Why is FM so one-dimensional?

[Harry Bollsack]

I find tactics so white or black. For example, player roles/duties, like if you set an inverted winger or inside forward on "support", they will come towards the ball to receive it and wont make as many runs in behind. Then defensively they won't pressure the opposition as much as one on "attack" would. In real life, an easy example is Man city, wingers/everyone presses high, but in possession theyre all coming to the ball. Like why are duties 1 or the other? why can't i have an inside forward that supports in attack, but pressures in defense? Also, I don't see the difference between AM(L/R) and left mid, the world knows them as "wingers." The only difference between the mid wingers, and AM wingers are in defense where the "midfield" wingers help more in defense. Why not just have AM(l/R) and give them an instruction to "track back" more often or something?

It's extremely frustrating that roles aren't more fluid. In real life, pep's inverted wingbacks both come inside and stay wide throughout the game, it's not always one or the other. I really feel like things should be more fluid tactically. 
 

[turnip]

It's probably because your players are lazy and don't track back, while Man City sign players who track back when they're supposed to because if they don't then Pep wi

[wazzaflow10]

Its literally in the name. Support duty v attack. If you put wingers on attack duty then yes they're looking to attack not support possession in defensive thirds.

There's a whole tactics forum that will answer all your questions.

[HUNT3R]

7 hours ago, Harry Bollsack said:

The only difference between the mid wingers, and AM wingers are in defense where the "midfield" wingers help more in defense.

That is certainly a big part of it, since the formation you choose is a player's "starting position" and largely the defensive shape.

[DP]

My issue is with the terminology that I hope is changed in the overhaul. Nobody really uses ‘support’ and ‘attack’ as names for what FM is trying to describe. Most wide players IRL do a bit of both, rather than being set as one or the other. 

Let’s take Saka in real life; is he attack or support? It’s a bit reductive. 

[herne79]

9 hours ago, Harry Bollsack said:

why can't i have an inside forward that supports in attack, but pressures in defense?

You can.

However your chosen role/duty is just one factor to consider.  As @HUNT3R mentions above (welcome back btw) formation is important here as well, as are Mentality and the player’s own attributes.

So for example if you set an IF attack in the AML position with an Attacking mentality and use a player without much Work Rate, don’t expect him to track back much (if at all).  But start to feed in some differences relating to the above, and even if still using the IF(Attack) role/duty things will change.

Consider the overall effect in your chosen combinations of instructions, rather than just focussing on one thing .

[WizbaII]

I think I understand what OP is saying. For example, I want a forward who sometimes runs in behind and sometimes comes deep. What is the best role for this? I think it's a complete forward. The description for a complete forward says that he "transcends tactical instruction and should simply be allowed to do their own thing." Fair enough, but then there's a Support version and an Attack version. The Support version plays more like a DLF and the attack version plays more like an AF. Kind of confusing. This is not what the OP is describing, but the point is that sometimes there is a disconnect between what the FM player wants and the options available to the FM player.

To get more on topic with what OP is discussing, maybe it would be helpful to have more tactical options available to the manager for movement, instead of having to rely on roles and duties.

For example,

While in our own half [get in behind] [play with back to goal] [come short] [move into channels]

While in the opponent's half [same options as above]

While in the opponent's third [same options as above]

And there would be an ability to select an instruction twice, if you want a player to favor that instruction more than the other ones. There would also be the ability to select multiple options. For example, you could select all the options, then the player would choose the one that they think is best in each situation. One play they are holding up the ball, the next play they think they see an opening so they run in behind.

Right now, the only way to access some of the instructions above is through setting roles and duties, and that can make it hard to get a player to do what you want without them also doing things you DON'T want. Or they might only do SOME of the things you want them to do.

[Andrew Marines]

it's not even the terminology tbf.

hybrid roles that should do a bit of this and a bit of that don't quite work efficiently. not because the role itself doesn't work but cause you can't trigger a certain situation and movement. you're at a constant research of a specific movement and when you find it, other things will break

Edited August 31 by Andrew Marines

[pedrosantos]

3 hours ago, WizbaII said:

I think I understand what OP is saying. For example, I want a forward who sometimes runs in behind and sometimes comes deep. What is the best role for this? I think it's a complete forward. The description for a complete forward says that he "transcends tactical instruction and should simply be allowed to do their own thing." Fair enough, but then there's a Support version and an Attack version. The Support version plays more like a DLF and the attack version plays more like an AF. Kind of confusing. This is not what the OP is describing, but the point is that sometimes there is a disconnect between what the FM player wants and the options available to the FM player.

To get more on topic with what OP is discussing, maybe it would be helpful to have more tactical options available to the manager for movement, instead of having to rely on roles and duties.

For example,

While in our own half [get in behind] [play with back to goal] [come short] [move into channels]

While in the opponent's half [same options as above]

While in the opponent's third [same options as above]

And there would be an ability to select an instruction twice, if you want a player to favor that instruction more than the other ones. There would also be the ability to select multiple options. For example, you could select all the options, then the player would choose the one that they think is best in each situation. One play they are holding up the ball, the next play they think they see an opening so they run in behind.

Right now, the only way to access some of the instructions above is through setting roles and duties, and that can make it hard to get a player to do what you want without them also doing things you DON'T want. Or they might only do SOME of the things you want them to do.

That is precisely what i have been asking for in the new features forum. Instructions options should be attached to defensive and attacking both transition and organization.

[El Payaso]

2 hours ago, pedrosantos said:

That is precisely what i have been asking for in the new features forum. Instructions options should be attached to defensive and attacking both transition and organization.

I have been for ages wondering why there are so many instructions, such as 'get further forward', 'take more risks' and 'move into channels' when in possession and attacking and then you cannot basically give any instructions for the players on how to defend, like 'drop deeper', 'sit narrower' etc. 

[pedrosantos]

5 hours ago, El Payaso said:

I have been for ages wondering why there are so many instructions, such as 'get further forward', 'take more risks' and 'move into channels' when in possession and attacking and then you cannot basically give any instructions for the players on how to defend, like 'drop deeper', 'sit narrower' etc. 

Touché 

[jcafcwbb]

In the Midfield L/R you have the role of defensive winger - who I believe does the normal job of a winger but when the team is out of possession will close down the opponent full-back. I would like this role in the AML/R position but this does not seem to be available. The position should make for more aggressive closing down than the slightly deeper ML/R position.

[Birdman10piyu]

This!

 

Always said the same too.

I get it's not a perfect simulation of football so you just have to work with the ME's capabilities and know that the other AI managesr are doing the same thing.

 

I agree with OP. I'd like for them to fix up how we intstuct our team. Sometimes I need an "attacking" minded player to drop deep to recieve the ball VS just trying to make runs in behind.

 

SI should really just give us "attacking" and "defending" instructions. or IN possession and OUT possession tactics.

[turnip]

Yeah, but then the first time someone forgot to change one of their defenders to 'push up' and still had them on 'drop deep' and the opposition scored from a through-ball when the DL was 15 yards behind the rest of the defense, they'd be here on the forums complaining about why SI doesn't make it so that all of your defenders change at the same time.

 

We had 'with ball'/'without ball' instructions back in the day and people used it to make horrendously OP tactics. The same thing would happen again. 

[wazzaflow10]

18 hours ago, turnip said:

We had 'with ball'/'without ball' instructions back in the day and people used it to make horrendously OP tactics. The same thing would happen again. 

The game definitely needs to be "on rails" because of this. More flexibility = more possible exploits. The game isn't a tactical simulator. There isn't enough reasonable computing power to figure out how other players would react if you make your CB become your LW and your LW become your RB and your RB become your CM etc.. They test reasonable inputs plus maybe a few edge cases but you can never account for the millions of manhours that gamers put in trying to exploit a system. Eventually someone will break it.

That said it'd definitely be helpful if they had the where do players line up with ball/without ball based on your roles/formation and where the ball is on the pitch. If nothing else it verifies what you think you're selecting is what is represented in the game at least in a vacuum. The game should be easy to learn but hard to master. Right now its hard to learn and I think the forces people to look for exploits to win games.

On 31/08/2024 at 10:55, El Payaso said:

give any instructions for the players on how to defend, like 'drop deeper', 'sit narrower' etc.

Hopefully with the new game engine this will be possible. There's a weird blend of defensive team/individual instructions for sure. We have pressing intensity, marking, tackling for PIs but you cannot instruct a RB to sit more narrow without causing the whole team to sit narrow. I think it can be achieved via a combination of man/positional marking as I will typically instruct a winger to man mark a IWB since they don't do it naturally.

[pedrosantos]

That is also what has been missing for years, just an instruction for pressing intensity is very poor