General vs Specialist role

[Ivan787]

Hi to all,

since many years ago I read about the difference between "generalist" and "specialist" role.

I don't want to go in details about the different school of thought concerning this but I was always persuaded that a specialist role is more or less a "pre-setted" general role and nothing else. This was the main reason why I always had preference to generalist role, because they are more customizable.

Nevertheless, some observation with Fm 19 (in particular about players in MR and ML position) started to make me doubtful about what written above. Is this true?

For example, let we imagine to have a player on WM(a). If I set the PIs exactly to replicate the one "hardcoded" in Winger(A) can I suppose that player will play in the same way as If I set him as winger attack? Is this true/false also for other position/role?

Thank you

[FMunderachiever]

Ive often wondered this and would be interested in the answer.

Id be interested to know for example, how much the effect of a mezzala "getting forward more often" compares to a central midfielder on attack.

Does the mezzala have a natural inclination to run wider OR is it just a wider starting position to receive the ball (closer to the winger on that side) for example

[herne79]

Lots of roles have hardcoded behaviour beyond just PIs which affect how they play and cannot be replicated by adding a few PIs to a different role.  Mezzala, Carrilero, any playmaker, the Target Man for example.

Some roles can be altered to get them to play more like other roles, but very few (any?) will be exactly the same.  A CM can be made to play more like a BWM for example but there may still be small differences.

As a question in return - why would you want to take a role and add some PIs to turn it into a different role?  Why wouldn't you just use that different role in the first place?

[FMunderachiever]

Just now, herne79 said:

Lots of roles have hardcoded behaviour beyond just PIs which affect how they play and cannot be replicated by adding a few PIs to a different role.  Mezzala, Carrilero, any playmaker, the Target Man for example.

Some roles can be altered to get them to play more like other roles, but very few (any?) will be exactly the same.  A CM can be made to play more like a BWM for example but there may still be small differences.

As a question in return - why would you want to take a role and add some PIs to turn it into a different role?  Why wouldn't you just use that different role in the first place?

I usually do it where i like say 2 of the hardcoded behaviours but not another. 

Usually relates to taking more or less risk for me but there are others. 

Not running into channels would be another

[scwiffy]

25 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Lots of roles have hardcoded behaviour beyond just PIs which affect how they play and cannot be replicated by adding a few PIs to a different role.  Mezzala, Carrilero, any playmaker, the Target Man for example.

Some roles can be altered to get them to play more like other roles, but very few (any?) will be exactly the same.  A CM can be made to play more like a BWM for example but there may still be small differences.

As a question in return - why would you want to take a role and add some PIs to turn it into a different role?  Why wouldn't you just use that different role in the first place?

 

I would love to see a post or document listing the hardcoded behaviors of each role. I'm assuming the in-game descriptions just brush the surface.

[Ivan787]

2 ore fa, herne79 ha scritto:

Lots of roles have hardcoded behaviour beyond just PIs which affect how they play and cannot be replicated by adding a few PIs to a different role.  Mezzala, Carrilero, any playmaker, the Target Man for example.

Some roles can be altered to get them to play more like other roles, but very few (any?) will be exactly the same.  A CM can be made to play more like a BWM for example but there may still be small differences.

As a question in return - why would you want to take a role and add some PIs to turn it into a different role?  Why wouldn't you just use that different role in the first place?

Yes, is a good question.

I follow that approach because in my opinion changing only the PI less affect the tactic familiarity and efficiency than changing the role. Probably just this assumption is a mistake and everything fall down.

 

 

[westy8chimp]

1 hour ago, Ivan787 said:

Yes, is a good question.

I follow that approach because in my opinion changing only the PI less affect the tactic familiarity and efficiency than changing the role. Probably just this assumption is a mistake and everything fall down.

 

To add to what herne said, and maybe eluded to... Every role has a default mentality. So a wide midfielder might be coded to be slightly lower attacking mentality than a winger (there is mentality bar indicator within each role if you go to edit instructions) 

I think this is not amended by PI, just duty. So a wm-s won't be as attack minded as a w-s even with the same pi. 

But like herne said...some roles also built to do more than it says on the tin

[Ripamon]

On 30/11/2018 at 14:36, herne79 said:

Lots of roles have hardcoded behaviour beyond just PIs which affect how they play and cannot be replicated by adding a few PIs to a different role.  Mezzala, Carrilero, any playmaker, the Target Man for example.

Some roles can be altered to get them to play more like other roles, but very few (any?) will be exactly the same.  A CM can be made to play more like a BWM for example but there may still be small differences.

As a question in return - why would you want to take a role and add some PIs to turn it into a different role?  Why wouldn't you just use that different role in the first place?

Does the winger really have hard coded differences over something like a WM(a) with same instructions?

 

[DarJ]

2 minutes ago, Ripamon said:

Does the winger really have hard coded differences over something like a WM(a) with same instructions?

 

yes, the WMa stays narrower

[Ripamon]

12 minutes ago, DarJ said:

yes, the WMa stays narrower

Thanks for the reply.

But incidentally I've found just the opposite. From watching both of them on full match in the MLR role it seems the W(a) has a greater tendency to make that diagonal off the ball run towards goal in the final third. While the WM(a) is more likely to hold his width. 

It seems the latter is better at holding the width to allow an underlapping cm burst into the channel below