Is there player roles customization possible in FM17 ?

[kpsia518]

 

After watch city game,i wanna ask.Is there player roles customization possible in FM17 ?

let said i want to make full back play as DM or CM,when we have the ball.
& i just edit player job on the pitchmaybe a false FB role.

 

 

 

 

 

[HUNT3R]

I'm sure you're very well aware that nothing has been announced, so you won't get an answer to this. I very much doubt we'll be able to do that in FM though. It would make roles pointless. We may have new roles to mimic the behavior though. 

[mack4ever]

Strangely enough this is something you could have done way back in the days of CM01/02 but not any more!

The good old days of having a With Ball & Without Ball tactic system.

[KUBI]

It was more a kind of cheating tool in the old days and did never work really well. 

[cpfcfm2009]

A bit off topic, but I have thought for a long while that I would enjoy the game more without players having designated positions set by the game. 

I would prefer to analyse his attributes and put him where I think he would perform best. 

example, I have had young players promoted to u18's and physical attributes in particular seem miss-matched to position (e.g. short DC's, slow wingers etc.)

I know you can retrain positions to suit but it takes time and is not always successful.

Not sure if this would be feasible but still...

[HUNT3R]

2 minutes ago, cpfcfm2009 said:

A bit off topic, but I have thought for a long while that I would enjoy the game more without players having designated positions set by the game. 

They have to have though? It's not a player's first day of playing football. He's been playing for a while in that position, so he will be a natural somewhere. Whether that's the correct position is up to you. Just part of management.

[cpfcfm2009]

I guess it is the idea that a player has a 'natural position' is the bit I don't like.  Or at least the fact that the game penalises you for not putting someone in a position that they have designated. 

and I suppose it is the time it takes to correct what I would perceive as a mistake is the bit that I struggle with.

 

 

[Sunstrikuuu]

10 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

They have to have though? It's not a player's first day of playing football. He's been playing for a while in that position, so he will be a natural somewhere. Whether that's the correct position is up to you. Just part of management.

Not necessarily.  One thing the EA NCAA Football series got right was the 'athlete' position.  In the recruitment phase, certain players were tagged as athletes; they had no set position and generally high physical stats and low technique stats.  Once they were signed, the head coach - the player - was able to assign them to a position.  There were a few flaws in the system but it was pretty nifty.  Those guys had all been playing American football just as long as youth team players have played soccer; longer, in fact, since they were 17 and 18 rather than 15 and 16 at generation.

Definitely some players will have been playing a particular position with particular training since they were six years old.  But others, especially in places with underdeveloped infrastructure and coaching, will be signed mostly because they're big and fast and look good at showcases and games.  But they haven't really been given the sort of high-level coaching to develop a real attachment to any position.

[Guest]

That would be an ideal method of simulating talent scouting variations from one nation to another, British football still has an issue that natural athletic ability is given more importance than a modest technical ability so such a system could have national weightings applied so to have coaches & scouts rate physical, mental & technical traits differently based on an underlying bias towards one of those three attribute trees, in England clubs might push a 180cm striker with strength & pace through their youth system while over in Germany it's the 180cm striker who is less athletic but has a better natural intelligence for the game. (other national stereotypes are permitted)

[Blarry]

11 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

They have to have though? It's not a player's first day of playing football. He's been playing for a while in that position, so he will be a natural somewhere. Whether that's the correct position is up to you. Just part of management.

Except this isn't true in every case. The DFB guidelines on player development, for instance, encourage players up until the Under-17 stage to try out as many positions as they like, to find those that they feel natural in. Positional skill and tactical refinement really kicks in after that, at around 16-17 years of age. Which makes perfect sense when coming from a biological point of view: at 14-15 years, the male body isn't yet fully developed, and more often than not, you'll find late a growth phase in this age, so that your 14-year-old who was rather large in his age group ends up being 5'7" after growing out. This leaves youth development in this age range in a weird spot, since at this point, you know what the players' preferred foot is and how he's doing technically, but can't really deduct whether he is going to be able to physically fit into the position you've had in mind for him - see "central defender, 5ft 7". 

What'd really give me a youth development nerd boner (which sounds horrifyingly creepy, I admit): instead of assigning your youth academy players "green" positions from the beginning, have them start with a broader range of "yellow" positions, with maybe a couple "dark green" ones indicating the player's favourite position. And then, judging his technical, mental and physical attributes, develop him "by hand" on the position(s) you want. Seems doable within the current youth player generation system, and would be much closer to the real life youth development process.

[cpfcfm2009]

Blarry...that is exactly the kind of genius thing I would like...I have no idea if it is something the computer wizards can make happen...but certainly far closer to the illusive "real life" we are trying to strive for.

[chocolatecoatedballs]

51 minutes ago, Blarry said:

Except this isn't true in every case. The DFB guidelines on player development, for instance, encourage players up until the Under-17 stage to try out as many positions as they like, to find those that they feel natural in. Positional skill and tactical refinement really kicks in after that, at around 16-17 years of age. Which makes perfect sense when coming from a biological point of view: at 14-15 years, the male body isn't yet fully developed, and more often than not, you'll find late a growth phase in this age, so that your 14-year-old who was rather large in his age group ends up being 5'7" after growing out. This leaves youth development in this age range in a weird spot, since at this point, you know what the players' preferred foot is and how he's doing technically, but can't really deduct whether he is going to be able to physically fit into the position you've had in mind for him - see "central defender, 5ft 7". 

What'd really give me a youth development nerd boner (which sounds horrifyingly creepy, I admit): instead of assigning your youth academy players "green" positions from the beginning, have them start with a broader range of "yellow" positions, with maybe a couple "dark green" ones indicating the player's favourite position. And then, judging his technical, mental and physical attributes, develop him "by hand" on the position(s) you want. Seems doable within the current youth player generation system, and would be much closer to the real life youth development process.

Similar to how Australia does things now as well and I like your idea.

 

[Powermonger]

I am not sure you could have customisable roles, as mush as I'd like it, as I believe roles have hard coding behind them in the way they behave.

[HUNT3R]

8 hours ago, Blarry said:

Except this isn't true in every case. The DFB guidelines on player development, for instance, encourage players up until the Under-17 stage to try out as many positions as they like, to find those that they feel natural in. Positional skill and tactical refinement really kicks in after that, at around 16-17 years of age. Which makes perfect sense when coming from a biological point of view: at 14-15 years, the male body isn't yet fully developed, and more often than not, you'll find late a growth phase in this age, so that your 14-year-old who was rather large in his age group ends up being 5'7" after growing out. This leaves youth development in this age range in a weird spot, since at this point, you know what the players' preferred foot is and how he's doing technically, but can't really deduct whether he is going to be able to physically fit into the position you've had in mind for him - see "central defender, 5ft 7". 

What'd really give me a youth development nerd boner (which sounds horrifyingly creepy, I admit): instead of assigning your youth academy players "green" positions from the beginning, have them start with a broader range of "yellow" positions, with maybe a couple "dark green" ones indicating the player's favourite position. And then, judging his technical, mental and physical attributes, develop him "by hand" on the position(s) you want. Seems doable within the current youth player generation system, and would be much closer to the real life youth development process.

That's an interesting approach. Worth posting in the feature requests section, I'd say.

[phnompenhandy]

Yes, I really like that. As a lower league manager, I have a policy of never buying and only promoting my academy kids, so I'd love to be able to do that.

[RTHerringbone]

7 hours ago, Powermonger said:

I am not sure you could have customisable roles, as mush as I'd like it, as I believe roles have hard coding behind them in the way they behave.

The main reason for not having them, is that it would give human managers an enormous advantage over the AI. The AI would struggle to use "open" roles effectively, whereas we'd know exactly what we wanted to achieve.

[Powermonger]

7 minutes ago, RTHerringbone said:

The main reason for not having them, is that it would give human managers an enormous advantage over the AI. The AI would struggle to use "open" roles effectively, whereas we'd know exactly what we wanted to achieve.

I think that is one of the reasons the old wibble/wobble was done away with eons ago too. 

[cpfcfm2009]

1 hour ago, RTHerringbone said:

The main reason for not having them, is that it would give human managers an enormous advantage over the AI. The AI would struggle to use "open" roles effectively, whereas we'd know exactly what we wanted to achieve.

valid point...and that would destroy enjoyment if the AI just couldn't compete