FM limits my tactics!

[Minotti]

Been playing this game since, well, more than I probably should lol. With all the changes Ive seen through years, some very welcome and some not so welcome I feel that what I like the most about fm is the tactical flexibility. I feel that while some player roles are good to have I feel its too restricted in what I expect from the players in my tactical setup. Why do I have to wait for Sigames to come up with a new role (like the latest one being Wide Center Back) when I should have the ability to create that "role" on my own, based on player traits and what I ask them to do.

 

I just feel that while some roles are necessary to have I just dont see why we need to have roles that are set in certain ways, in EVERY position. I really doubt someone says to Messi/Neymar: you're the inverted winger in this game. And it gets even more restricted when I cant chose how much I want a player to defend. I've noticed that in older FMs, the inside forward would track back more defensively whereas it does far less so in the newer games. This is something that is just stupid cause theres nothing in that role that tells me exactly how much a player tracks back, or something else.

 

I couldnt give a rats ass about "Data Hub" and all that crap when I dont feel like I can have my team play exactly like I want to.

[FelixForte]

I always understood roles to be presets of tactical instructions, which have been tested and confirmed to behave in certain ways. I view them more as ‘templates’ or starting points. E.g if you want your fullback to underlap; you may well start with preset IWB and then start tweaking whatever instructions you disagree with. I know there are certain restrictions but I’m usually able to have the players execute what I like within a given role.

I think giving users access to a ‘open’ role with no preset instructions and full customization optionscould make sense for the hard core player, but may also lead to players acting in inpredictable or inconsistent ways. As SI mentioned with the introduction of wide center backs, they extensively test any roles (and I presume associated instructions) to check the behaviour of players in that role. An open role may be more exposed to systematic errors in the match engine

[higofagundes]

FM09 is the game for you!!!

 

I never liked players roles, this started in FM10 as an innovation, but i thought it was just a way to make the game easier for new players and limit who likes to make tactical inventions working or not.

 

print of FM09 showing that everything could be changed in a player regardless of the team's tactical instructions...good times.

 

[Andros]

I get what you are saying op, but that old system led to a few problems: 1) a small tweak could completely break the player and 2) exploiting the game.  

[wearesporting]

14 hours ago, higofagundes said:

FM09 is the game for you!!!

 

I never liked players roles, this started in FM10 as an innovation, but i thought it was just a way to make the game easier for new players and limit who likes to make tactical inventions working or not.

 

print of FM09 showing that everything could be changed in a player regardless of the team's tactical instructions...good times.

 

That was brought in to make it more realistic. Sliders don't exist.

[Footix]

If you think of "roles" as a set of pre-defined instructions, it makes sense. Although I don't like that some instructions are locked for the roles. It makes the system too rigid. I can no longer tell my player to do a certain role " - but I don't want you to run that much with the ball". Gotta go with another role, which may have other instructions locked in. 

I'd much rather have a "blank slate" role, where I could add the instructions I wanted. 

[Minotti]

On 16/10/2022 at 01:41, FelixForte said:

I always understood roles to be presets of tactical instructions, which have been tested and confirmed to behave in certain ways. I view them more as ‘templates’ or starting points. E.g if you want your fullback to underlap; you may well start with preset IWB and then start tweaking whatever instructions you disagree with. I know there are certain restrictions but I’m usually able to have the players execute what I like within a given role.

I think giving users access to a ‘open’ role with no preset instructions and full customization optionscould make sense for the hard core player, but may also lead to players acting in inpredictable or inconsistent ways. As SI mentioned with the introduction of wide center backs, they extensively test any roles (and I presume associated instructions) to check the behaviour of players in that role. An open role may be more exposed to systematic errors in the match engine

Thats the thing though. YOU understood it to be just presets. Perhaps they are. My other issue with it is that these roles doesnt give me a clear picture of what they will do on the field. How much does an Inside Forward in a AML position track back vs an Inverted Winger? If they even track back. Plus, the other problem is that sigames makes role based on what THEY think the roles function as. For instance, the roaming playmaker is someone who apparently needs to have good shots so he can be a threat and someone who goes inside the opponents box. I disagree with that. Xavi in his days was the best RPM and he had lousy shots, rarely got into the box and all. Just one of MANY examples. Plus, I want to be able to create my own "roles" instead of having to wait for a new edition of FM until I have the Wide Center Back available..... (example)

 

 

On 16/10/2022 at 02:45, higofagundes said:

FM09 is the game for you!!!

 

I never liked players roles, this started in FM10 as an innovation, but i thought it was just a way to make the game easier for new players and limit who likes to make tactical inventions working or not.

 

print of FM09 showing that everything could be changed in a player regardless of the team's tactical instructions...good times.

 

Oh yea I totally forgot about that lol. While this is something similiar of what I ask I guess, even this one is limited. I mean I like the current one. I just feel they need to have a lot more options then for instance just: "Press more".....

On 16/10/2022 at 04:23, Andros said:

I get what you are saying op, but that old system led to a few problems: 1) a small tweak could completely break the player and 2) exploiting the game.  

Honestly its a bad excuse to use. People who want to exploit the game will find a way to do so. I merely want a game where I can actually experiment with tactics and get my team to play EXACTLY like I want to. Obviously not exactly but its pretty demotivating when you see that you cant make a certain player act a certain way to save your life.

[Minotti]

1 hour ago, Footix said:

If you think of "roles" as a set of pre-defined instructions, it makes sense. Although I don't like that some instructions are locked for the roles. It makes the system too rigid. I can no longer tell my player to do a certain role " - but I don't want you to run that much with the ball". Gotta go with another role, which may have other instructions locked in. 

I'd much rather have a "blank slate" role, where I could add the instructions I wanted. 

Yes, I very much agree with this!

[el_manayer]

21 hours ago, wearesporting said:

That was brought in to make it more realistic. Sliders don't exist.

Attributes also don't exist

[herne79]

AI managers are a big reason why we can’t fully customise or have blank roles.  AI managers are nowhere near as smart as us humans which means we would have a massive advantage over AI managers when it comes to designing and using custom roles.  Sure we have one or two roles where we can do a fair amount of customisation, but having that across the pitch throughout most (all?) positions would be too much for the AI to cope with.

There is also a realism issue.  FM is based on realism and the roles we see are based (some better than others) on real life roles.  So yes, it may be a little daft that one match we say to AI Messi play as a Trequartista while the next match we say play as an Inside Forward, but the role itself is based on something you could say Messi did perhaps play as, at least from time to time.  This means it isn’t exactly realistic to think up and design our own roles if the whole premis of the game is based on realism.

Personally I’d love to see more customisation but first and foremost I’d like a challenging game but as things stand that wouldn’t be possible if we had more (or full) customisation.

[wearesporting]

26 minutes ago, el_manayer said:

Attributes also don't exist

But they are necessary for gameplay. Sliders confused far more people and as mentioned are exploitative.

[Minotti]

6 minutes ago, herne79 said:

AI managers are a big reason why we can’t fully customise or have blank roles.  AI managers are nowhere near as smart as us humans which means we would have a massive advantage over AI managers when it comes to designing and using custom roles.  Sure we have one or two roles where we can do a fair amount of customisation, but having that across the pitch throughout most (all?) positions would be too much for the AI to cope with.

There is also a realism issue.  FM is based on realism and the roles we see are based (some better than others) on real life roles.  So yes, it may be a little daft that one match we say to AI Messi play as a Trequartista while the next match we say play as an Inside Forward, but the role itself is based on something you could say Messi did perhaps play as, at least from time to time.  This means it isn’t exactly realistic to think up and design our own roles if the whole premis of the game is based on realism.

Personally I’d love to see more customisation but first and foremost I’d like a challenging game but as things stand that wouldn’t be possible if we had more (or full) customisation.

The AI not being smart enough yet is a fair point I guess and they wouldn't cope with it. Just to be clear, in no way am I talking about creating tactics/roles etc for the sake of exploiting a weakness in AI. I merely want to see my players behave in a tactical setiup as I want to.

 

Here's an example of a change that FM has made. I remember the first year the introduced the Half Back role for DM. I could then have two center backs and a DM with a half back role. In the game what would happen was that the center backs would stay out wide like RB and LB and the HB would turn into a CB when we lost the ball. I liked this version. But in the coming FMs I have noticed that the center backs dont act like that at all and leave me completely open on the flanks. Regardless if I put their specific rols to be more wide and so many more.

 

Its these "little" things that limits what I would like to see.

[(sic)]

On 16/10/2022 at 01:41, FelixForte said:

 E.g if you want your fullback to underlap; you may well start with preset IWB and then start tweaking whatever instructions you disagree with. I know there are certain restrictions but I’m usually able to have the players execute what I like within a given role.

Except you're then locked in with preset instructions, and you can't do anything about them. That's the case for a lot of roles. 

What if I want an Inverted-Wingback who will just sit more centrally, in the midfield, in possession. Well, he's got "Roam from Position" locked, so good luck with that. 

The roles are presets, and I don't see why they couldn't make it so the AI uses those presets, while allowing for players to customize the role how they want. 

 

We're basically at mercy of SI when it comes to new roles being introduced. Not just roles, but also tactical instructions, the way you instruct your players to move at certain phases of play, etc. 

The problem with that, is that it takes them a few years to introduce such stuff. In FM23 they are finally improving the tactical creator, when it comes to defensive phase of play at least. Before that, in FM22 we got the WCB role.

Yet there are many things still missing. WCB has been popular for years before it finally got introduced in FM. There are things in possession that you cannot do in-game, that are also quite popular in real life, especially when it comes to buildup phase of play.

Edited October 17, 2022 by (sic)

[GreenTriangle]

7 minutes ago, (sic) said:

What if I want an Inverted-Wingback who will just sit more centrally, in the midfield, in possession. Well, he's got "Roam from Position" locked, so good luck with that.

It's locked on defend duty only. Just for my info, why a player on defend duty should roam from its position ?

[(sic)]

36 minutes ago, GreenTriangle said:

It's locked on defend duty only. Just for my info, why a player on defend duty should roam from its position ?

No, Roam from position is locked for Support and Attack duties. If I used the Defend duty, he wouldn't be positioned as high as I want him to. He would just sit back like a DM would.

Edited October 17, 2022 by (sic)

[Dagenham_Dave]

I'd actually prefer to see less tactical flexibility and make it so the human manager can only do whatever the AI manager can do. Then, as the AI gets more advanced, more tactical flexibility opens up for the human player. Means the game wouldn't be as heavily weighted towards the player as it is now, and there wouldn't be as many of those game breaking super tactics as there is now. 

I suspect I'll be in the minority on this, however. 

[herne79]

5 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

I'd actually prefer to see less tactical flexibility and make it so the human manager can only do whatever the AI manager can do. Then, as the AI gets more advanced, more tactical flexibility opens up for the human player. Means the game wouldn't be as heavily weighted towards the player as it is now, and there wouldn't be as many of those game breaking super tactics as there is now. 

I suspect I'll be in the minority on this, however. 

Can you imagine the outcry if that happened and people found they couldn't beat the AI because their unfair advantage had been taken away?  It'd be glorious .

[(sic)]

47 minutes ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

I'd actually prefer to see less tactical flexibility and make it so the human manager can only do whatever the AI manager can do. Then, as the AI gets more advanced, more tactical flexibility opens up for the human player. Means the game wouldn't be as heavily weighted towards the player as it is now, and there wouldn't be as many of those game breaking super tactics as there is now. 

I suspect I'll be in the minority on this, however. 

Way to lose a lot of customers. I'd be the first one to never buy the game again if that happened, and I'm sure many more would do the same.

 

41 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Can you imagine the outcry if that happened and people found they couldn't beat the AI because their unfair advantage had been taken away?  It'd be glorious .

Ah yes, taking away features from the game, and limiting human players in what they can do. Glorious indeed.
The outrage would be absolutely justified if that were ever to happen.

[herne79]

5 minutes ago, (sic) said:

Ah yes, taking away features from the game, and limiting human players in what they can do. Glorious indeed.
The outrage would be absolutely justified if that were ever to happen.

Lost in translation I think.

4 hours ago, (sic) said:

I don't see why they couldn't make it so the AI uses those presets, while allowing for players to customize the role how they want.

See my comment above about why 👍.

[(sic)]

23 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Lost in translation I think.

See my comment above about why 👍.

Idk how I'm lost in translation. They said they wanted to see LESS tactical flexibility. That would imply removing certain things, or not allowing the players have as many available options, because the AI can't do the same.
 

If anyone wants to use exploit tactics, they're free to do so. They're not impacting your own gameplay in any sort of way. I personally never used those tactics, as there would be 0 challenge, and therefore it wouldn't be interesting to me.

 

In your previous comment, you said it's a "Realism issue". I agree, but because the current tactical creator isn't realistic.
You say "FM is based on realism" and I'd argue it's not completely true. It's based on SI's version of realism. The roles are roughly based on what exists in real life, but the roles are also unrealistic. You have very little control over how your players actually move around and play, because the positions and roles are hardcoded to behave in a certain way. The way SI told them to. Not necessarily the way they do in real life.

In real life, players aren't hardcoded like that.
A CM could drop in the left back or right back spots to help in the buildup, L/Rightbacks could form a back 3 to help in buildup. They wouldn't necessarily ALWAYS do that thing, but only when needed and when it makes sense. 
WBs in Wingback positions would often play as wingers in possession, often being the furthest forward players, being in line with the striker. And in defense, they would often press high, and/or drop deep to form a back 5.
Yet none of these are really possible in FM, because the roles are hardcoded to do certain things. So we can pray that SI introduces new roles that do these things, or that they allow us to have more control over player movement. 
I'd also agree that the AI needs to be way smarter, but not only the opposition manager's AI. The overall ME AI, the ways players react to things, their "IQ", etc. needs to be massively improved.

In real life, you could name a few different "Deep-Lying Playmakers". None of them would play the same. Not only because of their "attributes", but also due to tactical instructions. Tactical instructions that we do not currently have in game.

I'm not even completely for having blank roles. But I'm all for having more tactical and player instructions, in order to help us change the way that role plays.

Edited October 17, 2022 by (sic)

[FM1000]

Good luck OP, I have been arguing in favor of blank roles since the version that removed the sliders...

The counter argument is that is that if they allow blank roles it would be unfair to the AI...in a game where there is an editor inside the game allowing you to make all of the AI players terrible and your own player better than Messi LOL..

If they are worried about bug reports then make it a setting, like custom tactics tickbox that if you select it you can't upload a game for bug reports or something.

[XaW]

20 hours ago, Footix said:

If you think of "roles" as a set of pre-defined instructions, it makes sense. Although I don't like that some instructions are locked for the roles. It makes the system too rigid. I can no longer tell my player to do a certain role " - but I don't want you to run that much with the ball". Gotta go with another role, which may have other instructions locked in. 

I'd much rather have a "blank slate" role, where I could add the instructions I wanted. 

You pretty much have this in the basic roles. CM-S is a brilliant role for it for example.

[Footix]

1 minute ago, XaW said:

You pretty much have this in the basic roles. CM-S is a brilliant role for it for example.

It was just an example. Can't play a CM-S as a striker 

[XaW]

Just now, Footix said:

It was just an example. Can't play a CM-S as a striker 

No, but and AF-A or a DLF-S gives you a mostly bland role either on the last line or in the buildup. Also PF-S is quite a bland role. My point was there are quite a few semi-bland roles that should be easy enough to turn into almost whatever you want (within reason of course!).

I think more freedom in the tactical department is a good thing, but I also don't want too much game breaking stuff, at least if playing versus is going to be any fun at all.

[Minotti]

17 hours ago, (sic) said:

Idk how I'm lost in translation. They said they wanted to see LESS tactical flexibility. That would imply removing certain things, or not allowing the players have as many available options, because the AI can't do the same.
 

If anyone wants to use exploit tactics, they're free to do so. They're not impacting your own gameplay in any sort of way. I personally never used those tactics, as there would be 0 challenge, and therefore it wouldn't be interesting to me.

 

In your previous comment, you said it's a "Realism issue". I agree, but because the current tactical creator isn't realistic.
You say "FM is based on realism" and I'd argue it's not completely true. It's based on SI's version of realism. The roles are roughly based on what exists in real life, but the roles are also unrealistic. You have very little control over how your players actually move around and play, because the positions and roles are hardcoded to behave in a certain way. The way SI told them to. Not necessarily the way they do in real life.

In real life, players aren't hardcoded like that.
A CM could drop in the left back or right back spots to help in the buildup, L/Rightbacks could form a back 3 to help in buildup. They wouldn't necessarily ALWAYS do that thing, but only when needed and when it makes sense. 
WBs in Wingback positions would often play as wingers in possession, often being the furthest forward players, being in line with the striker. And in defense, they would often press high, and/or drop deep to form a back 5.
Yet none of these are really possible in FM, because the roles are hardcoded to do certain things. So we can pray that SI introduces new roles that do these things, or that they allow us to have more control over player movement. 
I'd also agree that the AI needs to be way smarter, but not only the opposition manager's AI. The overall ME AI, the ways players react to things, their "IQ", etc. needs to be massively improved.

In real life, you could name a few different "Deep-Lying Playmakers". None of them would play the same. Not only because of their "attributes", but also due to tactical instructions. Tactical instructions that we do not currently have in game.

I'm not even completely for having blank roles. But I'm all for having more tactical and player instructions, in order to help us change the way that role plays.

Thank you so much this is exactly what I mean!

 

In no way are the roles in FM a general interpretation of what the roles are IRL but what Sigames believe them to be and they're therefore hardcoded to act as such. This is why a role in one addition of FM can be very different from the next. It can be in small things like how they track back, how much etc....

 

I honestly dont even play FM seriously anymore, meaning I dont have a savegame where I find it fun and challenging because I know that whatever tactics I come up with, my team wont play like I want them to but roughly to how I want them too.

[Minotti]

16 hours ago, FM1000 said:

Good luck OP, I have been arguing in favor of blank roles since the version that removed the sliders...

The counter argument is that is that if they allow blank roles it would be unfair to the AI...in a game where there is an editor inside the game allowing you to make all of the AI players terrible and your own player better than Messi LOL..

If they are worried about bug reports then make it a setting, like custom tactics tickbox that if you select it you can't upload a game for bug reports or something.

Honestly its just a terrible excuse anyway. People who wants to cheat/exploit the game will do so anyway. I actually do use the in game editor in a lot of my saves. But I use it so I can dictate transfers for the big teams as more often than not in about 3-5 years they just become way worse and I lose the challenge. So I use the in game editor to make transfers that the AI wouldnt make. I always end up with making my opponents stronger than me cause its fun

[GreenTriangle]

So the idea is that would be needed blank roles in the WB L/R, AM L/R and ST positions, similar to those already existing for the FB L/R, DM, MC, AMC and M L/R positions ?

Or that would be necessary a "generic role creator" to include even more subtle instructions ? Because, for example, allocating "roam from position" to an M(C) having the "support" duty, you don't get a BBM but a kind of BBM whose movement on the pitch is slightly different compared to that of a BBM.

[kevhamster]

On 17/10/2022 at 17:50, herne79 said:

Can you imagine the outcry if that happened and people found they couldn't beat the AI because their unfair advantage had been taken away?  It'd be glorious .

 I want to know what this unfair advantage is.  I suck at FM lol