Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Two Tactics
Just goes to support that someone will complain about every single improvement that is made.
This one has been requested for a LONG time by many users, and now that it's done it's being complained about.
This one has been requested for a LONG time by many users, and now that it's done it's being complained about.
complaining is a big word I think... I think every new feature has advantages and disadvantages...
I like this discussion because I'm already more positive against the change, so keep on ;)
I like this discussion because I'm already more positive against the change, so keep on ;)
I don't agree with you..!
Even you are plus and you can see your opponment's defence line you still can't be sure that he won't change it before your match
Even you are plus and you can see your opponment's defence line you still can't be sure that he won't change it before your match
complaining is a big word I think
you don't think what red pirate is doing is complaining?
Lol, he threatened to quit! His first words on this:
I like the sokker very much I like to to make tactic every match, but this new develep would be bad.
I tell the truth, I am not happy. I am sad. I think I will finish the sokker, if they want this new develops.
(edited)
you don't think what red pirate is doing is complaining?
Lol, he threatened to quit! His first words on this:
I like the sokker very much I like to to make tactic every match, but this new develep would be bad.
I tell the truth, I am not happy. I am sad. I think I will finish the sokker, if they want this new develops.
(edited)
So everyone HAS to support this improvement? Everything has pros and cons and not all of us supported the idea in the first place so I can't really understand what's the point of whining about other people thoughts.. He has the right for his opinion and if you think otherwise then come up with your points instead of repressing his..
I'm not saying I don't want it (I agree with Seca on this matter) but you can't expect everyone to like it.
(edited)
I'm not saying I don't want it (I agree with Seca on this matter) but you can't expect everyone to like it.
(edited)
Now the "plus" is good because I see my opponent how to make his def.line(for example).
But in the 45.minutes, when he would change, what could I do??
Plus is not thought as a way to give advantages to Plus users, but just as a way to compensate to those who contribute to the game with some extra-features.
Thus, your argument is completely flawed, you are NOT entitled to have a "little" advantage by playing plus and the the devs are not required to "keep" that little advantage for you because you pay plus.
I can't believe the complaints in this thread... I really can't believe it.
Yes, everybody has the right to say what s/he thinks, and I am not against it. But I have also the right that what I've read against this idea is completely childish and lacks seriousness.
1) Already responded to the "PLus-advantage" argument (one of the worst, certainly).
2) The increase of random argument:
Excuse me???? What???? So, the point would be something like: "hey, I have enough trouble trying to imagine what tactic my opponent will use next time, I will have more trouble now... so unfair...".
The reasoning is false in a way or the other.
a) It's false because NOT ALL MANAGERS change their tactics game to game. So, for those who now don't do it, I can barely imagine that they will start doing it now. At the most, they would develop second tactic, some conditional changes, and will leave this combination like this "forever" as they have been leaving the only tactic they have developed so far "forever". In other word, in the same way you can see today what this team has made in the last 5 games and know what they are going to do the next match, you can see the way this team has used its 2 tactics the last 5 matches and you will know what they do the next one.
b) For those teams who make adjustments match by match, it happens that:
b)(i) Those who usually do minor adjustments (some throw-ins, corner kicks, the defensive line a little bit up, a little bit down), do precisely use ONE basic tactic with adjustments, which means that in the future they would be more or less as much "unpredictable" (or, the other way around, as much "predictable") as they are today. If you study the team, you will know, as much as you know today, that they will "more or less" play like this and/or like that, and you will have to adjust "more or less" your tactics. I don't expect that these teams will become suddenly revolutionary if they have been not revolutionary so far.
b)(ii) Those (few) who are completely unpredictable, those guys who today play one match a 3-4-3, next match a 4-4-2, next match a 5-3-2, next match a 3-5-2, and so on, there is TODAY no way to predict anything, so the fact that they will have now the chance of using 2 tactics with conditional orders will NOT make them "more" unpredictable.
Besides, as in real life, there is a key factor: at the end of the day, we are actually not "entirely" free of using "any" tactic. In theory, we can, but in practice, we don't. It doesn't make any sense for me to play with a 343 when I only have 2 decent strikers, or if I don't have 3 very good defenders. Most of good managers use actually a set of 2, maximum 3 basic tactics with minor adjustments, and their strongest point usually doesn't lie in the fact that they can make "tactical surprises" but, rather, in the fact that they are able to find the best positions for their players, so even when they become a little bit predictable, they are anyway a far superior team.
3) The "this is against the smaller teams" argument:
This argument is actually poorly formulated. A formulation that makes a little bit more of sense would state: "GOOD managers who, today, manage to get some good results against teams that have a better roster BASED on very well designed or adjusted tactics" (namely, the argument only has a sense if we are assuming that we are talking about people who today managed to get results because of their tactics, because of their ability to compensate their inferior roster with clever tactics) "will now have lesser chances".
Well, if you carefully read the formulation of the argument, immediately realize that precisely because the basis of the current success is the ability to develop better designed or adjusted tactics, the fact that this GOOD manager has now the possibility of even increase the influence of this ability of his by combining TWO tactics, he is actually in a better position or, in the worst case scenario, in the same position than he is today.
The background idea of this argument (teams with better rosters have the chance of better take advantage of two tactics) overlooks the "good tactician" factor: if a team with a better roster can be beaten by a team with a worse roster due to the better tactics of his opponent, ceteris paribus, the chances of the same team being beaten by the same second team due precisely the same factor remain.
If you put two managers with equal tactical skills, then, TODAY and TOMORROW, the team with better roster will have always better chances because, being both equally good tacticians, will both been compensated with this regard and the difference will come from the players skills.
__________________________
So, all in all: STOP WHINING AND BE GOOD MANAGERS. There is nothing in this idea against that, precisely the opposite. Those who "study" opponents will continue having the edge, precisely because opponents, in sensible terms, don't have "infinite" tactics", so they will still be predictable. And, as said, those completely unpredictable because they lack any consistency in the using of tactics today... will continue being unpredictable because of that (nothing new). But, in overall, I do not know successful managers who do this, most of those guys that I consider great tacticians have shown that the best merit is their ability to find the better positions for their players rather than making "mirror blocks" of their opponents and/or radically changing their tactics game by game.
(edited)
Yes, everybody has the right to say what s/he thinks, and I am not against it. But I have also the right that what I've read against this idea is completely childish and lacks seriousness.
1) Already responded to the "PLus-advantage" argument (one of the worst, certainly).
2) The increase of random argument:
Excuse me???? What???? So, the point would be something like: "hey, I have enough trouble trying to imagine what tactic my opponent will use next time, I will have more trouble now... so unfair...".
The reasoning is false in a way or the other.
a) It's false because NOT ALL MANAGERS change their tactics game to game. So, for those who now don't do it, I can barely imagine that they will start doing it now. At the most, they would develop second tactic, some conditional changes, and will leave this combination like this "forever" as they have been leaving the only tactic they have developed so far "forever". In other word, in the same way you can see today what this team has made in the last 5 games and know what they are going to do the next match, you can see the way this team has used its 2 tactics the last 5 matches and you will know what they do the next one.
b) For those teams who make adjustments match by match, it happens that:
b)(i) Those who usually do minor adjustments (some throw-ins, corner kicks, the defensive line a little bit up, a little bit down), do precisely use ONE basic tactic with adjustments, which means that in the future they would be more or less as much "unpredictable" (or, the other way around, as much "predictable") as they are today. If you study the team, you will know, as much as you know today, that they will "more or less" play like this and/or like that, and you will have to adjust "more or less" your tactics. I don't expect that these teams will become suddenly revolutionary if they have been not revolutionary so far.
b)(ii) Those (few) who are completely unpredictable, those guys who today play one match a 3-4-3, next match a 4-4-2, next match a 5-3-2, next match a 3-5-2, and so on, there is TODAY no way to predict anything, so the fact that they will have now the chance of using 2 tactics with conditional orders will NOT make them "more" unpredictable.
Besides, as in real life, there is a key factor: at the end of the day, we are actually not "entirely" free of using "any" tactic. In theory, we can, but in practice, we don't. It doesn't make any sense for me to play with a 343 when I only have 2 decent strikers, or if I don't have 3 very good defenders. Most of good managers use actually a set of 2, maximum 3 basic tactics with minor adjustments, and their strongest point usually doesn't lie in the fact that they can make "tactical surprises" but, rather, in the fact that they are able to find the best positions for their players, so even when they become a little bit predictable, they are anyway a far superior team.
3) The "this is against the smaller teams" argument:
This argument is actually poorly formulated. A formulation that makes a little bit more of sense would state: "GOOD managers who, today, manage to get some good results against teams that have a better roster BASED on very well designed or adjusted tactics" (namely, the argument only has a sense if we are assuming that we are talking about people who today managed to get results because of their tactics, because of their ability to compensate their inferior roster with clever tactics) "will now have lesser chances".
Well, if you carefully read the formulation of the argument, immediately realize that precisely because the basis of the current success is the ability to develop better designed or adjusted tactics, the fact that this GOOD manager has now the possibility of even increase the influence of this ability of his by combining TWO tactics, he is actually in a better position or, in the worst case scenario, in the same position than he is today.
The background idea of this argument (teams with better rosters have the chance of better take advantage of two tactics) overlooks the "good tactician" factor: if a team with a better roster can be beaten by a team with a worse roster due to the better tactics of his opponent, ceteris paribus, the chances of the same team being beaten by the same second team due precisely the same factor remain.
If you put two managers with equal tactical skills, then, TODAY and TOMORROW, the team with better roster will have always better chances because, being both equally good tacticians, will both been compensated with this regard and the difference will come from the players skills.
__________________________
So, all in all: STOP WHINING AND BE GOOD MANAGERS. There is nothing in this idea against that, precisely the opposite. Those who "study" opponents will continue having the edge, precisely because opponents, in sensible terms, don't have "infinite" tactics", so they will still be predictable. And, as said, those completely unpredictable because they lack any consistency in the using of tactics today... will continue being unpredictable because of that (nothing new). But, in overall, I do not know successful managers who do this, most of those guys that I consider great tacticians have shown that the best merit is their ability to find the better positions for their players rather than making "mirror blocks" of their opponents and/or radically changing their tactics game by game.
(edited)
Well, there's some nice arguments here. What I thought was wrong is that guack was just battering Pirate's opinion without any counterargument whatsoever.. But as I understand, this isn't really related to the subject, so I will be quiet now. :)
(edited)
(edited)
I love your english...! You must become a lawyer.... (I'm not Joking)
Great post, I guess we can close this thread now, all has been said ;-)
But seriously, I completely agree with everything you said there.
But seriously, I completely agree with everything you said there.
Except i don't believe this is said ;-)
I can be wrong, but I GUESS most tactic changes
will be triggered
/NOT by minute
/but by CHANGED RESULT. (For instance change to more offensive tactic, when the opponent have got more goals.)
If my guess is corect, then there will be some chance to predict at least both around when, and what type of tactic it can be suitable to change to.
I hope we will have tactic slots enough to not have to redo tactics, which can be used again later. After a while managers can have a rather big stock of tactics, and then they can be used to reduce the time needed to make "perfect" preparations.
I can be wrong, but I GUESS most tactic changes
will be triggered
/NOT by minute
/but by CHANGED RESULT. (For instance change to more offensive tactic, when the opponent have got more goals.)
If my guess is corect, then there will be some chance to predict at least both around when, and what type of tactic it can be suitable to change to.
I hope we will have tactic slots enough to not have to redo tactics, which can be used again later. After a while managers can have a rather big stock of tactics, and then they can be used to reduce the time needed to make "perfect" preparations.
STOP WHINING AND BE GOOD MANAGERS
agree !
great post
agree !
great post
Best post I've read in the international forum so far, and I certainly agree.
BTW: Anyone know of a good guide to sokker tactics? I seem to have trouble finding my place in sokker.
I suspect there are more than one problem with my team.
1) I've probably chosen partly wrong skills for my players. For example I lost the midfield battle in my previous league game mostly due to inferior speed. Something I wasn't aware was as imporant as it seems to be when the difference is rather big.
2) I probably have lots of problems with my tactics. I keep adjusting and changing them, with varying degrees of success, but in the end I keep feeling there's something I'm missing.
BTW: Anyone know of a good guide to sokker tactics? I seem to have trouble finding my place in sokker.
I suspect there are more than one problem with my team.
1) I've probably chosen partly wrong skills for my players. For example I lost the midfield battle in my previous league game mostly due to inferior speed. Something I wasn't aware was as imporant as it seems to be when the difference is rather big.
2) I probably have lots of problems with my tactics. I keep adjusting and changing them, with varying degrees of success, but in the end I keep feeling there's something I'm missing.
If my guess is corect, then there will be some chance to predict at least both around when, and what type of tactic it can be suitable to change to.
But that is mean in what I said.
Let's say that I am a manager that tends to do the following:
I tend to play with a sort of 442 and, usually, if by the half time I am losing for two or more goals, or, at the most, at the 60th minute, I am just losing, my team starts playing with a sort of 433. Just in very few matches (those that, after studying me a little bit, you realize that I assumed that my team was far superior than my opponent) I started with the standard 442 but used conditional changes for setting up a more defensive tactic in winning situations.
In that case, it's not going to be any mystery for you to guess that, probably, I would set up the same usual combination against you, namely, a 442 with potentially 433 in case of losing the game. That's enough for you to:
1) Know that, at least for 45 minutes, I will be playing around a 442.
2) Know that, if I am losing, I will probably switch to a 433, either in the 45th minute or the 60th minute (more or less).
So, you can set up a series a conditional orders to sort of "match" my style of play (as long as you are interested in "following" me... you might rather prefer to play your game and don't give a damn about what I do, as many managers do).
Of course, it might happen that just that very game I decide to play with a different A tactic (because I find the 442 unsatisfactory), or that I decide to play with a different B tactic (same reason).
This is not very different from what happens today. If you trace my games at the beginning of the season, you'll see I was regularly playing a sort of 442... until I got tired of that tactic since it was not being effective for my team and switched to a 532. So, if you were the guy playing against me that very match that I decided to switch the tactic, bad luck: what looked like a very likely 442 with some adjustments became a surprising, unexpected 532.
__________
For probably 1 season we will all be a little bit "blind", trying to adjust ourselves to these new features and trying to guess what our opponents do. But after no more than 1 season, everybody will have taken a position about this, and you would be able to trace those who are traceable, as much as you can do it today, and with the same margin of surprise you might find today.
But that is mean in what I said.
Let's say that I am a manager that tends to do the following:
I tend to play with a sort of 442 and, usually, if by the half time I am losing for two or more goals, or, at the most, at the 60th minute, I am just losing, my team starts playing with a sort of 433. Just in very few matches (those that, after studying me a little bit, you realize that I assumed that my team was far superior than my opponent) I started with the standard 442 but used conditional changes for setting up a more defensive tactic in winning situations.
In that case, it's not going to be any mystery for you to guess that, probably, I would set up the same usual combination against you, namely, a 442 with potentially 433 in case of losing the game. That's enough for you to:
1) Know that, at least for 45 minutes, I will be playing around a 442.
2) Know that, if I am losing, I will probably switch to a 433, either in the 45th minute or the 60th minute (more or less).
So, you can set up a series a conditional orders to sort of "match" my style of play (as long as you are interested in "following" me... you might rather prefer to play your game and don't give a damn about what I do, as many managers do).
Of course, it might happen that just that very game I decide to play with a different A tactic (because I find the 442 unsatisfactory), or that I decide to play with a different B tactic (same reason).
This is not very different from what happens today. If you trace my games at the beginning of the season, you'll see I was regularly playing a sort of 442... until I got tired of that tactic since it was not being effective for my team and switched to a 532. So, if you were the guy playing against me that very match that I decided to switch the tactic, bad luck: what looked like a very likely 442 with some adjustments became a surprising, unexpected 532.
__________
For probably 1 season we will all be a little bit "blind", trying to adjust ourselves to these new features and trying to guess what our opponents do. But after no more than 1 season, everybody will have taken a position about this, and you would be able to trace those who are traceable, as much as you can do it today, and with the same margin of surprise you might find today.
There is only one concern for me:
I assume that the introduction of this 2-tactics issue would require that we have more conditional orders available (or, if not, at least a separate set of conditional orders for tactics), because, otherwise, the option would be actually reduced.
Today, sometimes I used almost all conditional orders just trying to cover unexpected things like your "libero" being sent off in a 3-defender line (leaving a big hole in the middle of the line), or one of your side-stoppers being sent off... that, plus one or two tactical substitutions in case you're losing or winning, sometimes is just enough to take 5 or 6 conditional orders.
Tactical changes might take 3 or 4 conditions for themselves.
Thus, we will probably need to have more conditional orders available.
I assume that the introduction of this 2-tactics issue would require that we have more conditional orders available (or, if not, at least a separate set of conditional orders for tactics), because, otherwise, the option would be actually reduced.
Today, sometimes I used almost all conditional orders just trying to cover unexpected things like your "libero" being sent off in a 3-defender line (leaving a big hole in the middle of the line), or one of your side-stoppers being sent off... that, plus one or two tactical substitutions in case you're losing or winning, sometimes is just enough to take 5 or 6 conditional orders.
Tactical changes might take 3 or 4 conditions for themselves.
Thus, we will probably need to have more conditional orders available.
i guess that it won't be the case immediately, and we'll have to wait some more for that to be implemented too