Football Manager or Find-the-Meta Manager

[scythian12]

I think there are two discussions taking place in this topic running on parallel strings, and neither is being picked up by the 'other' party in a meaningful manner.

1) Algorithms are going to be subject to optimisation, especially if a 100-strong party develops an algorithm to use by a 1.000.000-strong audience

2) The match engine in FM 23-24 favours attacking tactics. If you try to replicate 2012 2010 Mourinho, it ain't gonna work.

I am yet to find a proper answer/response/solution for

1) from "the game audience"

2) from the developers

 

Edit: of course it should be the 2010 Mourinho Inter I am referring to, 2012 Chelsea CL win was with di Matteo

Edited February 11 by scythian12

[santy001]

1 hour ago, scythian12 said:

If you try to replicate 2012 Mourinho, it ain't gonna work.

Mourinho can't even replicate 2012 Mourinho. Football has passed him by to an extent (like it has many managers before) and that's why he's no longer in that handful of top managers. Football in general right now favours attacking and pressing football.

[elt]

I think the main problem is that Gegenpressing is OP IRL and Ingame.

The big difference in game is that you can easily circumvent fatigue over a season unlike IRL, tired players play way better ingame then IRL and teams do not counter attack like they do IRL.

9 men going forward in every single attack for 90 mins would get demolished IRL but in FM it barely ever happens. I also think that the reason tired players play so well is the AI is atrocious at managing fitness so the game would be even easier if they made it that way.

 

Dont envy SI trying to solve this, Interested to see how the next patch changes things and how FM 25 does too.

Also to everyone saying this is the worst match engine ever atleast you cant win every single game you ever play just by putting an arrow from CM ---> ST

Edited February 10 by elt

[wazzaflow10]

On 09/02/2024 at 18:47, Brasilia88 said:

I've mentioned it in order topics, but the AI uses a code:

X=y+z-b (as an example surely, since the official code probably consist of a wall of text).

Therefore, people can meta the tactic due to various reasons: the source code not changing much (Gegenpress being op is a meme at this point), people having more experience with the concept of the game itself, people sharing their tactics and the list goes on.

Moreover, for those who are familiar with other heavy CPU games (e.g. Civilization, EU4) know that you can outperform the AI, because it is railroaded. It doesn't naturally 'learn' (yet!) from it's mistakes or thinks outside the box, which human players obviously do, hence the crazy tactics as seen here. Not even self-driving cars have this option!

The point I'm trying to make is that FM25 is needed for an enormous overhaul. How? It beats me...

However, people will (and should be able to) find meta tactics and training schedules that produce the desirable result.  

  

On 09/02/2024 at 19:04, Rodrigogc said:

This is what is frustrating in the game. I know many people just want to win, but as seasons go by you have to set many limitations to yourself because the AI will not push you. I play chess, the chess engines have already surpassed human comprehension of the game for decades, because the stronger engines play against themselves and keep learning from it. I mean, Kasparov - one of the greatest of all time - lost against a 1997 IBM computer. These days there are engines way stronger.  If something like that could be implemented in FM it'd be amazing, but I don't know if it would be possible.

Well the solution here is to allow a degree of learning from the AI managers. The best managers will fundamentally understand your tactic and look to exploit weaknesses better than the bad ones.

The real challenge is to prevent them from exploiting the engine in the same way a human currently does. If that happens then you'll get unbeatable Peps and Klopps unless you also exploit the engine and their tactic. And every time you do manage to exploit them in a new way they'll learn and start exploiting that too.

In a way that could be it's own sanity check though. Let some machine learning program essentially tune a bunch of tactical instructions and then penalize ones that produce unrealistic/unintended results to keep the AI and users honest. The engine change might provide more capabilities to check exploitation due to its modular methods rather than perhaps the monolithic behemoth they have been bolting onto for the past 25 years.

 

[whatsupdoc]

Another example.

Meet Salford target man Matt Smith.

Do you think, with his attributes, Matt would do better receiving low crosses, floated crosses or whipped crosses? I predict that regardless of his attributes, he'll do better with low crosses. 

                 

 

I put on some BS meta 4231 tactic. Direct all crosses to Smith. 

Holiday test season 24/25 nine times with low, floated and whipped crosses the only change. Results were:

 

Tests on low crosses:

 

Tests on floated crosses:

 

Tests on whipped crosses:

 

So the question is, when you're wondering how to set up - should you look at the attributes your players have? Should you try to apply logic or common sense? Because a player with TWO for acceleration and agility, and 16-20 for heading related stats, probably scores more goals receiving low crosses.

 

PS. Using the BS meta 4231 system, Salford won the league comfortably in all 9 tests. Media prediction = 8th. 

PPS. The test isn't deisgned to be definitive but rather to provoke conversation. I'm happy to try to make it definitive if anyone wants to suggest a number of tests that would be required to show this as malfunctioning. 

 

PPPS. You can see a similar example (a 17 year old backup GK scoring in the EPL from low crosses here): https://community.sigames.com/forums/topic/579205-football-manager-2024-official-feedback-thread/?do=findComment&comment=14282842

 

 

Edited February 15 by whatsupdoc

[Brasilia88]

On 11/02/2024 at 12:22, wazzaflow10 said:

Well the solution here is to allow a degree of learning from the AI managers. The best managers will fundamentally understand your tactic and look to exploit weaknesses better than the bad ones.

The real challenge is to prevent them from exploiting the engine in the same way a human currently does. If that happens then you'll get unbeatable Peps and Klopps unless you also exploit the engine and their tactic. And every time you do manage to exploit them in a new way they'll learn and start exploiting that too.

In a way that could be it's own sanity check though. Let some machine learning program essentially tune a bunch of tactical instructions and then penalize ones that produce unrealistic/unintended results to keep the AI and users honest. The engine change might provide more capabilities to check exploitation due to its modular methods rather than perhaps the monolithic behemoth they have been bolting onto for the past 25 years.

 

I agree that the AI needs to improve, but FM as we know it would change drastically. This is due to the adaptations you'd have to make to the game. Now it's kind of a Dungeons and Dragons principle: Roll 20 and you can dribble the FB. Roll a 9 and he passes the ball, however opponent rolls a 12 and intercepts the ball. The rolls are all based on stats of the player and what not. 

To make it more flexible, you'd need human input, since any AI (and I really mean any) is incapable of making its' own decisions. Even fully 'autonomous' cars work from this principle. They function through thousands of inputs (photos, commands, pathways etc.), thus having a 'railroaded' system.

Coming back to the game, this human input could be focused on less tactics BEFORE the game and MORE during the game. However, no system is flawless and I reckon that within a month this new system is implemented guides are available online. Conclusion: any kind of system which heavily relies on calculations is a prisoner of its' own system. 

 

[wazzaflow10]

27 minutes ago, Brasilia88 said:

I agree that the AI needs to improve, but FM as we know it would change drastically. This is due to the adaptations you'd have to make to the game. Now it's kind of a Dungeons and Dragons principle: Roll 20 and you can dribble the FB. Roll a 9 and he passes the ball, however opponent rolls a 12 and intercepts the ball. The rolls are all based on stats of the player and what not.

That's just the match engine though and there's no other way to do it really without making it a computational monster.

That said the AI managers can be much more aggressive in countering your tactics. If you're playing too top heavy they should react to that after a period of time based on their talent and their player's talent. You never let them solve the engine in the same way chess bots solve chess but you allow them to take a player input and rebalance the odds a bit. How much the "learn" about the engine and your tactic is based on how good they are. It would be incredibly difficult to do in practice but that would make the game much harder at the top leagues if you don;t knw what you're doing.

 

Edited February 14 by wazzaflow10
weird paste

[wazzaflow10]

2 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

Another example.

Meet Salford target man Matt Smith.

Do you think, with his attributes, Matt would do better receiving low crosses, floated crosses or whipped crosses? I predict that regardless of his attributes, he'll do better with low crosses. 

                 

 

I put on some BS meta 4231 tactic. Direct all crosses to Smith. 

Holiday test season 24/25 nine times with low, floated and whipped crosses the only change. Results were:

 

Tests on low crosses:

 

Tests on floated crosses:

 

Tests on whipped crosses:

So the lesson is, when you're wondering how to set up - don't look at the attributes your players have. Don't attempt to apply common sense. Because a player with TWO for acceleration and agility, and 16-20 for heading related stats, will score more goals receiving low crosses.

Ask what the meta is and apply it, because attributes have no power to compete with it.

 

PS. Using the BS meta 4231 system, Salford won the league comfortably in all 9 tests. Media prediction = 8th. 

PPS. You can see a similar example (a 17 year old backup GK scoring in the EPL from low crosses here): https://community.sigames.com/forums/topic/579205-football-manager-2024-official-feedback-thread/?do=findComment&comment=14282842

PPPS. Feel free to test this for yourself and add results. 9 seasons is nothing. It's season 1. I'm using the Feb 1 FMinside data update, no changes apart from that. 

 

Don't take this the wrong way but running a test based on 3 trials is virtually meaningless. Especially considering you got just about equal xG's. The box you're checking isn't do always rule. Its a preference. If you have high creative freedom your players might float crosses more since he's better in the air. The better test would be to see what kind of crosses were played into him and calculate xG that way. You'll also have to account for crosses he missed which makes this very difficult because you don't know if the cross was intended for him or not.

[whatsupdoc]

3 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

Don't take this the wrong way but running a test based on 3 trials is virtually meaningless. Especially considering you got just about equal xG's. The box you're checking isn't do always rule. Its a preference. If you have high creative freedom your players might float crosses more since he's better in the air. The better test would be to see what kind of crosses were played into him and calculate xG that way. You'll also have to account for crosses he missed which makes this very difficult because you don't know if the cross was intended for him or not.

As I said at the bottom 9 tests is not much but it's not meaningless. Especially when the relevant attributes are so extremely distributed.

"Just about equal Xgs" averaged out to a difference of about 12 goals a season for one player.

The tactic doesn't have high creative freedom. 

 

Edited February 15 by whatsupdoc

[Etebaer]

In the end this is a game!

You can RP it like real Football, make rules for yourself to limit yourself what real Football resembles to you.

You can try to find weaknesses in the ME and exploit it to your hearts content.

 

I honestly find the tactic that the OP posted not that weird - this game is our football reality as managers where our matches happen and our wins and losses.

Not adapting to this reality means ignoring the very reality our virtual manager lifes happen in!

 

I can see why the tactic the OP posted may work with the right players in the right positions and i see no harm to use it if you want.

Not that i ever would do that bcs it does not resemble my philosophy of football - i want my team work as one cohesive block between the two anchorpoints of the game that is my and the oposite box/goal.

You have to secure all the time your box/goal while also endanger the oposite box/goal which means 1 player each aka the GK and a Striker/Goalgetter which leaves you 9 players for the cohesive block and that is what i try to achieve with the means the games tactical menu offers me.

I have made the joke (based on some truth) that my formation is not a 4-1-3-2/3-5-2/5-3-2/2-3-5 but philosophically spoken its a 1-9-1 where all players are involved all the time.

That is my way to think football but that does not mean its the ultmiate truth or tactic but i will stand to it as i see it the best fit for me - albeit there are many more philosophys and thought schools.

I for example would never use Wingers or players that play in the Winger position bcs they do not participate in my cohesive 9 player block but depend on the other players to do the "block" work for them.

If you have the rare worldclass Winger they will show their worth in making you win games paying back with success the fact that the team needs to carry the Wingers in every other situation as they are little involved in everything else than playing their winger role.

How often do i dominate a team and then a single outstanding winger does an individual action playing out 3, 4, 5 of my players scoring the winner for their team.

Also its an easy to understand visually tactic where you can have great success with little thought and it especially does not challenge the intelligence of the ME too much.

The ME as good and advanced it is doing so many things right sometimes falls into traps where it can not handle your intentions and does instead idiotic things - Winger Formations usualy are so simple that the ME can handle them well regardless how demanding on the team they are.

Usually, when i see Streamers struggle they will try all tactical kind of things out and finally fall back to such a formation and all of the sudden their problems disapear or at least are mitigated.

 

There are much more exploitative tactics around some probably shown in the screenshots in this thread while some of them i deem snake oil but then in the end so much is depending on the player personal.

 

But the OPs posted tactic does not concern me at all - the manager adapted to the perceived match reality and it works out as it does!

Edited February 15 by Etebaer

[whatsupdoc]

8 hours ago, wazzaflow10 said:

Don't take this the wrong way but running a test based on 3 trials is virtually meaningless. Especially considering you got just about equal xG's. The box you're checking isn't do always rule. Its a preference. If you have high creative freedom your players might float crosses more since he's better in the air. The better test would be to see what kind of crosses were played into him and calculate xG that way. You'll also have to account for crosses he missed which makes this very difficult because you don't know if the cross was intended for him or not.

Just out of interest... how many tests would it take to show that the 35 year old beam pole with 2 for acceleration and agility preferring low crosses is an issue?

Would 45 seasons be enough? (15 for each crossing type)

[Aoyao]

LET FM23 GO.

It's time to FM25.

[Muja]

Il 9/2/2024 in 12:45 , CaptainSa ha scritto:

This is one of them. There are plenty of tactics and styles that are viable to succeed with.

I mean, just look at the preset tactics.

One would expect, given that the programmers themselves provide these preset tactics, that they have been tested and ensure the ability to quickly use the desired style with at least acceptable success.
After all, the preset tactics were created for this very purpose, to cater to newcomers, right?
And when you look at them, indeed, they seem sensible in theory, reflecting what all the game manuals tell you.

But then... even if you have the right players for them, even if your assistant suggests to use them, THEY DON'T WORK. They are TERRIBLE.
They have been tested in FM Arena this year, and they are undoubtedly the tactics with the worst performance.
(All except for gegenpress, of course - which isn't really "meta," but still ensures acceptable results, unlike all the others).

I wonder, how much would it cost SI to hire just ONE tester whose sole job is to create preset tactics for every style, test them, and ensure they work at least decently (provided you have the right players, of course)?
Why don't they do it?

I fear that the most obvious answer is the right one:
the tactics built following the logic THAT THE GAME ITSELF ADVISES, do not work.
And this says plenty about the current state of the ME, doesn't it?

[smithy20]

Can't stand knap tactics, baffling how people find it fun using them.

[Rodrigogc]

The fact is that FM is still way too far from reality. You get good results cause of tactics and good morale/happiness, when IRL teams get good results due to training and quality of players. Training in FM has no connection with tactics, that I find bizarre. 

In my opinion, the training system needs a revamp. I've been playing FM for years without even touching the training sessions and been successful. In fact, I think if I dare to mess with trainings I would jeopardize my team performance. The mere fact that you can simply skip training and let it default and still achieve success is already something to be looked upon.

Edited February 15 by Rodrigogc

[herne79]

2 hours ago, Muja said:

I mean, just look at the preset tactics.

One would expect, given that the programmers themselves provide these preset tactics, that they have been tested and ensure the ability to quickly use the desired style with at least acceptable success.
After all, the preset tactics were created for this very purpose, to cater to newcomers, right?
And when you look at them, indeed, they seem sensible in theory, reflecting what all the game manuals tell you.

But then... even if you have the right players for them, even if your assistant suggests to use them, THEY DON'T WORK. They are TERRIBLE.
They have been tested in FM Arena this year, and they are undoubtedly the tactics with the worst performance.
(All except for gegenpress, of course - which isn't really "meta," but still ensures acceptable results, unlike all the others).

I wonder, how much would it cost SI to hire just ONE tester whose sole job is to create preset tactics for every style, test them, and ensure they work at least decently (provided you have the right players, of course)?
Why don't they do it?

I fear that the most obvious answer is the right one:
the tactics built following the logic THAT THE GAME ITSELF ADVISES, do not work.
And this says plenty about the current state of the ME, doesn't it?

I’m afraid all of this is incorrect, probably stemming from a lack of communication in the game.

The presets have been tested (I was one who helped test them before release).  The issue is the tactics are not designed to be plug and play.  They’re not supposed to just work with whatever team you use them with or the players you have.  They’re designed as a starting point only, not the finished article.  Something for us managers to adapt as we see fit.  In the main, they are nothing more than a way to give us ideas of how we may be able to go about a certain style.  Some of them (such as park the bus) are only supposed to be used situationally as a starting point to address a specific issue during a match (such as seeing a close game out).  Or to perhaps change to a different style during a match.  Most certainly not to be used week in week out for 90mins.

So yeh, some of them are pretty poor if used like that, so testing them in FM Arena is pointless because they’re not designed to be the finished article or even to be used for full matches in some cases.  And if you wonder why SI test and release something “terrible”, well some people like more of a challenge.  SI don’t spoon feed us - they’ve given us something to start with and if it doesn’t work it’s then up to us to adapt.  It’s part of the challenge.  Every single one of those presets can indeed to be made to work however some may require more adapting than others.  That could be better communicated.

So this has nothing to do with following logic that the game itself advises as you put it - it’s about a starting point and a challenge.  SI have plenty of testers, just perhaps not enough communication to ensure us users don’t misunderstand what something is for.

[wazzaflow10]

12 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

As I said at the bottom 9 tests is not much but it's not meaningless. Especially when the relevant attributes are so extremely distributed.

Statistically it is. You can't conclude anything let alone test a hypothesis on 3 trials even under the best circumstances.

The biggest issue is we don't know how he scored his goals. I'd like to see a table of low, whipped, floated showing number of opportunities (i.e. how many times was a cross played into him in that manner including one's he missed), the number of shots he took from those opportunities, expected goals from chances with and without including times he didn't shoot (effectively zero), and finally number of goals scored. That's the minimum baseline exploratory data analysis task to even begin forming a hypothesis.

Counting if they scored or not based on a tactical preference isn't really a valid test that conclude he is scoring more from low crosses. It doesn't mean every cross is going to be low or floated or whipped. Have you considered confounding factors like low crosses might produce more corners and he's a monster on corner kicks? Or he's an obvious target for wide free kicks? Or that not every goal is scored from a cross? There's so many factors that you're not accounting for in this experiment.

12 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

"Just about equal Xgs" averaged out to a difference of about 12 goals a season for one player.

Yeah that's called randomness and why you need to run more than 3 trials per test. If the game kept a 1:1 ratio of xG to goals it would be easy.

12 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

The tactic doesn't have high creative freedom. 

You didn't post it so who knows? But I would consider using a "meta" tactic as a confounding issue as well. If this was something I was testing I'd try different variations of tactical styles to rule out that a single tactic is breaking the game in a way that invalidates my test.

7 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

Just out of interest... how many tests would it take to show that the 35 year old beam pole with 2 for acceleration and agility preferring low crosses is an issue?

Would 45 seasons be enough? (15 for each crossing type)

Unlikely it would be that low. There's so much randomness that can happen I wouldn't even know when results would start to stabilize. And that's assuming you're taking my advice from the first quote about what actually needs to be tested.

Also, unironically, given how low some of his supposed 9 "meta" attributes are, kind of pokes a hole in that claim too don't you think? By that test's logic he should be terrible especially considering pace is the biggest contributor of points gained by their own tests.

Pace (3), Acceleration (2), Jumping Reach (18), Strength (17), Balance (17), Agility (2), Anticipation (14), Concentration (11), and Dribbling (6)

[Muja]

1 ora fa, herne79 ha scritto:

The issue is the tactics are not designed to be plug and play.  They’re not supposed to just work with whatever team you use them with or the players you have.  They’re designed as a starting point only, not the finished article.  

I expected a response like that, and I was actually about to anticipate it in the first comment I wrote, but I didn't for the sake of brevity.

But here we go: can you tell me why are the preset tactics there in the first place? Isn't it to help newcomers who know little to nothing about tactics?
You say they are just a starting point, and that's okay. It's fair that the player should modify them a bit based on the available players.

BUT the starting point should constitute at least a functional framework, shouldn't it? Otherwise, isn't it a wrong starting point?
What help are you giving the player if the example you provide for building a tactic in a certain style is flawed from the start? That's not a "challenge", it's more like deliberately misleading.

Let's follow your example. They give us a preset to park the bus, and one would expect it to be a tactic that concedes very few goals at the cost of creating very little. To be used only when you want to defend a lead, as you said.
And then look here:



In practice, as it is, "parking the bus" and "catenaccio", the most defense-oriented preset tactics, are the preset tactics that concede the most goals.

"They are not meant to be used for 90 minutes," yeah, of course! I understand that, because not even the most defensive tactic can 100% prevent opponents from scoring, and in the long run, you lose the game.
But how is it still possible that they concede more goals than the most offensive tactics? They're actually the less efficient option if you want to defend a lead!

How are they useful as a starting point, then? What does a player learn from those?
Why not show them how a bus-parking tactic, whose goal is to concede as few goals as possible, is properly constructed instead?

I'm afraid that's a rhetorical question. 
To me, there are only three explanations:
1- it's not possible in the current ME
2- it's possible, but not even the game's devs know how to go about it
3- it's possible, but you accomplish it with instructions that in theory don't make sense and seem counterintuitive - so better not show them at all, as they'd break the immersion

Personally, I'd go with number three.

Spolier: in the current ME the most efficient way to defend a lead is...

Spoiler

gegenpress. You can even have a low block, but you'd better press as often as you can, always. Very much the opposite of what the game suggests and the most defensive preset tactics do.

 

[wazzaflow10]

41 minutes ago, Muja said:

To me, there are only three explanations:
1- it's not possible in the current ME
2- it's possible, but not even the game's devs know how to go about it
3- it's possible, but you accomplish it with instructions that in theory don't make sense and seem counterintuitive - so better not show them at all, as they'd break the immersion

you missed explanation number 4. It's really the best answer see below.

3 hours ago, herne79 said:

I’m afraid all of this is incorrect, probably stemming from a lack of communication in the game.

The presets have been tested (I was one who helped test them before release).  The issue is the tactics are not designed to be plug and play.  They’re not supposed to just work with whatever team you use them with or the players you have.  They’re designed as a starting point only, not the finished article.  Something for us managers to adapt as we see fit.  In the main, they are nothing more than a way to give us ideas of how we may be able to go about a certain style.  Some of them (such as park the bus) are only supposed to be used situationally as a starting point to address a specific issue during a match (such as seeing a close game out).  Or to perhaps change to a different style during a match.  Most certainly not to be used week in week out for 90mins.

So yeh, some of them are pretty poor if used like that, so testing them in FM Arena is pointless because they’re not designed to be the finished article or even to be used for full matches in some cases.  And if you wonder why SI test and release something “terrible”, well some people like more of a challenge.  SI don’t spoon feed us - they’ve given us something to start with and if it doesn’t work it’s then up to us to adapt.  It’s part of the challenge.  Every single one of those presets can indeed to be made to work however some may require more adapting than others.  That could be better communicated.

So this has nothing to do with following logic that the game itself advises as you put it - it’s about a starting point and a challenge.  SI have plenty of testers, just perhaps not enough communication to ensure us users don’t misunderstand what something is for.

 

[Muja]

4 minuti fa, wazzaflow10 ha scritto:

you missed explanation number 4. It's really the best answer see below.

I think that explanation has already been debunked. 
As I already wrote (you probably missed it),  preset tactics are not a starting point, as they don't make for a working framework.
And if they give you a wrong example then it's not a "challenge", it's more like deliberately misleading.

Edited February 15 by Muja

[Rodrigogc]

46 minutos atrás, Muja disse:

I expected a response like that, and I was actually about to anticipate it in the first comment I wrote, but I didn't for the sake of brevity.

But here we go: can you tell me why are the preset tactics there in the first place? Isn't it to help newcomers who know little to nothing about tactics?
You say they are just a starting point, and that's okay. It's fair that the player should modify them a bit based on the available players.

BUT the starting point should constitute at least a functional framework, shouldn't it? Otherwise, isn't it a wrong starting point?
What help are you giving the player if the example you provide for building a tactic in a certain style is flawed from the start? That's not a "challenge", it's more like deliberately misleading.

Let's follow your example. They give us a preset to park the bus, and one would expect it to be a tactic that concedes very few goals at the cost of creating very little. To be used only when you want to defend a lead, as you said.
And then look here:



In practice, as it is, "parking the bus" and "catenaccio", the most defense-oriented preset tactics, are the preset tactics that concede the most goals.

"They are not meant to be used for 90 minutes," yeah, of course! I understand that, because not even the most defensive tactic can 100% prevent opponents from scoring, and in the long run, you lose the game.
But how is it still possible that they concede more goals than the most offensive tactics? They're actually the less efficient option if you want to defend a lead!

How are they useful as a starting point, then? What does a player learn from those?
Why not show them how a bus-parking tactic, whose goal is to concede as few goals as possible, is properly constructed instead?

I'm afraid that's a rhetorical question. 
To me, there are only three explanations:
1- it's not possible in the current ME
2- it's possible, but not even the game's devs know how to go about it
3- it's possible, but you accomplish it with instructions that in theory don't make sense and seem counterintuitive - so better not show them at all, as they'd break the immersion

Personally, I'd go with number three.

Spolier: in the current ME the most efficient way to defend a lead is...

  Ocultar conteúdo

gegenpress. You can even have a low block, but you'd better press as often as you can, always. Very much the opposite of what the game suggests and the most defensive preset tactics do.

 

It is interesting also that Catennaccio scored as many goals as other tactics, and even more than control possession! I'd guess those goals came from set-pieces or crossings. 

In the end, people often say it is possible to play counter attack and low block defensive style, and I don't doubt it is. But it is a long route to take, too many things to consider, while you can simply put on a  gegenpress tactic and save yourself any trouble. Defensive tactics are punished too much, attacking tactics are rewarded too much. As far as I know football, playing and watching since I was 7 years old, defending is easier than attacking. Why is it different in the game ?

[wazzaflow10]

4 minutes ago, Muja said:

I think that explanation has already been debunked. 
As I already wrote (you probably missed it),  preset tactics are not a starting point, as they don't make for a working framework.
And if they give you a wrong example then it's not a "challenge", it's more like deliberately misleading.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/framework

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/framework

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/framework

I missed the part in there where framework said plug and play. Can you find it for me?

 

[herne79]

14 minutes ago, Muja said:

I think that explanation has already been debunked. 

It hasn’t, perhaps I’m not being clear enough in my explanation.

1 hour ago, Muja said:

BUT the starting point should constitute at least a functional framework,

They do constitute a functional framework.  Showing data of tests run when employing the tactics over 90 minutes and multiple matches is what’s misleading you.  Continuing the Park the Bus example, it’s a starting point which we are supposed to adapt to help us soak pressure for the final 5-10 mins of a specific match.  It’s never going to work in the way that it’s been tested because it’s asking the system to soak too much pressure over too long a time.  Plus it’s just using the vanilla preset tactic without bothering to adapt it - something which the tactic isn’t designed for.  It’s not the finished article so testing it as such is bound to give you weird results.

Like I said, the way in which these things have been communicated is poor.  Likewise the way in which they have been tested is also poor because they are being tested in ways they aren’t designed for.  You can’t test the effectiveness of a plug n play tactic if the tactic being tested isn’t plug n play.

Edited February 15 by herne79

[Muja]

1 minuto fa, wazzaflow10 ha scritto:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/framework

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/framework

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/framework

I missed the part in there where framework said plug and play. Can you find it for me?

Never said there was. The part you should be looking for is this:


"Focusing more on the clean sheet than on possession".
I don't expect it to be plug and play, I expect it to be solid in defense, as suggested.

But then, among the preset tactics, it's the one that concedes the most goals.

[Mitja]

39 minutes ago, Muja said:

I expected a response like that, and I was actually about to anticipate it in the first comment I wrote, but I didn't for the sake of brevity.

But here we go: can you tell me why are the preset tactics there in the first place? Isn't it to help newcomers who know little to nothing about tactics?
You say they are just a starting point, and that's okay. It's fair that the player should modify them a bit based on the available players.

BUT the starting point should constitute at least a functional framework, shouldn't it? Otherwise, isn't it a wrong starting point?
What help are you giving the player if the example you provide for building a tactic in a certain style is flawed from the start? That's not a "challenge", it's more like deliberately misleading.

Let's follow your example. They give us a preset to park the bus, and one would expect it to be a tactic that concedes very few goals at the cost of creating very little. To be used only when you want to defend a lead, as you said.
And then look here:



In practice, as it is, "parking the bus" and "catenaccio", the most defense-oriented preset tactics, are the preset tactics that concede the most goals.

"They are not meant to be used for 90 minutes," yeah, of course! I understand that, because not even the most defensive tactic can 100% prevent opponents from scoring, and in the long run, you lose the game.
But how is it still possible that they concede more goals than the most offensive tactics? They're actually the less efficient option if you want to defend a lead!

How are they useful as a starting point, then? What does a player learn from those?
Why not show them how a bus-parking tactic, whose goal is to concede as few goals as possible, is properly constructed instead?

I'm afraid that's a rhetorical question. 
To me, there are only three explanations:
1- it's not possible in the current ME
2- it's possible, but not even the game's devs know how to go about it
3- it's possible, but you accomplish it with instructions that in theory don't make sense and seem counterintuitive - so better not show them at all, as they'd break the immersion

Personally, I'd go with number three.

Spolier: in the current ME the most efficient way to defend a lead is...

  Hide contents

gegenpress. You can even have a low block, but you'd better press as often as you can, always. Very much the opposite of what the game suggests and the most defensive preset tactics do.

 

I think there are at least two major reasons why tactics which in theory look fine and logical fail defensively. First is that defensive side has been neglected with very little improvements compared to attacking part. Just look at basic marking mechanism when player will retreat to his predifined position after opponent passed the ball. Never you will see him chasing opponent to cut out the pass you can have Gatusso or Messi defending it will be the same. Even though pressing is horrible in FM it is still somehow more effective than defending with men behind the ball. Cutting first passing options, shifting and space congestion, anticipation, strange positioning etc there's plenty of room for improvement here. I bet it's hard for a game to look like real life but the marking mechanism I mentioned hasn't been looked at since the introduction of 2D.

The other thing is that the ME favours high intensity attacking high tempo stuff. I agree that top class football nowadays is intense and "attacking" minded but even Liverpool or City have to counterbalance something, nobody ever tried to max everything. You can play same intense style in EPL or in Vanarama league which is another big failure. 

[Muja]

4 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

Continuing the Park the Bus example, it’s a starting point which we are supposed to adapt to help us soak pressure for the final 5-10 mins of a specific match.  It’s never going to work in the way that it’s been tested because it’s asking the system to soak too much pressure over too long a time.

Come on.
What you say is true, of course... If you expect that tactic to win you games.
But a defense-oriented preset tactic should still concede less over 90 minutes, heck, over 1200 matches, than a tactic focused on attacking, shouldn't it? Isn't it a no brainer?

What about the counter-attacking preset? Still concedes more than possession preset, how does that make sense?

Edited February 15 by Muja

[herne79]

Just now, Muja said:

Come on.
What you say is true, of course... If you expect that tactic to win you games.
But a defense-oriented preset tactic should still concede less over 90 minutes, heck, over 1200 matches, than a tactic focused on attacking, shouldn't it? Isn't it a no brainer?

No it shouldn’t, because the preset tactic is not a finished tactic.  None of the presets are.

[Muja]

6 minuti fa, Mitja ha scritto:

I agree that top class football nowadays is intense and "attacking" minded,

True, absolutely true, and I'm among those who's convinced that that style of play is more efficient in modern football, no contest there.

And yet we have Allegri who brought Juventus to second place in Serie A while playing catenaccio even against the weaker teams of the league, and I'm not even kidding.
It's not impossible.

[Rodrigogc]

12 minutos atrás, Mitja disse:

I think there are at least two major reasons why tactics which in theory look fine and logical fail defensively. First is that defensive side has been neglected with very little improvements compared to attacking part. Just look at basic marking mechanism when player will retreat to his predifined position after opponent passed the ball. Never you will see him chasing opponent to cut out the pass you can have Gatusso or Messi defending it will be the same. Even though pressing is horrible in FM it is still somehow more effective than defending with men behind the ball. Cutting first passing options, shifting and space congestion, anticipation, strange positioning etc there's plenty of room for improvement here. I bet it's hard for a game to look like real life but the marking mechanism I mentioned hasn't been looked at since the introduction of 2D.

The other thing is that the ME favours high intensity attacking high tempo stuff. I agree that top class football nowadays is intense and "attacking" minded but even Liverpool or City have to counterbalance something, nobody ever tried to max everything. You can play same intense style in EPL or in Vanarama league which is another big failure. 

I think there is some sort of bias towards winning clubs. Man City and Liverpool have been winning in the last few years, so devs develop the game to suit this "to defend you have to attack" sort of mentality. The problem is that football is not made of winners, it is made of everyone else. Little attention must be given to Atletico Madrid, Burnley type of football, which is effective to what they are supposed to get in the league .

The winning club plays offensive pressing football ? You play that with Luton and you will achieve. Bizarre. There is no balance. Atletico Madrid plays more cautious football and is always finishing 3rd~5th in La Liga, try playing defensive with them FM and you are punished. I think devs should acknowledge that a lot of people don't play FM necessarily to win the league, so they will remember that football is not about playing the 1st and 2nd in the league style. 

 

By the way, Juventus was relegated in a save of mine, in the first season. Slow team, so... 

There is also a reason why Pep is always fired, FLuminense never achieves...

Edited February 15 by Rodrigogc

[Muja]

7 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

No it shouldn’t, because the preset tactic is not a finished tactic.  None of the presets are.

What's the point of having it, then? And how's a new player who knows very little about tactics supposed to learn from it, and understand what needs fixing on his own?

What does "not finished" even mean? It's just a more gentle way of saying that's a tactic that doesn't accomplish its intended purpose, which is to focus on conceding fewer goals, and it doesn't even serve to teach anything to new players because it's simply an example that doesn't work.
Who the heck would teach anything to anyone using only wrong examples? Come on!

[herne79]

Just now, Muja said:

What's the point of having it, then?

I’m really not sure how else I can put it now.

They are a starting point.  They provide a basic framework within which we can experiment or perhaps even learn from.  They’re not supposed to work out of the box, they are there to provide a basic entry point for us to watch during matches and make adjustments as we go (if needed).  So a new player (for example) may be able to come along, not know where to start, pick a preset and see how it goes rather than fumbling through the deep end of the tactic creator.  What there then should be, and what’s missing atm, is some further guidance of what to do next if something doesn’t work.  Other than randomly changing things, that’s missing.

9 minutes ago, Muja said:

that doesn't accomplish its intended purpose, which is to focus on conceding fewer goals

That’s not its intended purpose.  What you say there applies to finished tactics.  The presets are not finished tactics.  All the tests that you link use the presets as finished tactics, which is not just a fundamentally flawed way of testing them but just plain wrong and misleading.

[Mitja]

24 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

I think there is some sort of bias towards winning clubs. Man City and Liverpool have been winning in the last few years, so devs develop the game to suit this "to defend you have to attack" sort of mentality. The problem is that football is not made of winners, it is made of everyone else. Little attention must be given to Atletico Madrid, Burnley type of football, which is effective to what they are supposed to get in the league .

The winning club plays offensive pressing football ? You play that with Luton and you will achieve. Bizarre. There is no balance. Atletico Madrid plays more cautious football and is always finishing 3rd~5th in La Liga, try playing defensive with them FM and you are punished. I think devs should acknowledge that a lot of people don't play FM necessarily to win the league, so they will remember that football is not about playing the 1st and 2nd in the league style. 

 

By the way, Juventus was relegated in a save of mine, in the first season. Slow team, so... 

There is also a reason why Pep is always fired, FLuminense never achieves...

I think Cities and Liverpools should serve as extreme examples of how far to go with intensity but as I said even they need to counterbalance with stuff like lower tempo or counterpress instead of super high block. On the other hand more defensive minded tactics should be counterbalanced to ba a little more intense. One of the challenges should be finding these sweet spots. 

I don't play games but I doubt there are many where maxing out everything is the way to go or at least where it doesn't punish you.

Edited February 15 by Mitja

[Costav]

22 minutes ago, Muja said:

accomplish its intended purpose

The example is too extreme: you could expect to have some result when using that style during the last 10/15 minutes of a match trying to avoid to concede occasions, but if you play an entire season with the "Park the bus" tactic, leaving the ball in the feet of your opponents, at the end you cannot expect to have good results (unless this is the only way for you to make points because you are technically in high deficit compared with your opponents)

10 minutes ago, herne79 said:

That’s not its intended purpose.  What you say there applies to finished tactics.  The presets are not finished tactics.  All the tests that you link use the presets as finished tactics, which is not just a fundamentally flawed way of testing them but just plain wrong and misleading.

I would also add that statistically, when you decide to focus only on the "clean sheet", in the long run will will concede goals. 

[Mitja]

8 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I’m really not sure how else I can put it now.

That’s not its intended purpose.  What you say there applies to finished tactics.  The presets are not finished tactics.  All the tests that you link use the presets as finished tactics, which is not just a fundamentally flawed way of testing them but just plain wrong and misleading.

I agree with you that presets should be a starting point but what is a finished tactic? It's something for you and something completely else for a new player. How do you know when it's finished, are Knaps finished?

[wazzaflow10]

43 minutes ago, Muja said:

Never said there was. The part you should be looking for is this:


"Focusing more on the clean sheet than on possession".
I don't expect it to be plug and play, I expect it to be solid in defense, as suggested.

But then, among the preset tactics, it's the one that concedes the most goals.

So that was an affirmative you couldn't find it?

so we're back to explanation #4. Excellent.

[Muja]

2 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

They are a starting point. 

A starting point should be sound. Not perfect, but working. And then it would be the player's task to perfect it.
Preset tactics are no starting points, they're just bad examples that do not work.

3 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

They’re not supposed to work out of the box, they are there to provide a basic entry point for us to watch during matches and make adjustments as we go (if needed).  So a new player (for example) may be able to come along, not know where to start, pick a preset and see how it goes rather than fumbling through the deep end of the tactic creator.  What there then should be, and what’s missing atm, is some further guidance of what to do next if something doesn’t work.  Other than randomly changing things, that’s missing.

But that's not how it works, you see?
A new player will pick a preset, see that it doesn't work, won't understand WHY, won't find any guide INSIDE the game but contradicting info and bad, not working examples (the presets).
Then he either is strong-willed enough to try to learn things OUTSIDE the game, on youtube and forums and such, or he simply gives up - and I guess that's what a large chunk of newcomers do. Heck, even older fans, too. Most of my friends have stopped playing FM, and they were just as passionate as me.

If that's how it's intended to work, it's simply awful game design. 
I can't believe that's the case.


 

[Muja]

2 minuti fa, wazzaflow10 ha scritto:

So that was an affirmative you couldn't find it?

so we're back to explanation #4. Excellent.

Lol, dude, whatever you say.

4 minuti fa, Costav ha scritto:

I would also add that statistically, when you decide to focus only on the "clean sheet", in the long run will will concede goals. 

Oh, I agree.
But also statistically, you'll still concede less. It's not about the games won, it's about the focus of the tactic: defense.
Even counter-attacking presets concede more than more offensive presets. It can't be right, can it?
What's the whole point of choosing a defensive style if you end up conceding more than if you were gang-ho attacking?

Try and use the parking the bus preset when you want to defend a lead in the last 10 minutes, tell me how it goes.
 

[Rodrigogc]

It seems to me that the problem is not on the presets, but in the actual ME. Gegenpress presets suits how ME works better, simple as that. I feel like they can't take away the catenaccio and park the bus presets because it would be too suspicious, but the ME favors attacking systems and they don't know what to do about it, so they leave these uneffective presets there anyway.

[wazzaflow10]

13 minutes ago, Muja said:

Lol, dude, whatever you say.

Oh, I agree.
But also statistically, you'll still concede less. It's not about the games won, it's about the focus of the tactic: defense.
Even counter-attacking presets concede more than more offensive presets. It can't be right, can it?
What's the whole point of choosing a defensive style if you end up conceding more than if you were gang-ho attacking?

Try and use the parking the bus preset when you want to defend a lead in the last 10 minutes, tell me how it goes.
 

LOL dude you've had it explained to you in the most comprehensive way. Yet you still think some random website, that's objective is to break the game, is more informative than someone (not just anyone but someone's whos been a mod around here forever) and who's actually tested the game with feedback from developers. I feel sorry for you. But I guess if real football can pass by someone like Mourinho then I guess FM can pass by someone who's unwilling to listen to the game experts. Good luck in your travels. Hope you find your meta park the bus tactic soon.

Edited February 15 by wazzaflow10
grammar

[Costav]

5 minutes ago, Muja said:

Even counter-attacking presets concede more than more offensive presets. It can't be right, can it?

Let me add me something else: I am not saying that the pre-set tactics are perfect. They may serve as a starting point, and of course they need to be consistent otherwise what's the point of having them?

In reality, if you think carefully about it, it makes sense. The more you have the ball, the less your opponent will have opportunity to score. Then of course it all depends of the ability of your team to implement that kind of style. 

 

9 minutes ago, Muja said:

Try and use the parking the bus preset when you want to defend a lead in the last 10 minutes, tell me how it goes.

I do, from time to time, and most of the times it works. Then I cannot expect that 100% of the times I use I have the result I want, otherwise I would not find realistic the game. Mentality is just one aspect of the game.

I saw one of your comment regarding Allegri, and I suppose you are Italian: the park the bus tactic is like "Palla in tribuna". Nobody cares about the possession, you just defend the result.
Rarely you can implement it along the entire match (mourinho did it in Barcelona-Intern in 2010 or past year Bayer Leverkusen-Roma, semi-final Uefa Cup), most of the times an entire match like this is impossible to carry on

[Muja]

4 minuti fa, Rodrigogc ha scritto:

It seems to me that the problem is not on the presets, but in the actual ME. Gegenpress presets suits how ME works better, simple as that. I feel like they can't take away the catenaccio and park the bus presets because it would be too suspicious, but the ME favors attacking systems and they don't know what to do about it, so they leave these uneffective presets there anyway.

That was exactly my point, I wholeheartedly agree.
The discussion has derailed solely onto presets, but my intention has always been to use them to indicate that there is something wrong with the ME.

[herne79]

16 minutes ago, Muja said:

won't find any guide INSIDE the game

I know, I said right at the start communication is poor.  The example you give of the in game description is a good one to highlight, because it’s bad.

19 minutes ago, Muja said:

A starting point should be sound. Not perfect, but working. And then it would be the player's task to perfect it

Which is what they do.  I appreciate you don’t believe that but they do serve a purpose as a starting point.  You perhaps won’t believe this but we can develop effective defensive, counter attacking or whatever systems using them as such.  I’ve done so.  Some are less straight forward and may require more adapting than others, but that’s true in real life too.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying presets are perfect - there is room for improvement - nor am I trying to derail the discussion (you did bring up presets and gave an example of poor testing after all) but there are clearly misconceptions about what they are for and how they are intended to be used.

[wazzaflow10]

6 minutes ago, Rodrigogc said:

It seems to me that the problem is not on the presets, but in the actual ME. Gegenpress presets suits how ME works better, simple as that. I feel like they can't take away the catenaccio and park the bus presets because it would be too suspicious, but the ME favors attacking systems and they don't know what to do about it, so they leave these uneffective presets there anyway.

It has more to do with pressing is the dominant tactic in real life too. Sitting back and absorbing pressure for 90 minutes isn't effective anymore, if it ever really was. The game may take on a little too much english flavor but its not really surprising given who makes it. The idea shouldn't be that anyone can take any style off the shelf and make it work no matter what. That would make tactics and the ultimate point of the game irrelevant. Playing a style that is the complete opposite of the current trend should be harder to achieve and require a specific set of conditions to make it possible to achieve. The right players in the right system will make the difference. That's the ethos of the game.

Sure you can exploit the engine by doing a set of instructions that overwhelms it. That exists in every game ever made. If knowing those exploits exist or how to use them ruins the fun for people then they should stop going to those sites. In the 20 years of playing FM I've never once conceived a tactic as crazy as some of the ones I've seen on there. Its like a competition of who can exploit the engine the most. They're not playing FM anymore.

[Muja]

2 minuti fa, wazzaflow10 ha scritto:

LOL dude you've had it explained to you in the most comprehensive way. Yet you still think some random website, that's objective is to break the game, is more informative than someone (not just anyone but someone's whos been a mod around here forever) and who's actually tested the game with feedback from developers.

Yeah, dude, whatever. 
I've never been one to give more credit to opinions, no matter how illustrious, than to hard cold facts and logic.
Just above, you were telling @whatsupdoc that three seasons weren't enough for a test, and now even 1200 matches aren't enough. 
Not even a million will be enough for you, because you want to believe what you want to believe and keep your head in the sand.
Good luck with life.

8 minuti fa, Costav ha scritto:

In reality, if you think carefully about it, it makes sense. The more you have the ball, the less your opponent will have opportunity to score. Then of course it all depends of the ability of your team to implement that kind of style. 

I absolutely agree with you. And yet catenaccio sometimes lets a weaker team grab 1 point, or even 3, against a much stronger team. How many goals would that same weaker team concede if they tried to dominate possession? They'd have zero chance, right?
That's the whole point of defensive strategies.

12 minuti fa, Costav ha scritto:

Let me add me something else: I am not saying that the pre-set tactics are perfect. They may serve as a starting point, and of course they need to be consistent otherwise what's the point of having them?

That's exactly my point. As they are, they're not consistent at all. 

13 minuti fa, Costav ha scritto:

I saw one of your comment regarding Allegri, and I suppose you are Italian: the park the bus tactic is like "Palla in tribuna". Nobody cares about the possession, you just defend the result.
Rarely you can implement it along the entire match (mourinho did it in Barcelona-Intern in 2010 or past year Bayer Leverkusen-Roma, semi-final Uefa Cup), most of the times an entire match like this is impossible to carry on

More than just italian, I'm a Juventus fan. I hate Allegri and his philosophy to the core, though!  
And yet, he consistently carries on an entire match like that, more than that, entire SEASONS.
If you don't believe me, watch some Juventus matches from this season. But I won't blame you if you fall asleep halfway through the game, because it's truly a disgraceful spectacle.  lol

[Mitja]

Had a look at Catenaccio preset except for pressing intensity maybe nothing else stands out really. In theory looks solid.

It's defensive mentality which is a big issue there. 

[Dotsworthy]

2 minutes ago, Muja said:

I absolutely agree with you. And yet catenaccio sometimes lets a weaker team grab 1 point, or even 3, against a much stronger team. How many goals would that same weaker team concede if they tried to dominate possession? They'd have zero chance, right?
That's the whole point of defensive strategies.

By that definition though this is a team that is weaker and more likely to concede chances regardless of what strategy they play. So the argument there is not that defensive strategies are too weak, but that attacking strategies are too easy for weaker teams in the game to use.

[Dotsworthy]

5 minutes ago, Mitja said:

Had a look at Catenaccio preset except for pressing intensity maybe nothing else stands out really. In theory looks solid.

It's defensive mentality which is a big issue there. 

The first thing I do in most saves where my squad is still a bit mixed is use fluid counter on a positive mentality and it works really well.

[wazzaflow10]

Just now, Muja said:

Yeah, dude, whatever. 
I've never been one to give more credit to opinions, no matter how illustrious, than to hard cold facts and logic.
Just above, you were telling @whatsupdoc that three seasons weren't enough for a test, and now even 1200 matches aren't enough. 
Not even a million will be enough for you, because you want to believe what you want to believe and keep your head in the sand.
Good luck with life.

When you present hard cold facts and logic I'm sure the we all will listen. So far you've just been moaning about how bad you are at this game. Its okay. Its a hard game. There's a whole tactics forum that can help you.

I appreciate the well wishes for my life. It's going swimmingly.

[Rodrigogc]

3 minutos atrás, Dotsworthy disse:

By that definition though this is a team that is weaker and more likely to concede chances regardless of what strategy they play. So the argument there is not that defensive strategies are too weak, but that attacking strategies are too easy for weaker teams in the game to use.

But that has been the point of the ME flaws for years. There's never balance. To make defensive football look better, they'd have to handicap attacking, and vice versa. Probably the reason why it never gets solved. 

The thing is that attacking strategies should not be easy to use, meanwhile defensive strategies should not be hard to use. 

[Muja]

2 minuti fa, wazzaflow10 ha scritto:

Sitting back and absorbing pressure for 90 minutes isn't effective anymore, if it ever really was.

Watch some Allegri.
I repeat, I detest that style of play, but saying that it absolutely can't work is simply not true.

4 minuti fa, wazzaflow10 ha scritto:

The idea shouldn't be that anyone can take any style off the shelf and make it work no matter what. That would make tactics and the ultimate point of the game irrelevant.

Just the opposite, if one style works better than all the others no matter what players you have, that's what makes tactics irrelevant.
Just use gegenpress and play. Where's the fun in that?

16 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

"A starting point should be sound. Not perfect, but working. And then it would be the player's task to perfect it"
Which is what they do.

I'm sorry, Herne, but that's a contradiction in itself.
I absolutely believe that you can edit the presets and make them work, but how is a new player who knows nothing about tactics supposed to that?
Wouldn't it be much better if the presets were functional examples of how to use a specific play style? What's the use of examples that don't work?

Experienced players know what to change, but new players don't even understand why they don't work. If their purpose is truly to be a starting point, they currently fail miserably.