Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Neil Brock

Football Manager 2019 Official Feedback Thread

Biggest downside for this year's FM from your pov ?  

66 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. What really annoy you this year while playing FM19 ?

    • Players moaning for new contracts too often
      23
    • Gegenpressing tactic too powerful
      12
    • Youngsters determination decreasing despite tutoring
      10
    • IA still stockpiling players at a specific position/low teambuilding
      11
    • Calendar bug ,only 1 day to recover between 2 officials games, especially a the end of the season (Obviously, i'm not talking about the Boxing day)
      6
    • International call-ups issues (players unavailable for Champions League final etc...)
      5


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, kingking said:

I wonder why SI assumes AML/CAM/AMR defends like a striker,

however in modern football AML/CAM/CMR defend like a ML/MC/MR in order to create a 5 man midfield when defending.

The AML/CAM/AMR are only "midfielders" who are positioned higher when attacking, it does not remove or reduce there defending responsibilities 

FM is suppose to have a modern view of football, since its a simulation

The A.I suffers from SI old fashion view of AML/CAM/AMR when employing 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1

Any thoughts from anyone.. i must be wrong, crazy or something?

This ME is not a strong reflection of modern football today

i think there are issues with AM strata defending on attack duty, at least on more aggressive mentalities. while it's debatable if they should follow overlapping fullbacks all the way to the box, i think there seems too many times they are doing nothing and stand there totally out of position - at least they should cover passing lanes far better. this was improved slightly with full game compared to beta. 

 

Share this post


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

They can and do come back, you are just doing something wrong. 

Of course they come back, that is not the issue..

The issue is they come back and defend like strikers.. not back enough and reluctant... in Modern Football that is not the case

AML/CAM/AMR should come back and defend like midfielders (MR/ML/CM) (all the way back and with desire)

 

Edited by kingking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Mitja said:

i think there are issues with AM strata defending on attack duty, at least on more aggressive mentalities. while it's debatable if they should follow overlapping fullbacks all the way to the box, i think there seems too many times they are doing nothing and stand there totally out of position - at least they should cover passing lanes far better. this was improved slightly with full game compared to beta. 

 

Yeah there have be issues about AML/AMR/AMC defending and the way they do it

they defend like strikers not like cm/ml/mr (midfielders) 

Edited by kingking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kingking said:

i see them not covering as good as other midfielders such as the cm/ml/mr

i don't think they should be positioned like ml/r, especially not with attack duty. but, while every fullback seems to be positioned perfectly all the time in attacking phase, i wonder why wide forwards look completly lost lurking outside of passing lanes, just watching others doing their job. sometimes they defend properly. i think i understand what SI are trying to do but it looks little odd.

i'm using tight marking didn't really try zonal, maybe there they behave diffrently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kingking said:

Yeah there have be issues about AML/AMR/AMC defending and the way they do it

they defend like strikers not like cm/ml/mr (midfielders) 

like strikers they sometimes

  • stand without helping
  • they dont come all the way back like
  • they are not aggressive enough or motivated enough sometimes to go all the way back 

they should act like cm/ml/mr

  • go all the way back 
  • be more aggressive and motivated when defending

 

If you want them to play like ml or mr, play them as ml or mr. If they are going to perform identically what is the point in the two strata?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, johnhughthom said:

If you want them to play like ml or mr, play them as ml or mr. If they are going to perform identically what is the point in the two strata?

In modern football a AML/AMR will go and play like a ML/MR when defending.. they create a 5 man midfield when out of possession.

that is the issue i have with the ME, the ME assumes that AMR/AML always have to stay above the MC/ML/MR when defending back....

if FM wanted to be a modern football simulation, they need to update the way AML/AMR/CAM defend

The AI is affected because of this, the 4-2-3-1,4-3-3, 4-4-1-1 formations are affected because of this

Edited by kingking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you want is quite easily achieved, play them as ML or MR with attacking duties, you want the benefits of playing in the attacking midfield strata without any drawbacks.

The issue with AI teams is more a case of managers having more aggressive formations set than they would actually use most often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, kingking said:

In modern football a AML/AMR will go and play like a ML/MR when defending.. they create a 5 man midfield when out of possession.

that is the issue i have with the ME, the ME assumes that AMR/AML always have to stay above the MC/ML/MR when defending back....

if FM wanted to be a modern football simulation, they need to update the way AML/AMR/CAM defend

The positions you slot you players into on the tactical grid are their starting positions when defending. So if you select an AMR / AML then you are literally telling them not to act like an ML / MR. As several people have explained, to achieve what you describe, play them in the ML / MR slots. You can achieve a 451 in defence and a 4231 in attack if you choose the right roles and duties. Just check the average positions with / without ball after a few games for the proof. 

Edited by rdbayly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19.1.3 IS now in public beta, yet default corner routine still tells Central defenders to stay back... How did this game get past alpha testing I can't explain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minuti fa, rdbayly ha scritto:

The positions you slot you players into on the tactical grid are their starting positions when defending. So if you select an AMR / AML then you are literally telling them not to act like an ML / MR. As several people have explained, to achieve what you describe, play them in the ML / MR slots. You can achieve a 451 in defence and a 4231 in attack if you choose the right roles and duties. Just check the average positions with / without ball after a few games for the proof. 

right, so go and explain that to Guardiola and see what he says about it :D 

manCity_D.thumb.png.3d2c1e2b67213a87bb436a387bb253d9.png

positions/roles are way too strict  in fm compared to what really happens in real.

Edited by MBarbaric

Share this post


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

right, so go and explain that to Guardiola and see what he says about it :D 

manCity_D.thumb.png.3d2c1e2b67213a87bb436a387bb253d9.png

Er, I'm not sure what a picture is of two banks of 4 is trying to prove or disprove?

If Guardiola wanted to recrate that in FM he'd simply use the ML / MR slots, so thanks for backing me up :brock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minuti fa, rdbayly ha scritto:

Er, I'm not sure what a picture is of two banks of 4 is trying to prove or disprove?

If Guardiola wanted to recrate that in FM he'd simply use the ML / MR slots, so thanks for backing me up :brock:

 

28 minuti fa, MBarbaric ha scritto:

The positions you slot you players into on the tactical grid are their starting positions when defending.

 then the game should basically have only 5 formations (4-4-2, 4-4-1-1, 4-1-4-1, 5-4-1, 4-5-1) as all the teams defend in these shapes. 

and a bonus Mourinho  6-4-0 with an attacking variant of 6-3-1 ;D

Edited by MBarbaric

Share this post


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

The positions you slot you players into on the tactical grid are their starting positions when defending. So if you select an AMR / AML then you are literally telling them not to act like an ML / MR. As several people have explained, to achieve what you describe, play them in the ML / MR slots. You can achieve a 451 in defence and a 4231 in attack if you choose the right roles and duties. Just check the average positions with / without ball after a few games for the proof. 

when you play a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1 Your AML/AMR attacking position are above the CM. 

If i play a 4-5-1 i lose that benefit of my AML/AMR attacking position being above my CM... That is why i do not want to play a 4-5-1 Like you advised

FM should allow us to play a 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 when attacking and defend in a 4-5-1 or 4-1-4-1 (1 CDM, 2 CM, 2 ML/MR)

It is a modern for CAM/AML/AMR to become a CM or ML/MR when defending, but stay in a AML/AMR when attacking...

Can you see the problem? 

Edited by kingking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

Er, I'm not sure what a picture is of two banks of 4 is trying to prove or disprove?

If Guardiola wanted to recrate that in FM he'd simply use the ML / MR slots, so thanks for backing me up :brock:

thats not backing you up, the fact that you have to change the player of position to get him to track back in the defensive shape, its just the ****** workaround to get some kind of similar behaviour, but if my AMR is  natural at AMR and only acomplished in MR ... the performance is going to be  awkward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, rdbayly said:

Er, I'm not sure what a picture is of two banks of 4 is trying to prove or disprove?

If Guardiola wanted to recrate that in FM he'd simply use the ML / MR slots, so thanks for backing me up :brock:

But that is the issue

You tell us to use a ML/MR.. but that means that there attacking position is not  Above the CM... thats the benefit of 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 lost.

there should be a revamp, a feature or option where we choose an attacking position formation such as 4-2-3-1, however when defending the players are instructed to go into a ML/MR/CM position 

this reflects modern football which i see nowadays..

Edited by kingking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@rdbayly (and SI to an extent) is right as the only shape that (most of the time) is really consistent on the pitch is the defensive shape. The problem is, we are all too used to TV presentation where you often see 4-2-3-1/4-3-3... Football (well, offensive part at least) is way too flexible and fluid than that. The problem with FM is that it offers shapes that are very rare or simply inexistent in real (who defends within 4-2-3-1? ) confusing itself and the user. 

Average user may pick 4-4-2 but it is more likely he will pick 4-2-3-1, want to play attacking mentality and score goals. Football doesn't really work like that, neither should FM.

You should really pick only the defensive shape (but get out silly shapes that aren't really used) and then you'd need way more flexibility in terms of positional movement, runs, rotations... in order to recreate offensive phase. The way it is, regarding formations, it is confusing and not really representing how football works. 

Edited by MBarbaric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@rdbayly (and SI to an extent) is right as the only shape that (most of the time) is really consistent on the pitch is the defensive shape. The problem is, we are all too used to TV presentation where you often see 4-2-3-1/4-3-3... Football (well, offensive part at least) is way too flexible and fluid than that. The problem with FM is that it offers shapes that are very rare or simply inexistent in real (who defends within 4-2-3-1? ) confusing itself and the user. 

Average user may pick 4-4-2 but it is more likely he will pick 4-2-3-1, want to play attacking mentality and score goals. However, nobody defends within 4-2-3-1, football doesn't really work like that, neither should FM.

You should really pick only the defensive shape (but get out silly shapes that aren't really used) and then you'd need way more flexibility in terms of positional movement, runs, rotations (as the ultimate goal, make wibble wobble work)... in order to recreate offensive phase. The way it is, regarding formations, it is confusing and not really representing how football works. 

Edited by MBarbaric

Share this post


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

The problem is, we are all too used to TV presentation where you often see 4-2-3-1/4-3-3

Absolutely spot on.

Share this post


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

 Absolutely spot on.

 

3 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

@rdbayly (and SI to an extent) is right as the only shape that (most of the time) is really consistent on the pitch is the defensive shape. The problem is, we are all too used to TV presentation where you often see 4-2-3-1/4-3-3... Football (well, offensive part at least) is way too flexible and fluid than that. The problem with FM is that it offers shapes that are very rare or simply inexistent in real (who defends within 4-2-3-1? ) confusing itself and the user. 

Average user may pick 4-4-2 but it is more likely he will pick 4-2-3-1, want to play attacking mentality and score goals. However, nobody defends within 4-2-3-1, football doesn't really work like that, neither should FM.

You should really pick only the defensive shape (but get out silly shapes that aren't really used) and then you'd need way more flexibility in terms of positional movement, runs, rotations (as the ultimate goal, make wibble wobble work)... in order to recreate offensive phase. The way it is, regarding formations, it is confusing and not really representing how football works. 

in FM When you play a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 there is no option or instruction that tells the winger to stand Above the CM.

thats the biggest issue that could easily solve all this,.. if there was an instruction that told the winger to stand above the CM, which is the benefit of 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 

Edited by kingking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watch so many analysis of matches

Juventus played a 4-3-3 against united when attacking.. there wingers played a AML/AMR postion and stood above the CM

however when defending they dropped into a 4-4-2..

All i want is a modern representation of football where the manager can ask there players to defend in a different position (AML into a ML) then there attacking position

Edited by kingking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In questo momento, kingking ha scritto:

 

When you play a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 there is no option or instruction that tells the winger to stand Above the CM. thats the issue.

Indeed, I am not defending ( :D ) the way FM is set up. The formations, as they are, are contradictory. With the introduction of phases, the game went miles ahead of where it was just a year ago. I fully expect that next year (or in two years) you will be able to pick two different formations for different phases. That really isn't how it works in real but it is still a way forward. Considering FM is a business, and a game, I am sure they will stick to formations as without them, an average user wouldn't know where to turn. 

The right way would be the wibble / wobble, of course :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minuti fa, kingking ha scritto:

I watch so many analysis of matches

Juventus played a 4-3-3 against united when attacking.. there wingers played a AML/AMR postion and stood above the CM

however when defending they dropped into a 4-4-2..

All i want is a modern representation of football where the manager asked there players to defend in a different position (AML into a ML) then there attacking position

and if you watch some more, you will probably see they use different shape in different thirds of the pitch. Against opposition playing 5 at the back they may defend from front within (sort of) 4-3-3. Against oppostion with 4 at the back and one player dropping deep they will still use 4-3-3... However, they will change their high press to 4-4-2 against teams that play 4-4-2... And this is only defending from front... 

but essentially, you are right. virtually all teams pull back their wingers when they defend in their own half. you shouldn't need to test the ME for hours in order to see what combination of mentalities/roles/this and that will tell your wide players to track back when you defend deep. a simple tick box should do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

Indeed, I am not defending ( :D ) the way FM is set up

Lmao:applause:

11 minutes ago, MBarbaric said:

Indeed, I am not defending ( :D ) the way FM is set up. The formations, as they are, are contradictory. With the introduction of phases, the game went miles ahead of where it was just a year ago. I fully expect that next year (or in two years) you will be able to pick two different formations for different phases. That really isn't how it works in real but it is still a way forward. Considering FM is a business, and a game, I am sure they will stick to formations as without them, an average user wouldn't know where to turn. 

 The right way would be the wibble / wobble, of course :D

Yeah the introduction of phases, counter-press and pressing is amazing, FM has come a long way and is always improving, i appreciate how much depth the game has, and well done to the SI team because they work hard.:D

i agree yeah, an improvement in the game to reflect modern football is an attacking position when in-possession and a defending position when out-of-possession 

In-possession the user can choose a 4-2-3-1 position where the wingers are (AML/AMR) standing above the CM 

out-of-possession the user can choose somewhere around basic 3 formations such as a 4-5-1/4-4-2 or 4-1-4-1 where the AML/AMR/CAM are turned into standard midfielders 

idk if this will be hard to implement or something, we will see lol

Edited by kingking

Share this post


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

 

manCity_D.thumb.png.3d2c1e2b67213a87bb436a387bb253d9.png

positions/roles are way too strict  in fm compared to what really happens in real.

It really always tends to come down to how football is being represented on TV, doesn't it? :D

At the same time, it makes the game far less fluid than football in general. For your average FM'er, that may be a blessing if he actually watched (rather than looking at the shots on a spreadsheed piling up one after another). :D  Btw, I don't think the old wibble/wobble is how football works. At least the way it worked in-game. Which was roughly like this: Once we have the ball, you, left back, turn immediately into a, say central midfielder. Ignore the ball, ignore all play, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Just go there. Positioning/transitioning is a dynamic process. In theory managers could "instruct" players to do as it worked as of FM's wib/wob. But that's not how football tends to be played imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dajiakedajiake said:

Just wonder why Serie A team never buy famous players even with a very good financial situation. I start with Milan, 4 seasons already, Serie A became extremely boring since other teams never buy famous players even I edited their finance. Juve sale Dybala, Rugani, Costa, Sandro, Inter sale Icardi, Nainggolan, Skriniar, Perisic and they buy nobody even with billion dollars in the pocket. They only keep loan players and this is so ridiculous and makes the Serie A more and more boring.

14 hours ago, dajiakedajiake said:

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? The AI transfer logic is so stupid.

Thought would check how transfers went down in serie A on my pompey save, and its completely different to yours, with teams spending and buying plenty of players. For example Juve have brought in Cavani, Pique and Herrera, Napoli have brought in James Rodriguez, Inter have brought Vrsaljko, Mata and Lovren and AC Milan have brought Draxler.

There's also been a few loans, but I noticed that there are generally a lot of loans in this years fm, and to be fair quite a few IRL football as well.

I think to call it so stupid is very subjective, and isn’t really that helpful.

 

Edited by sedge11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minuti fa, kingking ha scritto:

I believe an improvement to reflect modern football is an attacking position when in-possession and a defending position when out-of-possession 

In-possession the user can choose a 4-2-3-1 position where the wingers are (AML/AMR) standing above the CM 

out-of-possession the user can choose somewhere around basic 3 formations such as a 4-5-1/4-4-2 or 4-1-4-1 where the AML/AMR/CAM are turned into standard midfielders 

idk if this will be hard to implement or something

1

yep, i'd be happy with that for next 5 years. then i'll start buying the game again :D

Share this post


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

I watch so many analysis of matches

Juventus played a 4-3-3 against united when attacking.. there wingers played a AML/AMR postion and stood above the CM

however when defending they dropped into a 4-4-2..

All i want is a modern representation of football where the manager asked there players to defend in a different position (AML into a ML) then there attacking position

I'll just add this then I'm done, as we're going in circles:

This is my current 442 system:

image.thumb.png.b8ac14c0504d973214a161430b00b7f9.png

Average positions without the ball; a compact narrow 442 which bears a striking resemblance to the Man City image earlier in the thread:

image.thumb.png.efcaee25ee4cf04bc8c535f6e40a175b.png

Average positions with the ball; an expansive 244. both my ML and MR are clearly ahead of the CMs. As already explained, it's the roles and duties that predominantly influence what you are seeking. 

image.thumb.png.706d53edd6820dcfdddc6e96b824fb34.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minuti fa, Svenc ha scritto:

It really always tends to come down to how football is being represented on TV, doesn't it? :D

At the same time, it makes the game far less fluid than football in general. For your average FM'er, that may be a blessing if he actually watched (rather than looking at the shots on a spreadsheed piling up one after another). :D  Btw, I don't think the old wibble/wobble is how football works. At least the way it worked in-game. Which was roughly like this: Once we have the ball, you, left back, turn immediately into a, say central midfielder. Ignore the ball, ignore all play, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Just go there. Positioning/transitioning is a dynamic process. In theory managers could "instruct" players to do as it worked as of FM's wib/wob. But that's not how football tends to be played imo.

5

wanted to quote you, but thought it was better to just leave the bait and wait :D

I don't remember anymore how it actually worked in the game. However, what Guardiola does, at least in first two thirds, is pretty much how I imagine wibble/wobble. except, Guardiola provides like three options for each zone on the pitch. so wibble wobble would need at least three layers with IF/THEN commands :D

Now I understand not all managers are Guardiola and the likes, but for all others one basic all defining formation should be enough :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minuti fa, rdbayly ha scritto:

which bears a striking resemblance to the Man City image earlier in the thread:

well then all is fine and I apologize if I was difficult. the game clearly improved a lot since I last played it seriously.

oh, but wait, man city was playing 4-3-3 in that match :D

Edited by MBarbaric

Share this post


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

I'll just add this then I'm done, as we're going in circles:

This is my current 442 system:

image.thumb.png.b8ac14c0504d973214a161430b00b7f9.png

Average positions without the ball; a compact narrow 442 which bears a striking resemblance to the Man City image earlier in the thread:

image.thumb.png.efcaee25ee4cf04bc8c535f6e40a175b.png

Average positions with the ball; an expansive 244. both my ML and MR are clearly ahead of the CMs. As already explained, it's the roles and duties that predominantly influence what you are seeking. 

image.thumb.png.706d53edd6820dcfdddc6e96b824fb34.png

Yes you are right, i agree with you, i understand you can change the shape of your in-possession formation by changing the roles and instructions  of your default out-of-possession FM Formation

but i have a better solution

Suggestion

Have 2 formations during the tactical creation.

 Your attacking formation when in-possession

  •  4-3-3 

 Then allow the user to choose 1 out of a 4 basic formations when creating the out-of-possession phase 

  •  your default attacking formation (e.g. 4-2-3-1)
  • 4-4-2,
  • 4-5-1 (3 CM,ML,MR),
  • 4-1-4-1 (1 CDM, 2 CM,2 ML/MR)

Reason

  • Modern Football.  Some Managers in a team instruct there team to attack with a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 and defend with a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1
  • Defending Benefits. Some Teams want to attack using a 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3, but maintain the amazing defending benefits of 4-4-2 or 4-5-1, because it is a solid shape that doesn't leave any gaps. 

FM Current ME Limitation

You can change the shape of your in-possession formation by changing the roles and instructions of your default out-of-possession FM Formation but that isn't efficient  because

  • The A.I is not intelligent enough to attack with 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 and defend with  a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1. The AI are not creative when using roles and instructions
  • Shape is not clearly defined and maintained. The Shape created through changing roles and instructions are not clearly structured or defined, you struggle to tell what formation you have when attacking.
  • Lacks depth/scope in the tactical system. Without the option of selecting 2 solid structured formations when defending and attacking, the tactical system lacks depth/scope

 Benefit

  • Improves A.I . it will be easier for them to achieve benefits of attacking with 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 and defend with 4-4-2 or 4-5-1
  • Modern Football. improves reflection of modern football
  • improves tactical systems depth /scope/realism . Improves Depth/Scope/Realism in the Tactic System
Edited by kingking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really am beyond sick of players whinging about playing time.

I have a cretin in my squad who whinged and whined, despite being injured for the bulk of the season from the start of the game to date, about playing time. I had a chat, and after starting him a few times he was apparently happy. My "promise" was fulfilled.

 

He then gets injured again and while waiting for him to get fully fit he whines and whinges again about playing time.

 

Why are footballers programmed to have the IQ of parsnips? This has been an issue for ages and I'm supremely sick of it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kertiek said:

thats not backing you up, the fact that you have to change the player of position to get him to track back in the defensive shape, its just the ****** workaround to get some kind of similar behaviour, but if my AMR is  natural at AMR and only acomplished in MR ... the performance is going to be  awkward.

...what in the world. 

It isn't a workaround and it isn't "changing position". If you want the player to play like a MR then you play him at MR. Obviously.

In what universe do you play a player in one position, and then complain like he doesn't act like hes playing an entirely different position.

There are two options for a reason. They shouldn't act the same. It's up to you to choose which one you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kingking said:

But that is the issue

You tell us to use a ML/MR.. but that means that there attacking position is not  Above the CM... thats the benefit of 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 lost.

there should be a revamp, a feature or option where we choose an attacking position formation such as 4-2-3-1, however when defending the players are instructed to go into a ML/MR/CM position 

this reflects modern football which i see nowadays..

Why are you so convinced you lose the advantage of a 4-2-3-1 by playing the players at MR/ML? They can attack just fine from there.

Share this post


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

 

in FM When you play a 4-4-2 or a 4-5-1 there is no option or instruction that tells the winger to stand Above the CM.

thats the biggest issue that could easily solve all this,.. if there was an instruction that told the winger to stand above the CM, which is the benefit of 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 

Of course there is. You put him on attack duty. That's literally what roles and duties are for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kingking said:

Yes you are right, i agree with you, i understand you can change the shape of your in-possession formation by changing the roles and instructions  of your default out-of-possession FM Formation

however that approach is not the best because your in-possession shape is not very clearly defined (structured) as it should, also the approach is difficult and hard for the A.I and average FMer to understand and utilize.

I believe in modern football a manager has a formation when in-possession, and a formation when out-of-possession.

a better approach, for future FM.. to improve the game and maintain low exploitation, high modern reflection of football and make it easier for the user and ai to understand 

is to allow the user to choose 1 of  4 basic formations when out-of-possession 

  • your default attacking formation (e.g. 4-2-3-1)
  • 4-4-2,
  • 4-5-1
  • 4-1-4-1

I'm sorry but there's just no need for two different formations as explained in detail above to you. The roles and duties can easily achieve this.

The game is already becoming more and more arcadey with each version and this spoon feeding needs to stop at some point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kingking said:

I watch so many analysis of matches

Juventus played a 4-3-3 against united when attacking.. there wingers played a AML/AMR postion and stood above the CM

however when defending they dropped into a 4-4-2..

All i want is a modern representation of football where the manager can ask there players to defend in a different position (AML into a ML) then there attacking position

I have played like this in the current FM and all the previous FMs for that matter. It's NB very easy to set up like this. All you need to do is ask for help in the tactics forum. 

Edited by pats

Share this post


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

I have played like this in the current FM and all the previous FMs for that matter. It's NB very easy to set up like this. All you need to do is ask for help in the tactics forum. 

 

4 hours ago, pats said:

I'm sorry but there's just no need for two different formations as explained in detail above to you. The roles and duties can easily achieve this.

The game is already becoming more and more arcadey with each version and this spoon feeding needs to stop at some point. 

 

5 hours ago, RocheBag said:

Of course there is. You put him on attack duty. That's literally what roles and duties are for.

 

5 hours ago, RocheBag said:

Why are you so convinced you lose the advantage of a 4-2-3-1 by playing the players at MR/ML? They can attack just fine from there.

 

5 hours ago, RocheBag said:

...what in the world. 

It isn't a workaround and it isn't "changing position". If you want the player to play like a MR then you play him at MR. Obviously.

In what universe do you play a player in one position, and then complain like he doesn't act like hes playing an entirely different position.

There are two options for a reason. They shouldn't act the same. It's up to you to choose which one you want.

The current system can be improved, we can add more depth and realism in the tactical system by doing this.

Suggestion

Have 2 formations during the tactical creation.

Your attacking formation when in-possession

  • 4-3-3 

Then allow the user to only choose 1 out of a 4 basic formations when creating the out-of-possession phase 

  • your default attacking formation (e.g. 4-2-3-1)
  • 4-4-2,
  • 4-5-1 (3 CM,ML,MR),
  • 4-1-4-1 (1 CDM, 2 CM,2 ML/MR)

Reason

  • Modern Football. Managers in a team instruct there team to have a Clearly defined formation when out-of-possession that is well structured such as 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 
  • Defending Benefits. Teams want to attack using a 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3, but maintain the amazing defending benefits of 4-4-2 or 4-5-1, because it is a solid shape that doesn't leave any gaps. 

FM Current ME Limitation

You can change the shape of your in-possession formation by changing the roles and instructions of your default out-of-possession FM Formation but that isn't efficient  because

  • The A.I miss out of the defending benefits of having a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 when out of possession. The A.I and User miss out of the amazing defending benefit of having a strong 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 when out of possession which teams that play 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 do
  • Shape is not clearly defined and maintained. The Shape created through changing roles and instructions are not clearly structured or defined, you struggle to tell what formation you have when attacking.
  • Lacks depth in the tactical system. Without the option of selecting a solid, structured formation makes the tactical system one dimensional, it lacks depth and doesn't represent modern football 

Benefit

  • Modern Football. improves reflection of modern football
  • improves tactical systems depth and realism whilst maintaining low exploitation, . Improves Depth and realism in the Tactic System
  • Improves A.I. because they can now utilize the benefits of having a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 formation when defending.
Edited by kingking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kingking said:

 

 

 

 

The current system can be improved, we can add more dept and realism in the tactical system by doing this.

but i have a better solution

Suggestion

Have 2 formations during the tactical creation.

Your attacking formation when in-possession

  • 4-3-3 

Then allow the user to choose 1 out of a 4 basic formations when creating the out-of-possession phase 

  • your default attacking formation (e.g. 4-2-3-1)
  • 4-4-2,
  • 4-5-1 (3 CM,ML,MR),
  • 4-1-4-1 (1 CDM, 2 CM,2 ML/MR)

Reason

  • Defending Benefits. Teams want to attack using a 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3, but maintain the amazing defending benefits of 4-4-2 or 4-5-1, because it is a solid shape that doesn't leave any gaps.
  • Modern Football. Managers in a team instruct there team to have a Clearly defined formation when out-of-possession that is well structured such as 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 

FM Current ME Limitation

You can change the shape of your in-possession formation by changing the roles and instructions of your default out-of-possession FM Formation but that isn't efficient  because

  • The A.I miss out of the defending benefits of having a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 when out of possession. The A.I and User miss out of the amazing defending benefit of having a strong 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 when out of possession which teams that play 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 do
  • Shape is not clearly defined and maintained. The Shape created through changing roles and instructions are not clearly structured or defined, you struggle to tell what formation you have when attacking.
  • Lacks depth in the tactical system. Without the option of selecting a solid, structured formation makes the tactical system one dimensional, it lacks depth and doesn't represent modern football 

Benefit

  • Modern Football. improves reflection of modern football
  • improves tactical systems depth and realism . Improves Depth in the Tactic System
  • Improves A.I. because they can now utilize the benefits of having a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 formation when defending.

This is a feedback thread for fm19 can we keep it that way this is a feature request

Share this post


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

This is a feedback thread for fm19 can we keep it that way this is a feature request

I was giving feedback towards the FM19 ME and it concluded with a suggestion which a feedback can end with.

i am surprised about the the reluctance or anger towards this suggestion when it reflects modern football and how managers create tactics

Maybe we all have a different vision of how SI wants to improve the tactical system.

i thought we all wanted to make the tactical system have depth, be realistic, whilst making it user friendly for the A.I and User  (e.g. tactical styles, player roles)

 

Edited by kingking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kingking said:

I was giving feedback towards the FM19 ME and it concluded with a suggestion which a feedback can end with.

i don't understand the reluctance or anger towards this suggestion when it reflects modern football and how managers create tactics

The main reluctance to agree with you is because you arent quite getting that what you ask for already exists. Its hard to get your head round... But you have to.

The formation within the TC is your defensive formation... If you want to defend as a 442, use 442. When it comes to attack you need to be creative with roles, duty and instructions. 

Attack duty gives the player a higher base position than support, and defend duty is lower still. Attacking players will also be quicker to advance in transition... So this is how you create your attacking shape. 

If you monitor the av pos w. Ball and w/o ball you can see two very different shapes (if you use the right roles and duties) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so completely over playing this. I absolutely cannot get my teams firing on all 4 cylinders at all. I've tried cookie cutter downloaded tactics, tried my own, tried so many different styles around the same sort of shapes, usually with wingers because Wolves have several good ones.

I've restarted and played half a season so many times it's not even funny. 180hours logged - if you said maybe 50% is afk hours - which is generous - I still absolutely SUCK at getting my team working right. It's criminal. And then I reload and try again. And fail. Again.

I have a lot of time playing FM games and yet, I massively, massively suck. So frustrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kingking the reason people are disagreeing with you is because what you're after just isn't required.

In real life, teams don't instantaneously morph from one formation to another as if they're using teleporters - that happens in transitional phases. As many have pointed out, the basic formation you choose in FM is your defensive formation and that doesn't mean that you'll rigidly retain that structure when you have the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

The main reluctance to agree with you is because you arent quite getting that what you ask for already exists. Its hard to get your head round... But you have to.

The formation within the TC is your defensive formation... If you want to defend as a 442, use 442. When it comes to attack you need to be creative with roles, duty and instructions. 

Attack duty gives the player a higher base position than support, and defend duty is lower still. Attacking players will also be quicker to advance in transition... So this is how you create your attacking shape. 

If you monitor the av pos w. Ball and w/o ball you can see two very different shapes (if you use the right roles and duties) 

 

20 minutes ago, RTHerringbone said:

@kingking the reason people are disagreeing with you is because what you're after just isn't required.

 In real life, teams don't instantaneously morph from one formation to another as if they're using teleporters - that happens in transitional phases. As many have pointed out, the basic formation you choose in FM is your defensive formation and that doesn't mean that you'll rigidly retain that structure when you have the ball.

You guys are right i completely understand you can achieve 2 different formations through roles and instructions, however..

achieving 2 different formations  through roles and instructions has limitations 

  • The A.I Struggles because it is complex.  A.I doesn't achieve the benefit of defending in a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 when playing a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 because they don't have the intelligence to choose the right roles and instructions.
  • your shape isn't clearly defined and isn't strongly shaped, its hard to tell what shape the team is going for sometimes.
  • Sometimes Managers in real life don't operate like that, instead they tell there team to have a clearly defined shape such as 4-4-2 when defending instead of operating through roles and instructions .
Edited by kingking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kingking said:

The A.I Struggles because it is complex.  A.I doesn't achieve the benefit of defending in a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 when playing a 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 because they don't have the intelligence to choose the right roles and instructions.

With ideas like gegenpressing there are benefits to defending in a 433 etc. 442 is the most popular way of defending, but not the only way. 

Definitely scope to keep improving the TC now that the three phases are presented individually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kingking said:
  • some Managers in real life don't operate like that, instead they tell there team to have a clearly defined shape such as 4-4-2 when defending instead of operating through roles and instructions .

That's how FM achieves the same results though, given it's a computer game, and not actually real life. 

My advice to you, for what it's worth, is to try and simply enjoy the game with the tools you have. Micto-analysing, and continually looking for things that aren't there must result in an utterly joyless playing experience, and at the end of the day, what's the point in that? But perhaps that's just me. 

That's not to say things can't be improved and feedback/bug reporting is invaluable to SI. But when your entire play time is simply made up of trying to find fault, then this maybe isn't for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, westy8chimp said:

With ideas like gegenpressing there are benefits to defending in a 433 etc. 442 is the most popular way of defending, but not the only way. 

Definitely scope to keep improving the TC now that the three phases are presented individually.

True

31 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

That's how FM achieves the same results though, given it's a computer game, and not actually real life. 

My advice to you, for what it's worth, is to try and simply enjoy the game with the tools you have.  

Fair enough mate I will let this discussion rest , hope everyone has a nice day and enjoy FM!:D

Edited by kingking

Share this post


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

You guys are right i completely understand you can achieve 2 different formations through roles and instructions, however..

achieving 2 different formations  through roles and instructions has limitations 

  • The A.I Struggles because it is complex.  A.I doesn't achieve the benefit of defending in a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 when playing a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 because they don't have the intelligence to choose the right roles and instructions.
  • your shape isn't clearly defined and isn't strongly shaped, its hard to tell what shape the team is going for sometimes.
  • Sometimes Managers in real life don't operate like that, instead they tell there team to have a clearly defined shape such as 4-4-2 when defending instead of operating through roles and instructions .

You are right in the sense that the AI are bad at it. The fix to this however is to set the AI managers preferred formations as ones that include MR/ML instead of AMR/AML where appropriate. Not to change the entire tactics module.

It's a database problem, not a tactics one. Your point regarding the AI is valid though. Too many of them play a system with extremely high and aggressive wingers, most could use being moved back a strata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the match engine is garbage, goals only come from standards , counter or crosses.

 

AI Guardiola sacked after 6 months with City being 20 points behind the leader.

 

Says it all really about realism and state of the match engine.

 

I understand its a complicated thing to tweak it right but its ridiculous that the game is released every year with ridiculous issues and takes a few months to be patched to a playable state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...