones?

[iciomn]

Imho it seems clearly a bug. You should report it in the bug's forum.

[Smx]

 

17 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

Is that the same on all team mentalities or just the more extreme ones?

For more extreme. Begenning from balance. For example, in the defensive mentality support = cautious, and attack = balance. And this is a smooth transition. And in balance support = balance, and attack = attack, but no positive. 

But there may still be a dependence of the duties on each other and on how much a team fluidity is obtained. Changing the duties of one player can change the duties of other players, if the team fluidity changes. 

Example: 

Spoiler

This is a gradual transition from support (balance) to attack (positive). 

I change the wingback to attack. Team fluidity is changing. The duties is changing of trequartista on attack

Spoiler

 

 

They said they removed the team shape. But it is not. The mentality structure now simply lives on its own

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Smx

[zemaniano85]

That is interesting, I never spotted that!!! 

[herne79]

6 hours ago, Smx said:

They said they removed the team shape. But it is not.

 

37 minutes ago, zemaniano85 said:

That is interesting, I never spotted that!!! 

Team Shape has been removed.  Please read the FM19 Tactical Changes topic pinned to the top of this forum which was reviewed by SI staff.

Team Fluidity is nothing more than a label which is used to describe certain elements of your tactical set up.  Don't let the similar naming conventions confuse you.  Team Fluidity - Highly Structured (for example) is not the same thing as Team Shape - Highly Structured.  Team Fluidity is primarily based on the selected player duties.  Team Shape could be changed regardless of player duties.

[Smx]

@herne79 This is all a formality. The mentality is still the key setting in the game. And the team shape is still present. Only it depends on the duties. And the mentality of one player can influence the mentality of others and change shape. If the shape had been removed completely, this would not have happened. So that in one situation the trequartista is on balance, and in the other on the attack. Although the mentality of the team has not changed.

[zemaniano85]

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

 

Team Shape has been removed.  Please read the FM19 Tactical Changes topic pinned to the top of this forum which was reviewed by SI staff.

Team Fluidity is nothing more than a label which is used to describe certain elements of your tactical set up.  Don't let the similar naming conventions confuse you.  Team Fluidity - Highly Structured (for example) is not the same thing as Team Shape - Highly Structured.  Team Fluidity is primarily based on the selected player duties.  Team Shape could be changed regardless of player duties.

I was meaning about the changing mentality influenced by another one. I know about the fluidity thing. 

[Jeffpics]

On 14/12/2018 at 17:31, woolymuffler said:

Here is a something I made to help me visualize this (this sample shows the DLF-S and the DLF-A for comparison). Hopefully this helps; I know you said English isn't your first language, but it's much better than my Russian .

 

Near the top, you can see the player mentality for each team mentality for these two roles (as of patch 19.2; the mentalities are sometimes adjusted in patches):

Have you done this for every role? That's dedication 👍