Breaking down a parked bus.

[Experienced Defender]

1 hour ago, Mitja said:

not really sure about it, once attacing team scores yes but usually it's them who need to do the pressing, right.

Unless the pressing doesn't yield the desired result 

[Rashidi]

2 hours ago, crusadertsar said:

People will keep defending it, but in its current state the engine is more broken than working. It is not just the imbalance in defense, if you are top team most teams in the league will be more defensive against you but also the defenders get a boost. It is just frustrating to have most of your crosses blocked even when you use worldclass wingers. It is not just wingplay that is broken. I gave up my 4-4-2 narrow diamond since I just couldn't create any plays down the middle despite having a team made for it. Worldclass strikers do not score beautiful varied goals like in reality, now most you see is from set pieces and long shots. To give an example Aguerro only scored 9 goals for me all season and I used a premade vertical tiki taka tactic. He was simply stifled by all the parked buses. You can check out "Aguerro 200" to see the variety of goals that he scores in real life. In another save, Pogba was top scorer despite Man United having plenty of talented forwards.

Here I am sorry, others are getting their strikers to bang in goals, and beat defensive sides. Their experience and their pkms alone suggest that there is a better way of doing it than how you have done. And, you yourself admitted you used a 'pre-made" tactic, even the default tactics that SI provide aren't perfect.  

[Rashidi]

1 hour ago, Mitja said:

totally agree but currently and it's been like that for long time defensive (mentality) sides can easily dominate possession even against top opponents without thinking of being a threat. that's how mentality works. 

Attacking and overloads systems can also generate high amount of possession, I prove that every year, any mentality can generate high amounts of possession. A specific choice of mentality does not guarantee possession, its the overall combination of TIs and roles and duties, the sooner people accept this is as the game the better. 

AI vs AI needs a big improvement, that i will concur, but human vs AI, the moment the AI goes defensive i guarantee you it gets less than 40% possession against me in my games.

[Mitja]

13 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

AI vs AI needs a big improvement, that i will concur, but human vs AI, the moment the AI goes defensive i guarantee you it get less than 40% possession against me in my games.

it needs big improvements just like how mentality works. if you can't fix it and it looks like that, then get rid of the instruction that modifies all other (or at least in passing decision area) and which nobody understands. what you said about possession is true, but not for 90%+ percent of FM players and defenetely not for AI. another good reason to seriously think about mentality and how it has effect on other player and team instructions. and how it messes up gaming experience or match statistics...

if there's are instructions like passing length, tempo, time wasting, TTB, CF all influencing passing decisions why do you need mentality to modify all that? player with exactly the same above mentioned passing instructions will behave completely different on attacking or defensive mentality. what's the point of having midfield playmaker set to direct passing and TTB often and then at the same time mentality will modify it to something else? etc.

[Rashidi]

8 minutes ago, Mitja said:

it needs big improvements just like how mentality works. if you can't fix it and it looks like that, then get rid of the instruction that modifies all other (or at least in passing decision area) and which nobody understands. what you said about possession is true, but not for 90%+ percent of FM players and defenetely not for AI. another good reason to seriously think about mentality and how it has effect on other player and team instructions. and how it messes up gaming experience or match statistics...

if there's are instructions like passing length, tempo, time wasting, TTB, CF all influencing passing decisions why do you need mentality to modify all that? player with exactly the same above mentioned passing instructions will behave completely different on attacking or defensive mentality. what's the point of having midfield playmaker set to direct passing and TTB often and then at the same time mentality will modify it to something else? etc.

Some of us have a good sneaky feeling we know whats happening in AI vs AI matches, but it isn't mentality. Its something else. And i won't go into the whole discussion about mentality cos until someone comes up with a viable alternative, its moot.

[Experienced Defender]

34 minutes ago, Mitja said:

if there's are instructions like passing length, tempo, time wasting, TTB, CF all influencing passing decisions why do you need mentality to modify all that? player with exactly the same above mentioned passing instructions will behave completely different on attacking or defensive mentality. what's the point of having midfield playmaker set to direct passing and TTB often and then at the same time mentality will modify it to something else? etc.

But it's quite normal that players will behave completely differently (including passing-wise) on defensive compared to attacking mentality with all other instructions being the same, because their willingness to take risks is completely different under the two respective mentalities. On defensive mentality, their primary goal is to avoid defeat, while on higher mentalities the primary goal is to break down defenses and score as soon as possible. But when you alter the instructions within the same team mentality, you can see a clear difference. E.g. if you play on attacking mentality with lower tempo and much shorter passing (plus WBIB), your playing style will look differently than on the same (attack) mentality but with high tempo, direct pass, early crosses etc. 

[Mitja]

of course mentality is playing major part in issues i've mentioned. the alternative is simply not needed the same could be argued about team fluidity (until fm19) which had more sense to me (different mentality distributions) than mentality which unnessesery modifies many other instructions. not to mention that both mentality extremes - football it produces simply don't happen irl as basic tactical approach. that's why majority of people play on balanced these days. defensive mentality - passing and tempo wise produces football like it was played 50 years ago ;D with attacking mentality player decisioning and rushness is laughable...

[Mitja]

26 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

But it's quite normal that players will behave completely differently (including passing-wise) on defensive compared to attacking mentality with all other instructions being the same, 

then why you need all other instructions? let's get bacvk to CM days when there were 6 TIs. 

for example you need to score and play with extreme urgency in last 10 minutes, there are more than enough TIs and PIs and different player roles to achieve desired style. 

26 minutes ago, Experienced Defender said:

their willingness to take risks is completely different under the two respective mentalities

there is no such thing as mentality irl, it's ''a sum'' of all other instructions. riskiness is already defined by plenty of TIs and PIs. for example you instruct player with ''max risk'' and then play him on ultra defensive mentality, this is completely contradicting and confusing. why wouldn't it all depend on player role, ppms and TIs? even irl no manager can have such micro control over passing decisioning. look you play as advanced playmaker but but since we're playing defensive (whatever it meens) play extremely safely?!! it' just not how any team sport works irl.

[Robson 07]

Agree in parts @akkm but not others.

15 hours ago, akkm said:

At the same time some of the feedback leads things the wrong way as described above and and has done over the years leading it to the current state of this year's engine. SI do listen to feedback despite what some may feel so it is useful to actually try to change the game's fundamentals.

I don't believe customer feedback has influenced the wrong behaviours.  Tactics are a huge part of the game for most and without them a big part of its appeal is lost if they have no value.  And over the course of time we've all seen good, bad and ugly of tactics from non-sensical super tactics to forum posts that completely over analyse and blow up myths.  Far from convinced that has affected coding to the point you're making.

15 hours ago, akkm said:

FM falls on the side of wide play balance wise to create chances/goals and teams/users tend to overachieve this way which is completely at odds with real world football...so FM has favoured the wrong behaviours but the a lot of the granular level tactical tweakers don't seem to mind this

Following on from above users have not brought about wide play being favoured.  In fact wish I had a quid for every post I've ever seen about "crossing is overpowered", "how to stop conceding from crosses" and similar.  Further there has been feedback over the various version about all sorts from the community trying to help SI.  Off the top of my head, pressing not being right; too many goals from corners; AI can't cope with strikerless; can't win away; and so on and on.  Some people find a way around issues - perceived or otherwise - but they aren't defending or promoting match engine flaws.

15 hours ago, akkm said:

in the real world it's all about the quality of players...jose is prime example of that

Yes but maybe not in the way you mean.  He had a very good side at Chelsea 3 years ago and another at Man Utd this season.  Ask any Man U fan and they'll tell you that his tactics were pitiful and dire.  And that he lost his job through (poor) man management and chronic negative football.  He is actually an example for the importance of tactics not players.  In the real world it would seem you need both.

[Rashidi]

4 hours ago, Mitja said:

of course mentality is playing major part in issues i've mentioned. the alternative is simply not needed the same could be argued about team fluidity (until fm19) which had more sense to me (different mentality distributions) than mentality which unnessesery modifies many other instructions. not to mention that both mentality extremes - football it produces simply don't happen irl as basic tactical approach. that's why majority of people play on balanced these days. defensive mentality - passing and tempo wise produces football like it was played 50 years ago ;D with attacking mentality player decisioning and rushness is laughable...

You make it sound like you know what’s happening when in reality everything you have said about the engine is all wrong. You claim mentality is doing this when it isn’t, you claim the majority play on balanced when this is even more ludicrous to believe cos you pulled that information from the ether. 

Like i’ve said you have made loads of statements about how Mentality is all wrong but have not offered up a single viable alternative. If you think there is one,  post. I don’t see how whining about it is gonna make improve things. This is the game they designed, so I am happy to play along. Is it perfect? No. Is there a better alternative out there. No. So if you can come up with an alternative to mentality. Go right ahead otherwise it’s very hard to take anything you say seriously.

People already asked for help on how to help with a parked bus, but you seem hellbent on having your word and detailing the thread.

[Mitja]

17 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

You make it sound like you know what’s happening when in reality everything you have said about the engine is all wrong. You claim mentality is doing this when it isn’t,

all proven and acknowledged in ME bugs forum, people talk about it for decade now. i'm talking about defensive setup letting avarage teams dominate possession against much better opposition.  anyway since you have nothing else to offer here i'll take your post as simple provocation. 

23 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

This is the game they designed, so I am happy to play along. Is it perfect? No. Is there a better alternative out there. No.

 i heard same thing about team fluidity until recently and now it's gone.

 

[VinceLombardi]

13 hours ago, akkm said:

a lot of users want the 'what it says on the tin' approach and a simple click and select to get results based on an expectation the correct footballing behaviours are in there to be weaned out.

Agree 100% with this and I agree this is the direction the game should go. And I would argue it does. The removal of shape (which was as confusing as it was useful), splitting attack, defending, and transitions in tactical. Constantly adding new roles to keep up with new play styles. 2016->2019 has led to a lot of improvements with this design goal in mind.

13 hours ago, akkm said:

As said though I certainly do feel the tweakers would complain if central play was more effective than it has been or if creative/skilled players were able to replicate their real world level of talent or impact on games as that would give the tweaker a sense of loss of control or a feeling of their tweaking wasn't as having as discernible effect as the players on the pitch themselves .

Totally disagree with this. The tweakers would largely just find other areas to improve and work at, while leaning on that area of the ME as a strength. They will find other ways to squeeze that little extra, because that's what they enjoy. And while a few may want more of a challenge in playing the game, its not at the expense of simulation or central play. Rather I think they would agree that a stronger strategic AI (better transfer policy, training, youth, scouting, etc.) would be a much better starting point for SI to put its efforts to create that challenge vs artificially and unrealistically nerfing the play in central area as you suggest they are supporting.

 

13 hours ago, akkm said:

Agree with you on pkms which is why I've posted to the appropriate forums as required.

ps I liked your nfl style application of playbook to FM thread...I'll be keeping an eye on it to ensure you're not using that granularity to exploit weaknesses in the code rather than doing it for the correct footballing reasons...kidding, it's a very cool idea you have there 

Appreciate it. And I am similarly not trying to suggest that you are part of the problem or not trying to solve it in the appropriate manner. Quite the contrary, I think you make some good points and I wish I had more understanding of RL soccer so that I could better understand them. My only issue mainly concerns your suggestion that the tweakers don't want a better, more realistic ME. I think that's off base and misses the point of what many of us enjoy doing. 

Further, my saying that complaints about the central areas are overblown isn't to suggest that there aren't issues there. I miss my DLF(s) and the SS(a) from FM16. They definitely don't play as well in this ME. And it is an area that could be improved. But to call the entire ME broken or unplayable, as some have, is an over exaggeration of the issue.

[herne79]

1 hour ago, Mitja said:

i'm talking about defensive setup letting avarage teams dominate possession against much better opposition

You're confusing ME with tactical set up and the AI controlled teams, and defensive football with defensive mentality.

Being able to dominate possession with an average team against much better opposition using any mentality (not just defensive) isn't because of the Match Engine, it's because of the AI's (lack of) ability to be able to think outside of the box in a manner even close to what a human is capable of.  So we set up our possession tactic which the AI can't cope with, or the AI doesn't know how to handle Man City for example.

That's not ME that's AI - and a totally separate discussion.

[akkm]

7 hours ago, Rashidi said:

You are always making generalised statements, let's just take one example from this week, LFC vs Brighton. Brighton have scored in every home game they have played in, but for most of the game they were sitting deep against LFC. Using your argument we should expect LFC to have beaten them by a huge margin. It didn't happen. Football games aren't always as clear cut as you lay it out to be. In some games you will find teams struggle, in others they may concede an early goal and an avalanche occurs, high scoring games can be and are usually a sign of poor defending. 

I just don't accept your argument that good sides who camp with better players should in most cases win by large scorelines, that doesn't happen in real life often. 

Now in FM, this is a different thing, in FM we are playing against an AI that has been programmed to behave in a specific set of ways depending on a certain set of parameters. My point is that here, there are still weaknesses in the engine, i will not deny that, however, we can still whip the living daylights out of defensive sides. This may not be the case for everyone in the community, only a few players seem to be doing that. That alone proves that it can be done. It shows that within the game code itself its possible. Whether most people can do that is irrelevant. As long as one manager can produce results like that a programmer is going to sit back and go...its possible. Now the real challenge then for those programming it will be to improve how it happens consistently. So this is where i reckon it falls short in only two areas, long shots and the lack of central movement coming from 2 roles specifically. 

The engine isn't perfect, but to say that the engine is broken because we need to be able to consistently beat parked defences with LFC or any other side you want to mention by big scorelines is just fantasy football. If there is a disparate level of quality like City vs Burton Albion, of course, we should be seeing big scorelines, but when they are not that far apart then if a side like Burnley decides to camp against United,  United will need to break them down intelligently.

Dude...you're way off the mark here in your interpretation of what i've been saying....WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off here...I know you're not just making things up to play to a narrative that it should be as hard as you want it to be to break down parked bus/deep lying defences here so basically you're just seeing thing which aren't anywhere in what I said above...I haven't said anything at all like you are claiming there...nowhere have I made the claim you say in quote below there...nowhere have i said we should expect lfc to beat a team like brighton by a huge margin...that's an absurd claim by you

 

7 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Using your argument we should expect LFC to have beaten them by a huge margin

 

also nowhere have i made the argument you're claiming I made in the quote below...again NOWHERE have i said that good sides who camp with better players should in most cases win by large margins...again that claim your making is absurd

 

7 hours ago, Rashidi said:

I just don't accept your argument that good sides who camp with better players should in most cases win by large scorelines, that doesn't happen in real life often. 

 

 

and finally...haven't said below either...that is a fantasy of yours that I said something like that ...I didn't say that at all or even come remotely close to saying 

 

7 hours ago, Rashidi said:

The engine isn't perfect, but to say that the engine is broken because we need to be able to consistently beat parked defences with LFC or any other side you want to mention by big scorelines is just fantasy football

yes I make the generalised statements on big teams scoring bucket loads of goals season in season out precisely to avoid what you've inferred there and to provide a more balanced view of things...which is how you have to approach it...no team can or will consistently score bucket loads of goals game in game out...however as what I mentioned several times above it's the teams who consistently play against the deep lying defences the most are the ones who score most goals season in season out...but it's obvious over the course of the season...if I had meant every game I would have specifically said game in game out. Of course the goals will be dispersed over the course of the season with some games scoring low/zero goals others racking up a score

In actual fact I specifically alluded to that below in reference to playing against deep lying/parked bus defences...so in essence you've completely misrepresented what I've been saying I'm afraid

 

16 hours ago, akkm said:

Yes it should be hard and yes it should depend as with everything with quality of players and there will be games things won't work or games where there will be the odd goal or whatever but FM is currently at odds with real world with how it bears out comparison wise.

so again using big teams goals tallies shows that big teams are consistently scoring loads of goals every year. So despite them playing deep lying teams more often than any other teams they are the ones scoring the most goals...that assertion still stands as it's simply what's happening in the real world. I just had a check of city there and counted they've scored 94 goals in 32 games this year in all competitions...that's basically 3 per game.  They've scored 3 or more in 47pc of those games. In the premiership in games against teams outside top 6 their average per game is higher...3.2 and score 3 or more 60pc of the time...so again against teams playing against deeper lines/more defensively the goals scored ratio increases...obviously they're lesser teams but any argument that parked buses are a preventative measure to goals being scored is fallacious...what they do is make it harder than leaving themselves open and that is obvious so yes it's harder to score against parked buses than teams playing more openly but it is hard to score against the deep lying team itself..yes, but the evidence suggests it's not as hard as people perceive it to be. Are there games where teams will get whacked...yes of course...mistakes/lower quality players etc but the only one here suggesting teams should regularly win by large scorelines here is you lol. The main reason for the big scores is the disparity in quality levels and the way of playing and that is the main thing absent in FM.

 

On the generalised statements...you have to take that approach when assessing things...citing one game against brighton or whatever other game in isolation is not the way to make any judgements...doing that is what I alluded to as a 20/80 rule and you're in danger of confirming biases that way...on another thread i saw you suggesting a bayern game of guardiolas in the bundesliga where some team caused them difficulty in terms of playing their normal way and they started to play long and direct balls down the line as a solution to what guardiola team had to break down as an example to uphold as what was happening in the real world and therefore in FM...this is the type of suggestion that leads FM to become more isolated and separate from real world football. That adjustment is an outlier for guardiolas teams behaviourally and could almost be dismissed as unworthy of mention when trying to capture the better decision making habits of better teams/players. The outlier is not what should be concentrated on to simulate especially if it's to the detriment of the norm. as long as norm is modelled then capturing an outlier as far out as that should gain merit only then.

 

I've said all along of course even with current engine its possible to whack defensive sides but is it for the right footballing reasons behaviourally or is it gaps in the code enabling it...re below there I have to take exception with the logic employed

 

11 hours ago, Rashidi said:

Now in FM, this is a different thing, in FM we are playing against an AI that has been programmed to behave in a specific set of ways depending on a certain set of parameters. My point is that here, there are still weaknesses in the engine, i will not deny that, however, we can still whip the living daylights out of defensive sides. This may not be the case for everyone in the community, only a few players seem to be doing that. That alone proves that it can be done. It shows that within the game code itself its possible. Whether most people can do that is irrelevant. As long as one manager can produce results like that a programmer is going to sit back and go...its possible. Now the real challenge then for those programming it will be to improve how it happens consistently. So this is where i reckon it falls short in only two areas, long shots and the lack of central movement coming from 2 roles specifically.

absolutely on parameters and I've never seen you claiming the engine has no flaws..I'd just question the flaws you see or more glaringly the ones you don't . Anyway kidding aside...people can and do whack defensive sides so we can all agree on this. Im not even sure the necessity to whip the defensive sides is the issue as much as that these defences can be penetrated in an easier/more comfortable and more realistic way but ok even if it's putting up some numbers on occasion lets extend that out. Again the logic of if only a few do it that's ok is flawed as you have to question is it happening for sound footballing fundamentals or is there a weakness in the code which allows tweakability to enable it to happen. Really if it the code was enabling it for good football behavioural reasons then it should be more prevalent and more easily tapped into with the levers available and indeed players on the pitch will exhibit better decision making/movement/pass selection as a default action...but that's not the case this year so it would seem to lean on the exploitation of code for it's math and not for its footballing patterns. Once you enter that realm then the number of people that can do it is entirely relevant. 

And that's then what I mean when you start saying stuff like as long as one manager can produce results like that a programmer sitting back and thinking it's possible and that the real challenge is for the programmer to improve how it happens consistently...that's where you start down the road of bad game development...that type of path can lead to issues being exacerbated and will lead to the knock ons and circular balancing issues...if the code is allowing it for the wrong reasons then you're just lumping wrong on top of wrong and then when making changes you have to sift through to it to sort it out with all sorts of issues having been knocked out from this. That's a very flawed approach to take.

The way of playing needs to be more readily widespread for it to be for the right reasons. 

That thread of the user who won all 38 games as man utd...scored 122 conceded 11...so he consistently whacked deep lying defences (assuming of course the AI set up that way which seems fair considering the tactical choices prevalent this year). So basically he has done what you say in terms of one manager is producing results like that...should the programmer then attempt to mimick this...absolutely not as it's inherently flawed in how its achieving that. I had a quick check and the full backs had a combined 32 assists that season (think in all comps) so again this is rewarding behaviour which is in conflict with real world football...full backs should not and simply do not provide that many assists in teams...particularly those achieving at the highest level. Adding in wingers that number went up to 56 assists again just highlighting the issue further.

So whether people want to admit it or not this is exploiting deficiencies of the code from a footballing point of view. Were it possible to overachieve centrally then that would be more acceptable albeit both could be argued to be improper the central play is more in line with the real world (by central play I don't mean through balls specifically either). So it's absolutely and utterly rewarding and allowing a means to score and create which is not in line with real world football so again this is in the parameters of the code but simply wrong in a real world footballing context.

Therefore any programmer trying to replicate this to make it happen consistently is doing as I said and exacerbating issues with a stuck in the mud circular balancing exercise every year but never really getting out of the mud...or very slowly making progress but that's entirely avoidable by addressing sound football first and foremost.

By the way don't take any of this personally...i saw one of your video things last year an found it highly entertaining. I just get on it here when feedback steers things away/prevents things from progressing for the right footballing reasons. We all want a better and more realistic but when I see your suggestion of things falls short 'in only two areas' that's just not correct. Take a gawk at that thread where the examples of pass selection not being coded to recognise simple and obvious passes and not being executed is something which cannot be argued with I'm afraid...any take to the contrary is denial (that's not directed at you).

 

 

[Rashidi]

1 hour ago, akkm said:

Dude...you're way off the mark here in your interpretation of what i've been saying....WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off here...I know you're not just making things up to play to a narrative that it should be as hard as you want it to be to break down parked bus/deep lying defences here so basically you're just seeing thing which aren't anywhere in what I said above...I haven't said anything at all like you are claiming there...nowhere have I made the claim you say in quote below there...nowhere have i said we should expect lfc to beat a team like brighton by a huge margin...that's an absurd claim by you

 

 

 

also nowhere have i made the argument you're claiming I made in the quote below...again NOWHERE have i said that good sides who camp with better players should in most cases win by large margins...again that claim your making is absurd

 

 

 

 

and finally...haven't said below either...that is a fantasy of yours that I said something like that ...I didn't say that at all or even come remotely close to saying 

 

 

yes I make the generalised statements on big teams scoring bucket loads of goals season in season out precisely to avoid what you've inferred there and to provide a more balanced view of things...which is how you have to approach it...no team can or will consistently score bucket loads of goals game in game out...however as what I mentioned several times above it's the teams who consistently play against the deep lying defences the most are the ones who score most goals season in season out...but it's obvious over the course of the season...if I had meant every game I would have specifically said game in game out. Of course the goals will be dispersed over the course of the season with some games scoring low/zero goals others racking up a score

In actual fact I specifically alluded to that below in reference to playing against deep lying/parked bus defences...so in essence you've completely misrepresented what I've been saying I'm afraid

 

 

so again using big teams goals tallies shows that big teams are consistently scoring loads of goals every year. So despite them playing deep lying teams more often than any other teams they are the ones scoring the most goals...that assertion still stands as it's simply what's happening in the real world. I just had a check of city there and counted they've scored 94 goals in 32 games this year in all competitions...that's basically 3 per game.  They've scored 3 or more in 47pc of those games. In the premiership in games against teams outside top 6 their average per game is higher...3.2 and score 3 or more 60pc of the time...so again against teams playing against deeper lines/more defensively the goals scored ratio increases...obviously they're lesser teams but any argument that parked buses are a preventative measure to goals being scored is fallacious...what they do is make it harder than leaving themselves open and that is obvious so yes it's harder to score against parked buses than teams playing more openly but it is hard to score against the deep lying team itself..yes, but the evidence suggests it's not as hard as people perceive it to be. Are there games where teams will get whacked...yes of course...mistakes/lower quality players etc but the only one here suggesting teams should regularly win by large scorelines here is you lol. The main reason for the big scores is the disparity in quality levels and the way of playing and that is the main thing absent in FM.

 

On the generalised statements...you have to take that approach when assessing things...citing one game against brighton or whatever other game in isolation is not the way to make any judgements...doing that is what I alluded to as a 20/80 rule and you're in danger of confirming biases that way...on another thread i saw you suggesting a bayern game of guardiolas in the bundesliga where some team caused them difficulty in terms of playing their normal way and they started to play long and direct balls down the line as a solution to what guardiola team had to break down as an example to uphold as what was happening in the real world and therefore in FM...this is the type of suggestion that leads FM to become more isolated and separate from real world football. That adjustment is an outlier for guardiolas teams behaviourally and could almost be dismissed as unworthy of mention when trying to capture the better decision making habits of better teams/players. The outlier is not what should be concentrated on to simulate especially if it's to the detriment of the norm. as long as norm is modelled then capturing an outlier as far out as that should gain merit only then.

 

I've said all along of course even with current engine its possible to whack defensive sides but is it for the right footballing reasons behaviourally or is it gaps in the code enabling it...re below there I have to take exception with the logic employed

 

absolutely on parameters and I've never seen you claiming the engine has no flaws..I'd just question the flaws you see or more glaringly the ones you don't . Anyway kidding aside...people can and do whack defensive sides so we can all agree on this. Im not even sure the necessity to whip the defensive sides is the issue as much as that these defences can be penetrated in an easier/more comfortable and more realistic way but ok even if it's putting up some numbers on occasion lets extend that out. Again the logic of if only a few do it that's ok is flawed as you have to question is it happening for sound footballing fundamentals or is there a weakness in the code which allows tweakability to enable it to happen. Really if it the code was enabling it for good football behavioural reasons then it should be more prevalent and more easily tapped into with the levers available and indeed players on the pitch will exhibit better decision making/movement/pass selection as a default action...but that's not the case this year so it would seem to lean on the exploitation of code for it's math and not for its footballing patterns. Once you enter that realm then the number of people that can do it is entirely relevant. 

And that's then what I mean when you start saying stuff like as long as one manager can produce results like that a programmer sitting back and thinking it's possible and that the real challenge is for the programmer to improve how it happens consistently...that's where you start down the road of bad game development...that type of path can lead to issues being exacerbated and will lead to the knock ons and circular balancing issues...if the code is allowing it for the wrong reasons then you're just lumping wrong on top of wrong and then when making changes you have to sift through to it to sort it out with all sorts of issues having been knocked out from this. That's a very flawed approach to take.

The way of playing needs to be more readily widespread for it to be for the right reasons. 

That thread of the user who won all 38 games as man utd...scored 122 conceded 11...so he consistently whacked deep lying defences (assuming of course the AI set up that way which seems fair considering the tactical choices prevalent this year). So basically he has done what you say in terms of one manager is producing results like that...should the programmer then attempt to mimick this...absolutely not as it's inherently flawed in how its achieving that. I had a quick check and the full backs had a combined 32 assists that season (think in all comps) so again this is rewarding behaviour which is in conflict with real world football...full backs should not and simply do not provide that many assists in teams...particularly those achieving at the highest level. Adding in wingers that number went up to 56 assists again just highlighting the issue further.

So whether people want to admit it or not this is exploiting deficiencies of the code from a footballing point of view. Were it possible to overachieve centrally then that would be more acceptable albeit both could be argued to be improper the central play is more in line with the real world (by central play I don't mean through balls specifically either). So it's absolutely and utterly rewarding and allowing a means to score and create which is not in line with real world football so again this is in the parameters of the code but simply wrong in a real world footballing context.

Therefore any programmer trying to replicate this to make it happen consistently is doing as I said and exacerbating issues with a stuck in the mud circular balancing exercise every year but never really getting out of the mud...or very slowly making progress but that's entirely avoidable by addressing sound football first and foremost.

By the way don't take any of this personally...i saw one of your video things last year an found it highly entertaining. I just get on it here when feedback steers things away/prevents things from progressing for the right footballing reasons. We all want a better and more realistic but when I see your suggestion of things falls short 'in only two areas' that's just not correct. Take a gawk at that thread where the examples of pass selection not being coded to recognise simple and obvious passes and not being executed is something which cannot be argued with I'm afraid...any take to the contrary is denial (that's not directed at you).

 

 

I wasn’t even addressing you, that was addressed to Mitja check the thread

[akkm]

5 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

I wasn’t even addressing you, that was addressed to Mitja check the thread

wait...so i just had a rant for nothing 

just saw the attachment had my post on it...no sweat either way

[Mitja]

10 hours ago, herne79 said:

You're confusing ME with tactical set up and the AI controlled teams, and defensive football with defensive mentality.

 

really? i think any schoolboy is awere that defensive mentalty generates possession far easier than attacking ones. it's been like that since introdution of 2D, and ofcorse ME and tactics are interlinked, for example few beta patches before latest, possession stats were totally different and more in-line with reallity (defensive AI vs att AI) which can be witnessed in this thread:

and if you take time and read what's being said you will see that lesser teams are able to outpass teams like City or L'pool, which never happens irl. strangly enough such teams usually offer no real danger of scoring even when they dominate possession, this meens there's something fundamentaly wrong here with football displayed. and that's happening for two major reasons, one being how mentality works and defensive mentality being too much possession oriented. the other major thing here is how pressing and defending works, there are huge problems with AI defending when opponents have extra men in midfield and ''wrong'' roles - duties actually are selected by AI. another long term issue which needs fixing.

10 hours ago, herne79 said:

Being able to dominate possession with an average team against much better opposition using any mentality (not just defensive) isn't because of the Match Engine, it's because of the AI's (lack of) ability to be able to think outside of the box in a manner even close to what a human is capable of.  So we set up our possession tactic which the AI can't cope with, or the AI doesn't know how to handle Man City for example.

agree with that but unfortunatly things even look worse compared to fm17. i don't know where you are comming with this ME thing though, i've never blamed just ME for such issues, it's connected all. you're putting words into my mouth, i've never said like Rashidi did to akkm. quit doing that. who on earth would suggest we need to win by huge margin every time against deep-lying defending?! cheers.

[tajj7]

My issue is less with breaking these teams down, I don't have much issues with this, like IRL occasionally a 'park the bus' team might sneak a draw or even snatch a win, especially if the 'good' team doesn't play well. Like for example Southampton frustrated Chelsea at home recently.

My team generally will break the oppo down, through a set piece, long shot, mistake, general good play or me changing something like going wider to bomb some crosses in (I literally have like a 4-2-4 formation for this purpose as I have two 6' 4" strikers who are complete forwards but also monsters in the air). The odd loss or draw does not bother me, its probably realistic and probably if I bothered to watch more games more carefully I could probably stop it happening even less.

My issue is the amount of teams that do this, the calibre of teams that do this, how they do this and that they continue to do this even when losing.  I don't feel that the AI is right in these areas, its happening too often, the wrong teams are doing it and they should be abandoning it more often when they have lost goals. 

As the example I used above, 2nd placed, good form, worldwide reputation, title chasing Man City did this to me at their own ground. That just wouldn't happen IRL IMO. 

I don't also mean playing cautiously or counter attack wise, that is fine, I mean literally not trying to win and swapping to massively defensive formations where they barely have a shot.  IRL I think only a few teams have tried that away at Man City, other teams have counter attacked them, some try to play them at their pressing game etc.  In game I feel the AI would literally park the bus at every attempt.

That is my issue. 

[akkm]

3 hours ago, VinceLombardi said:

Agree 100% with this and I agree this is the direction the game should go. And I would argue it does. The removal of shape (which was as confusing as it was useful), splitting attack, defending, and transitions in tactical. Constantly adding new roles to keep up with new play styles. 2016->2019 has led to a lot of improvements with this design goal in mind.

Totally disagree with this. The tweakers would largely just find other areas to improve and work at, while leaning on that area of the ME as a strength. They will find other ways to squeeze that little extra, because that's what they enjoy. And while a few may want more of a challenge in playing the game, its not at the expense of simulation or central play. Rather I think they would agree that a stronger strategic AI (better transfer policy, training, youth, scouting, etc.) would be a much better starting point for SI to put its efforts to create that challenge vs artificially and unrealistically nerfing the play in central area as you suggest they are supporting.

 

Appreciate it. And I am similarly not trying to suggest that you are part of the problem or not trying to solve it in the appropriate manner. Quite the contrary, I think you make some good points and I wish I had more understanding of RL soccer so that I could better understand them. My only issue mainly concerns your suggestion that the tweakers don't want a better, more realistic ME. I think that's off base and misses the point of what many of us enjoy doing. 

Further, my saying that complaints about the central areas are overblown isn't to suggest that there aren't issues there. I miss my DLF(s) and the SS(a) from FM16. They definitely don't play as well in this ME. And it is an area that could be improved. But to call the entire ME broken or unplayable, as some have, is an over exaggeration of the issue.

I totally get the point of what you all enjoy doing and I probably shouldn't consider all tweakers as monolithic as that's clearly not the case but I'm also entirely comfortable that the assertions I've made are apt where they're apt lol. 

I guess to give you a feel for why the central play gives rise to such ire on these forums requires an analogy to the NFL.

The lack of incision which as I've indicated has been apparent in many guises over the years has been particularly evident this year.

This year's manifestation of it would be like a QB essentially not throwing the ball in the red zone and arguably even further back or at best very very intermittently...that's the equivalent really as the central attacking midfield playmakers are generally the main creator's in football and play a significant role in probing and passing using skill, creativity and guile to open up and unlock defences...one difference is obv in football those passes can even be indirect passes to play a player into highly advantageous position who can then slot another player in...so it's not as direct as a qb pass into endzone if you will.

However think just how watchers of the NFL would view things if each time a team gets high up the pitch only very very rarely will they make that pass to a team mate...that's essentially what's happening in FM. So that's why people get so frustrated with FM in this format and with lack of simulation of that...equivalent in real world football would be spectators would be seeing one of the fine arts of the game very very rarely on display...essentially a lot of the flair/creativity/craft/guile of the game is missing or what is essentially a more sophisticated way to play football.

 

Another good thing would be to think of FM as an NFL version (which would be so awesome).

So say you're coaching the packers and you have rodgers as your QB...essentially you'd have all the tools in your playbook but basically can only really run plays on the ground or a series of laterals or long over the top throws from deep.

Other ways it would arise as it has in FM

- Too many shots – this equivalent would be knowing the QB won't pull the trigger properly in the red zone so your QB starts going over the top from his own 30/40 yard line...low percentage plays but it comes off every once in a while...things is that's also happening where he's ignoring your play calls to not do so lol.

- Too many crosses & Crossing overpowered effectiveness wise...crossing in football is a low percentage play...yes they do contribute c20-30pc or more from open play that's down to frequency of use of same...but purposes of this equivalent in NFL would be a team trying a load of laterals to get into the endzone a la miami last minute td against patriots...again though it's infrequent in NFL you'd start calling this play more in FMNFL knowing QB won't pull trigger as required...or run game gets overutilised as that was easiest way to score or the rugby style laterals trying to score...whatever is a lower percentage play and at odds with real world....essentially that was what would be happening to score in effectively an unrealistic way frequency wise

- Poor finishing/lack of variation in finishing...like last year...central chances were being created but chances were disproportionately being missed...this would be like dropping the ball with good chances to score

- Poor ‘one on ones’...this would like having tyreek hill on your roster and just when he's about to cross the line after having created separation for a td he drops the ball

- Play blocked through the middle forcing passes too frequently out to wider players...this would be like trying to run it up the gut but coming up against a goal line defence...and that's before you even get to red zone...so congested just keep get blocked

- If you consider the options for wide players cross from x2, cross frequency x2, aim crosses at x4 it offers an ability to have a more concentrated and specified means to attack and as a result may imply an increased frequency by which this will be utilised...that would be equivalent to having a playbook stuffed with run options but limited options for pass plays

 

So if you were seeing such restrictions each year limiting the ability to do certain things especially some of the key elements of the even in an NFL sim you'd get a bit irked by it particularly if all of it was limiting the effectiveness or basic functionality of the QB.

Whilst you may well as a tweaker enjoy tweaking things to get around that ultimately you'd be gaming the code as by extension another equivalent (though football is slightly different) is in FM the space out wide is there it and gets used for crossing in an NFL sim its holes on D line offering up gaps for running backs...one could argue well if the gaps are there hit those gaps but that's a real world logic which stacks up but equivalent in an NFL sim would be as a play caller, it's actually not impressive to keep hitting those gaps as they are effectively of poorly modeled code...so you'd be gaming the deficient code...and that's all in those instances and the game would feel less rewarding eventually. Either way NFL is more linear in that sense of more progression into space in shorter more explosive bursts whereas football is more dynamic and interlinked with longer passages of play with more cohesion required and more variables reactive and proactive wise as play develops more organically so again it's not as simple a see space out wide get the ball there and get crosses in for obvious reasons.

Anyway overall if you played a game with restrictions on functionality and effectiveness of your QB and gaps/same holes in defensive lines allowing runs (yes I'm oversimplifying that) frequently you can then understand why some may deem it unplayable or broken...of course it's not but taking it back to broad crossover to what may be similar in an NFL sim you can get more of a feel why people seem rather irate this year. Frankly the identification of this issue (even though it is more obvious this year) shows an evolution of the user's feedback and style/tactical preferences which is actually great to see as users are wanting a more sophisticated way to move the pieces around the board tapping into superior passing decision making and movement which is the ultimate goal.

 

 

 

[Mitja]

22 minutes ago, tajj7 said:

My issue is less with breaking these teams down, I don't have much issues with this, like IRL occasionally a 'park the bus' team might sneak a draw or even snatch a win, especially if the 'good' team doesn't play well. Like for example Southampton frustrated Chelsea at home recently.

My team generally will break the oppo down, through a set piece, long shot, mistake, general good play or me changing something like going wider to bomb some crosses in (I literally have like a 4-2-4 formation for this purpose as I have two 6' 4" strikers who are complete forwards but also monsters in the air). The odd loss or draw does not bother me, its probably realistic and probably if I bothered to watch more games more carefully I could probably stop it happening even less.

My issue is the amount of teams that do this, the calibre of teams that do this, how they do this and that they continue to do this even when losing.  I don't feel that the AI is right in these areas, its happening too often, the wrong teams are doing it and they should be abandoning it more often when they have lost goals. 

As the example I used above, 2nd placed, good form, worldwide reputation, title chasing Man City did this to me at their own ground. That just wouldn't happen IRL IMO. 

I don't also mean playing cautiously or counter attack wise, that is fine, I mean literally not trying to win and swapping to massively defensive formations where they barely have a shot.  IRL I think only a few teams have tried that away at Man City, other teams have counter attacked them, some try to play them at their pressing game etc.  In game I feel the AI would literally park the bus at every attempt.

That is my issue. 

this is exellant post that sums it up nicely. and if you watch how defensive setup football looks during match, it reminds of football played 50 years ago by Brazil, endless passing between players, no tempo, no danger. it's simply not how modern football is played and when you add defensive problems when playing against extra man in midfield, you get very strange looking if not ''broken'' match experience.

[pheelf]

This thread is beginning to read like a novel where people just air their grievances about the ME which isn't why people should be posting here. If people have identified bugs then they need to post in the bugs section.

I think what is being shown in this thread very clearly is just how poor previous versions of the ME was with respect to defending. The fact that players are struggling to break down parked buses is actually a good development in the series as they are actually difficult to break down in real life football. Also, I think people need to scrap this notion that because they have one of the best squads in the division that they have some divine right to steamroll weaker teams even after dominating the games, try telling that to Pep after his team lost to Crystal Palace and Leicester City in consecutive matches. The extent to which people are struggling I find baffling as I'm able to break parked buses down and as I said earlier I'm no expert.

The reason why I think I'm finding it easier is probably that as I identified in my earlier post my tactic has a good combination of the factors needed. It has good depth, width and a variety of different routes to goal. I play a flat 4-4-2 in all my games only making tactical changes if I get someone sent off or desperately want to hold onto a result and usually that change is just to change the duty of certain players mainly my full backs. The depth comes from the fact I don't congest the centre of the park and have options to recycle possession. The width comes naturally from the formation and the fact that on both flanks I have at least 1 player attacking wide. The variety comes from the fact that the tactics roles and duties aren't symmetrical so I have different players arriving in different positions at different times which is very disruptive to the oppositions defensive shape. I also afford my players more freedom as I choose entirely generic roles throughout the team and use only two TIs. The more specialist roles / TIs you pick the more predictable your attacks are as you are biasing your team to play in a very specific way.

I'm also thinking that perhaps people aren't using the full toolbox as has been suggested earlier but also that they are so entirely focused on there being a tactical / ME reason why they have these issues that they are missing the bigger picture that management isn't only about tactics. A lot of other aspects are important too such as:

- The motivation of the players

This is where the team talks come into play and also why the body language of the players needs to be monitored. If you see one of your strikers getting frustrated do you make a change? What type of touchline shouts do you give if any?

- Player conditioning

An often underestimated factor. I found that during busy periods of the season if I fielded players which had played in a number of recent games they didn't perform anywhere near their usual level. I feel it's such a significant factor that I've now decided that I'd rather play a much worse player that is fresh if my better player is tired.

- Players playing in the correct roles and duties

I can't stress how important this is. You can maybe get away with playing a player best suited to a box to box midfielder (support) as a central midfielder (support) but you'll find you get problems if you try to play him as a central midfield (defend).

- Hidden attributes such as consistency and visible attributes such as determination

This is another major aspect which is often overlooked.

I often find that when I'm struggling to break down a parked bus that often the best thing I can do is make a substitution and because I'm playing generic roles I can make dramatic alterations to the way we play with them as more of the individuality of the player comes out. For e.g. in my current save I have two first-team Advanced Forwards, one of them is very quick but poorer technically while the other is the exact opposite, very good technically but slower. Therefore I usually start with the better technical player and if by say 60 minutes we aren't winning comfortably (2 clear goals) then I'll bring on the speed merchant against the tired opposition defenders which usually results in us getting a goal. 

I hope that by providing some insight into the way I successfully break down parked buses that you can take something from it and that it helps you.

Best Regards

[Rashidi]

Guys we should really stick to the topic, which was about strategies to break down a parked bus. If people are going to wax lyrical or blame the match engine, then we will be going off topic. There are feedback threads and general bug reports you can submit if you feel there is a need to, If the thread can't stay on topic, the mods will have to close it down, cos we keep having these big discussions, which are wasted here. I just want to make sure that if people have good ideas they don't get lost in the clutter.

[Mindtrick_42]

On 14/01/2019 at 11:46, pheelf said:

 

The reason why I think I'm finding it easier is probably that as I identified in my earlier post my tactic has a good combination of the factors needed. It has good depth, width and a variety of different routes to goal. I play a flat 4-4-2 in all my games only making tactical changes if I get someone sent off or desperately want to hold onto a result and usually that change is just to change the duty of certain players mainly my full backs. The depth comes from the fact I don't congest the centre of the park and have options to recycle possession. The width comes naturally from the formation and the fact that on both flanks I have at least 1 player attacking wide. The variety comes from the fact that the tactics roles and duties aren't symmetrical so I have different players arriving in different positions at different times which is very disruptive to the oppositions defensive shape. I also afford my players more freedom as I choose entirely generic roles throughout the team and use only two TIs. The more specialist roles / TIs you pick the more predictable your attacks are as you are biasing your team to play in a very specific way.

 

I really like your post, and I have thinking about trying to play a more genric style where I use the "standard" roles more. Do you decide yourself what you consider as a generic role? Or do you know if there are some guidelines on what is a generic role and what is a specialist role? Some roles are easy to understand, but when it comes to the strikers I'm not so sure what I should consider as generic vs special
 

[Experienced Defender]

Generic roles:

standard goalkeeper (not sweeper)

In defense: central defender and fullback

In the midfield: defensive midfielder, central midfielder, wide midfielder, attacking midfielder

In attack: none

All other roles are (more or less) specialist ones. Notable examples include: libero, mezzala, roaming playmaker, regista, half-back, trequartista, enganche, F9, raumdeuter, complete WB, inverted WB...

[Asclepius]

My way of breaking down park the bus teams is to increase attacking outlets/ways to attack. 

Which includes:

• Tall Pacey striker with good off ball and heading on Complete forward, Target man, Deep lying forward to pull opposition defenders 
•  A winger on one side to support plays a cross while an inside forward on the other side 
• an attacking midfielder that movies into channels that has high acceleration that can move into the space the striker created
• Set piece training 
• Pre match/half time talks
• Shouts such as: demand more( when we have high shots but non on target) , get creative (when we have high possession)
• Higher tempo 
• Having center midfielders with good long shot ability with good decision making stats as well 
• FORMATION AND ROLES CHANGES 
• OVERLOAD THE BOX (usually my last resort) 

I learned all these things by watching bustheanet on youtube. The key philosophy I have taken from all his videos I watched is: have a tactic that can play a variety of ways=variety of ways to win. Also to it is very important to know how you want to play. 

 

You will not win many games if you have a one-dimensional mindset on football. It also takes critical judgment to know when to change and when not to change and let your players play out.

There is no easy answer to win at football manager except for maybe playing a 343. There is no easy answer on how to win at life. 

 

Yes, I still lose and draw against park the bus teams and I am fully aware that that will occur.