Custom roles

[ceefax the cat]

What if I want my TM(s), who otherwise is perfect, to come back and defend like a DF(d) to pressure defensive mids? I can't. What if I want my CM(d) to close down a little less? Can't. Etc Etc Etc. It'd be good to have the ability to build roles from scratch, from a list of the behaviours of other roles (as long as they don't directly conflict), including things like 'drops between centre halves in possession' that programmed in and not a result of normal slider settings. It'd be particularly handy for strikers because there seem to be a lot of greyed-out options when it comes to them.

[HUNT3R]

Ceefax, this has been talked about a lot. If there were completely custom roles, it'd render any existing roles pointless.

If you have specific issues with roles being too restrictive and you have good reasoning for the defaults to change or more freedom to be given (and I agree with the closing down less example) then it's best to raise in the ME bugs forum. Changes like that could be made at any time, so you may even see it in FM17 still.

There are issues like this every year, which then gets brought to SI's attention and many times, they do agree and make those changes.

I'd be interested hearing why you don't want to use a DF/D instead of the TM/S role?

[westy8chimp]

9 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Ceefax, this has been talked about a lot. If there were completely custom roles, it'd render any existing roles pointless.

If you have specific issues with roles being too restrictive and you have good reasoning for the defaults to change or more freedom to be given (and I agree with the closing down less example) then it's best to raise in the ME bugs forum. Changes like that could be made at any time, so you may even see it in FM17 still.

There are issues like this every year, which then gets brought to SI's attention and many times, they do agree and make those changes.

I'd be interested hearing why you don't want to use a DF/D instead of the TM/S role?

agree with Ceefax... the example of the TM vs DF, I assume,  is that in attack he wants the team to treat this player as Target man (attracts more passes than a DF) but then wants him to act defensively when the opposition have the ball (DF more mobile and tracks back/presses more than the TM would). Hope SI do acknowledge the amount of feedback requesting more engaging tactical flexibility, whether it be some new roles, or just greater number of TI/PI to influence the way we each like to press etc.

[ceefax the cat]

I don't think it'd render existing roles pointless at all, it'd just be another feature. It'd still be very useful to be able to select a normal target man, half back or whatever. You'd just have the added capability of creating something that didn't quite fit any of those categories. A bit more positional flexibility would be great too - maybe something like being able to tell someone what to do specifically in the final third (go to the far post for example).

Oh and as for choosing the TM/S, it's because I want my team to aim for him, and I want him on a support duty when I have the ball. It'd just be useful if I could also tell him to drop off and make their DM's life difficult as well.

[craigd84]

Ceefax while i agree with you, couldnt you just set the TM to mark the oppo DM?

[ceefax the cat]

Then you get the assistant manager whingeing at you that he's out of position. Plus if they're playing two DM's you're forced to leave one of them free instead of having the TM generally closing down and marking in their zone. Also, if the DM is a regista or roaming playmaker I don't necessarily want my target man following them everywhere. I just want him to sit in front of my midfielders and redress the numerical imbalance in that zone without the ball, picking up anyone who's attempting to play there.

Thought of another one - in a 3-4-3 I either want my central defender to step up into midfield or the two either side of him to have the freedom to join the attack if they're free (say, when up against a 4-5-1), so I'd like to be able to tell them to run with the ball to bring it forwards when they get the chance, or to make some forward runs. Not possible at the moment. The BPD is the only central defensive role with any attacking potential but all he does is try long passes and the options to dribble or come forwards are greyed out.

[HUNT3R]

That is something that should be made available to tweak through an existing role or a new role added.

 

I really can't see completely custom roles added. You're effectively asking for sliders to return and it won't. There's no point of reference with a custom role. Some players wanting to be played in their preferred role, or getting upset that they're not being played in a role they'd like etc all points to roles becoming more and more important and a custom role doesn't fit into that.

Same with balancing the AI and ME. Giving us a custom role that the AI can't use and that we can tweak to do anything is again giving us a massively unfair advantage. And again, what would the point then be of us ever using 'normal' roles?

[ceefax the cat]

40 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

That is something that should be made available to tweak through an existing role or a new role added.

 

I really can't see completely custom roles added. You're effectively asking for sliders to return and it won't. There's no point of reference with a custom role. Some players wanting to be played in their preferred role, or getting upset that they're not being played in a role they'd like etc all points to roles becoming more and more important and a custom role doesn't fit into that.

Same with balancing the AI and ME. Giving us a custom role that the AI can't use and that we can tweak to do anything is again giving us a massively unfair advantage. And again, what would the point then be of us ever using 'normal' roles?

re players getting upset etc - this is a bit of a blow for realism then, because in football all roles are 'custom'. Also it really shouldn't be difficult for the AI to recognise whether or not the role a player is being used in is very similar to the one he prefers. If almost all of your settings are those of a target man with an added instruction to drop back without the ball, it should not be difficult for the game to recognise that and stop the TM from becoming upset, for example.

The point of using 'normal' roles would be that in the majority of cases, they're absolutely fine. There are just a few exceptional cases in certain formations where it would be useful to have access to slightly unconventional settings, but by and large it's 1 instruction you're changing. A ball-playing defender EXCEPT he does X, or a target man EXCEPT he does Y. Another solution would just be to make more roles and instructions. 'Step into midfield' for defenders, 'Drop into midfield' for attackers or whatever, and don't necessarily grey them out.

[westy8chimp]

more malleable TIs/PIs will help this amongst many other tactical issue such as defensive line and pressing zones.

[Fosse]

I'd like to see player traits reviewed as some of them really should be player instructions too, like hugs touchline for example - If I want a player to do that it'll take six months with a risk of failing when in reality it's something a manager could tell a player to do there and then.

[Neil Brock]

Reviewed so locked.