Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

 

I hope everyone is enjoying the holidays!

 

I wanted to ask for some perspective on Fluidity in FM20 (or 19, after the "overhaul").

Just as background, like many here, I have been playing since the CM days, but I actually skipped FM19 (kept playing 18). Although I read about the changes at the time, I'm still learning the new system as I go.

I personally like the Barcelona/ Spain/ Guardiola system and a great source for me was a post from some years ago showing a fluid 4-3-3 formation. That has served me as inspiration and base for many versions and tweaks that I have been using all those years.

Then I get to 2020 that at the same time doesn't have the fluidity droplist and has the preset formations including tiki taka and vertical tiki taka.

 

First thing I quickly realised was that it wasn't easy to get the preset to work (even with tweaks) with my lower league squad, so I gave up and started from scratch. And secondly, I wasn't understanding what exactly was affecting the fluidity display on the left hand corner.

 

After some time with the game I started to see how it worked and decided to "force it" to fluidity. That was done by having 1 attack duties, 3 defend and 6 support, completely disregarding both the AssMan's suggestion of having 4-5 attack roles with Positive mentality and the rule of thumb of having "a scorer" (IF-a, in this case).

And the result was very interesting. Mainly, and summing it up, because the team got closer to where I wanted them to be (which is the same thing I was using in older versions) and it made sense again to use TI's that weren't working before (like shorter passes and lower tempo).

 

So, in general terms (because my point wasn't to create a "fix my tactic" post), what's your take on fluidity and duties in FM20? Any tips or suggestions?

If it's the case, would you point me towards a post here or elsewhere that could help me?

 

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fluidity increases if you select roles where players are contributing to the attacking and defensive aspects of play in my experience. Supporting roles etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been told fluidity is nothing more than game's system to count support duties and it doesn't afect anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

It's worth reading the OP here : 

 

Thanks, Hunter.

These are the first two paragraphs:

"

Team Shape

Team Shape has been removed and has not been replaced.  There has been a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about this tactical setting for a long time now, so it’s been removed.  Any functions it used to perform, such as adjusting player mentality or creative freedom can still be utilised but now we’ll be adjusting team instructions or player settings instead. Which we could always do anyway.

Team Fluidity

Team Fluidity is nothing more than a label attached to describe how we set up our players.  It has nothing to do with Team Shape and should not be confused with it – despite using the same naming conventions.  The way Team Fluidity works is essentially as a guide on how to structure our teams in a way we desire.  Prior to this there was nothing to help us set up our roles.  So for example – if you set all your attackers to attack and all your defenders to defend you’ll be playing in a very “structured” manner: defenders defend, attackers attack.  Now change everyone to a support duty and your team will be playing with a more “fluid” style; everybody supports each other.

As mentioned, don’t confuse this with the old Team Shape naming conventions, despite their similarities.

"

 

If I understand this correctly, though they use the same names (structured and fluid), the Team Shape has been removed and now we have the Team Fluidity, which is a describing label. I find it curious though that this stresses the importance of not confusing them, but I still think they show if your team will play in a structured or fluid way. The difference is that before it was an active setting and now it's a passive one.

 

4 hours ago, FMunderachiever said:

Fluidity increases if you select roles where players are contributing to the attacking and defensive aspects of play in my experience. Supporting roles etc

Thanks. As said, I did realise this.

 

4 hours ago, Mitja said:

I've been told fluidity is nothing more than game's system to count support duties and it doesn't afect anything.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept that the game would have the trouble of displaying this information to you if it didn't affect anything, considering that they've removed the mentality slider (and display) 4 or 5 years ago.

 

Though I appreciate the replies, perhaps I should better explain my post. Now using the updated term, I not asking what team fluidity is and what it depends on. I'm asking or trying to discuss how to use it, both in your favour or not to spoil the way you wanted to play.

And I've already seen both things happen in FM20.

For example: is it nonsense to play 6 or 7 support duties with an attacking mentality and have the AssMan complaining? Is he trying to help me or push the tactic to Flexible? 

Share this post


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

I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept that the game would have the trouble of displaying this information to you if it didn't affect anything, considering that they've removed the mentality slider (and display) 4 or 5 years ago.

 

Not sure what you mean but that's what you can read in the thread posted above. I had no idea about it too and it's not something I agree with, compactness of lines is clearly visible with fluid style also creative freedom changes with differenet fluidity settings.

43 minutes ago, thizaum said:

For example: is it nonsense to play 6 or 7 support duties with an attacking mentality and have the AssMan complaining? Is he trying to help me or push the tactic to Flexible? 

Just ignore assistent. But I do pay attention to how AI plays and follow those duty principles. 

Share this post


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

For example: is it nonsense to play 6 or 7 support duties with an attacking mentality and have the AssMan complaining? Is he trying to help me or push the tactic to Flexible? 

He is 100% trying to push the tactic to flexible, in my experience. Whether that is advantageous or not, I don't know, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thizaum said:

decided to "force it" to fluidity. That was done by having 1 attack duties, 3 defend and 6 support

Basically, the more support duties - the more fluidity. However, the level of fluidity is also affected by the mentality to some extent. But the most important thing you need to be aware of is that the team fluidity in FM19 and 20 is very different from the team shape of earlier versions. So you should not be (too) obsessed with the fluidity, because it's now essentially just a label. Instead, pay attention to:

- how balanced your setup of roles and duties is overall

- how different roles and duties create space for each other in attack

- who (and how) provides defensive cover for those bombing forward 

7 hours ago, thizaum said:

completely disregarding both the AssMan's suggestion of having 4-5 attack roles with Positive mentality

Keep ignoring the AssMan's suggestions :thup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ahmed.sg said:

He is 100% trying to push the tactic to flexible, in my experience. Whether that is advantageous or not, I don't know, though.

 

15 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Keep ignoring the AssMan's suggestions :thup:

But that's unfortunate, right? Why limit the options?

 

15 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

However, the level of fluidity is also affected by the mentality to some extent.

Yes, I've realized that. The same formation can be fluid under positive and very fluid under attacking.

 

15 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

But the most important thing you need to be aware of is that the team fluidity in FM19 and 20 is very different from the team shape of earlier versions.

Why "very different"? I honestly think that they still mean the same thing. It's just that now you are restricted by your choice of duties in achieving it.

Isn't it comparable with removing the sweeper strata and only allowing the libero for the CB position (and not to RCB and LCB)? Or the restrictions to the mezzala, carrilero and segundo volante?

I see this as a "nudge in the direction", not a completely different thing.

15 hours ago, Experienced Defender said:

Instead, pay attention to:

- how balanced your setup of roles and duties is overall

- how different roles and duties create space for each other in attack

- who (and how) provides defensive cover for those bombing forward 

If I'm pushing towards being more fluid, it won't be harder to balance roles and duties. I actually find it easier to balance when you remove the duty variable. If you set almost everything to support, it's not hard to pair a sitting midfielder with a runner.

As an example, I'm playing a wide 4-3-3 now. The only attack duty is one of the wing backs (covered by a DLP-s) and the only defend duty (apart from the CBs) is the halfback.

 

Share this post


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

As an example, I'm playing a wide 4-3-3 now. The only attack duty is one of the wing backs (covered by a DLP-s) and the only defend duty (apart from the CBs) is the halfback.

 

What mentality is your tactics? If it's Balanaced or Positive then you can play with another attack duty (Fluid) or DM on support (V.Fluid). That's how would AI setup. And you probably know more fluid tactics also employ shorter passing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mitja said:

And you probably know more fluid tactics also employ shorter passing. 

There is no such rule in the game. I don't understand why you keep posting stuff like that. Maybe the AI may want to play like that for some of its tactics, but it doesn't mean that its a rule.

Fluidity is a label nothing more.  Structured, fluid, flexible is now a simple way for the AI to recognise its own systems and play within some kind of structure.  While I do sometimes take note of the label, its only for a quick heads up. If I see a system is fluid or very fluid, I know quite a few players are going to be involved in transitions, I then look for the support duties as this is more likely to affect them. Then on higher mentalities I start paying attention to the more attacking roles since these are also going to be the ones affected by the increase in creative freedom. Does this mean that I want to balance the roles around certain passing styles? No. One can play defensive football with short passing or attacking football on short passing.  

What one should be worried about is the distribution of duties, making sure that you don't isolate too many players, forcing your players into attempting ambitious passes to draw them out. Here is when the duty is far more important and the role. Lets say you have an IW(A) on attacking duty playing off a DLF(S) and the rest of the team is on support. You opt to play a short passing game within a narrow system. Does that mean that every single player has to play short passing? The entire team can still play direct passing on a high tempo with narrow width. 

 

Share this post


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

There is no such rule in the game. I don't understand why you keep posting stuff like that. Maybe the AI may want to play like that for some of its tactics, but it doesn't mean that its a rule.

Fluidity is a label nothing more.  Structured, fluid, flexible is now a simple way for the AI to recognise its own systems and play within some kind of structure.  While I do sometimes take not of the label, its only for a quick heads up. If I see a system is fluid or very fluid, I know quite a few players are going to be involved in transitions, I then look for the support duties as this is more likely to affect them. Then on higher mentalities I start paying attention to the more attacking roles since these are also going to be the ones affected by the increase in creative freedom. Does this mean that I want to balance the roles around certain passing styles? No. One can play defensive football with short passing or attacking football on short passing.  

What one should be worried about is the distribution of duties, making sure that you don't isolate too many players, forcing your players into attempting ambitious passes to draw them out. Here is when the duty is far more important and the role. Lets say you have an IW(A) on attacking duty playing off a DLF(S) and the rest of the team is on support. You opt to play a short passing game within a narrow system. Does that mean that every single player has to play short passing? The entire team can still play direct passing on a high tempo with narrow width. 

 

From what I've seen AI strictly follows those rules. As you said it's nothing more than duty distribution, but for AI they depend on fluidity and mentality. Which also means fluidity is more than label, different movement patterns are clearly visible to me as well as lines being closer together with fluid style. But yeah I might be halucinating again. 

Share this post


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

What mentality is your tactics? If it's Balanaced or Positive then you can play with another attack duty (Fluid) or DM on support (V.Fluid). That's how would AI setup. And you probably know more fluid tactics also employ shorter passing. 

I vary all the way from Cautious to Attacking, making some tweaks on the way. Again, my point is not keeping the team Fluid, but actually seeing how the label affects my playstyle and what I'm aiming at.

The shorter passing is an interesting one. I actually think it's an improvement of this new engine. So far I keep getting worse results when I drop to short passes and/or lower tempo. The defenders take so long or play so safe, that they end up trying a long ball. With regular passes and medium tempo, I get better pass completion rate and possession. At least in the league I'm playing.

17 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

Fluidity is a label nothing more.  Structured, fluid, flexible is now a simple way for the AI to recognise its own systems and play within some kind of structure.  While I do sometimes take not of the label, its only for a quick heads up. If I see a system is fluid or very fluid, I know quite a few players are going to be involved in transitions, I then look for the support duties as this is more likely to affect them. Then on higher mentalities I start paying attention to the more attacking roles since these are also going to be the ones affected by the increase in creative freedom. Does this mean that I want to balance the roles around certain passing styles? No. One can play defensive football with short passing or attacking football on short passing.  

That's interesting. In this case, you're using the label for the opposition to read it better. I take you're all set with your tactic, right?

I was actually meaning our own tactics.

20 minutes ago, Rashidi said:

What one should be worried about is the distribution of duties, making sure that you don't isolate too many players, forcing your players into attempting ambitious passes to draw them out. Here is when the duty is far more important and the role.

Exactly. Let's go the other way. If I changed my roles to get a "structured label", how would you avoid the isolation? In my mind, the attackers attack motto will always create isolation.

 

 

Share this post


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

Exactly. Let's go the other way. If I changed my roles to get a "structured label", how would you avoid the isolation? In my mind, the attackers attack motto will always create isolation.

I don't think that way by thinking about going in a structured or fluid way.

Share this post


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

But that's unfortunate, right? Why limit the options?

You are not limiting your options by not following the AssMan's suggestions. It's your tactic, not his. You know (or at least should know) how you want to play and why. His suggestions are based on his tactical preferences, which can be totally different from yours. 

Share this post


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

You are not limiting your options by not following the AssMan's suggestions. It's your tactic, not his. You know (or at least should know) how you want to play and why. His suggestions are based on his tactical preferences, which can be totally different from yours. 

Correct, but I’m going to take the guess that every assman in the game suggests you to push towards flexible.

Right?

Share this post


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

Correct, but I’m going to take the guess that every assman in the game suggests you to push towards flexible.

Right?

You seem to have confused me with this guy

23 hours ago, ahmed.sg said:

He is 100% trying to push the tactic to flexible, in my experience

I don't care which team fluidity label (fluid, flexible or structured) my setup will get as long as I am pleased with what I see on the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, thizaum said:

Correct, but I’m going to take the guess that every assman in the game suggests you to push towards flexible.

 

Not always. Imo it will depend on your AM attributes, your team quality, opponents quality, league your playing, form... 

On the other hand flexible label is ''normal'' or most common way to setup duties. It also sets creative freedom to middle.

But more important than that is having the right balance of duties - enough penetration and support for given tactics. Which then brings up questions like when and why are different duty distributions more useful. 

Edited by Mitja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sooner the developers scrapped the "Fluidity" nonsense, the better. Does nothing but confuse FM players and the mods are given the load due to this nonsensical way of the developers. God knows why they used the same labels as Team Shape used...

Share this post


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

But more important than that is having the right balance of duties - enough penetration and support for given tactics. Which then brings up questions like when and why are different duty distributions more useful. 

This is the single most important thing about the game now. Fluidity won't be scrapped I think because its a tool used by the AI. Thing is at the end of the day, the human user can always recognise that at lower mentalities their team is using less creative freedom, and on higher mentalities a human manager can manipulate behaviour by adjusting the sliders and using roles and duties more imaginatively. The ass man has a playbook, human's just throw the playbook out of the window. The best players probably recognise weaknesses in some duty distributions and adjust their systems slightly to take advantage of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jean0987654321 said:

The sooner the developers scrapped the "Fluidity" nonsense, the better. Does nothing but confuse FM players and the mods are given the load due to this nonsensical way of the developers. God knows why they used the same labels as Team Shape used...

Why? You can't choose it anymore. It adds complexity. Why would there be any benefit of playing a tactic full of support duties over the more balanced one with more att&def duties? Take Liverpool vs City tactics for example, nominally same or similiar 433 but actually very different. 

Share this post


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

Why? You can't choose it anymore. It adds complexity. Why would there be any benefit of playing a tactic full of support duties over the more balanced one with more att&def duties? Take Liverpool vs City tactics for example, nominally same or similiar 433 but actually very different. 

If you go back to the original post, you are going to see that my team actually started playing better after I forced it to fluid.

Share this post


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

If you go back to the original post, you are going to see that my team actually started playing better after I forced it to fluid.

My point was something else I don't think we can talk about one lebel being better than the other without further tactical context. I just used it as example because traditionally FM used bigger variaty of duties than distribution on very fluid. Few years ago you would never see AI setup like that.

Share this post


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

Why would there be any benefit of playing a tactic full of support duties over the more balanced one with more att&def duties?

Because all the phases of play are related.  If you attack compactly, with less depth and width, and then lose the ball you will be in a more compact shape defensively.  Whereas if you attack in a way that opens large spaces and gaps then you are presented with a much looser shape when you transition to defence.  The function of space on a football pitch is hugely important and there is no getting away from it.  This whole thing has always annoyed me somewhat.  Also find strange some people's defensiveness on the subject or willingness to simply dismiss it.  Whereas a huge thing is made of roles but really its about attributes i.e. I can tell any midfielder to be a ball winning mid but if he's poor tackling at tackling and bravery then arguably its the "role" that's merely the label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Robson 07 said:

Because all the phases of play are related.  If you attack compactly, with less depth and width, and then lose the ball you will be in a more compact shape defensively.  Whereas if you attack in a way that opens large spaces and gaps then you are presented with a much looser shape when you transition to defence.  The function of space on a football pitch is hugely important and there is no getting away from it.  This whole thing has always annoyed me somewhat.  Also find strange some people's defensiveness on the subject or willingness to simply dismiss it.  Whereas a huge thing is made of roles but really its about attributes i.e. I can tell any midfielder to be a ball winning mid but if he's poor tackling at tackling and bravery then arguably its the "role" that's merely the label.

I really like this point.  I've been experimenting a CMa (or s) and CMs (or) d combo in midfield because I can use their individual attributes, with or without PIs,  too a better benefit for my team rather than, say, as a BtB and DLP combo.  

Edited by melogroovy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, melogroovy said:

I really like this point.  I've been experimenting a CMa (or s) and CMs (or) d combo in midfield because I can use their individual attributes, with or without PIs,  too a better benefit for my team rather than, say, as a BtB and DLP combo.  

This is the way I’m looking at arranging my midfield 3 in my 4-1-2-3, picking the basic cm roles and letting the players individual attributes and traits dictate how the position is played.

Share this post


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

Because all the phases of play are related.  If you attack compactly, with less depth and width, and then lose the ball you will be in a more compact shape defensively.  Whereas if you attack in a way that opens large spaces and gaps then you are presented with a much looser shape when you transition to defence.  The function of space on a football pitch is hugely important and there is no getting away from it.  This whole thing has always annoyed me somewhat.  Also find strange some people's defensiveness on the subject or willingness to simply dismiss it.  Whereas a huge thing is made of roles but really its about attributes i.e. I can tell any midfielder to be a ball winning mid but if he's poor tackling at tackling and bravery then arguably its the "role" that's merely the label.

Bravo!

That was exactly my point and why I've also liked to play in a more compact shape.

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...