Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Two Tactics
i guess that it won't be the case immediately, and we'll have to wait some more for that to be implemented too
Offcourse I agree completely with you!
I also agree that the conditional orders will have to be changed:
- we need more conditional slots (I could even use a couple extra today)
- it would come out handy if there were some other types of conditional orders too. F.e. that you can cover strikers that are running offside to often, or wingers who are being marked closely.
I also agree that the conditional orders will have to be changed:
- we need more conditional slots (I could even use a couple extra today)
- it would come out handy if there were some other types of conditional orders too. F.e. that you can cover strikers that are running offside to often, or wingers who are being marked closely.
people, if you don't have time for online managers, play hattrick, or something as simple as that! I like the changes, it's more up to you manager possibilities:)
I AGREE WITH YOU, I can't believe the complaints in this thread....
- we need more conditional slots (I could even use a couple extra today)
I need about 15 today :) 5 red card orders for defs, 3 for changes makes it 8, plus strikers changes - 1/2, 5 slight injury changes for defs...makes it about 15 :)
I need about 15 today :) 5 red card orders for defs, 3 for changes makes it 8, plus strikers changes - 1/2, 5 slight injury changes for defs...makes it about 15 :)
Are orders working for anyone (NTs)? Mine are still inoperable.
I'm assuming that the conditions for tactic changes will be the same as the current triggers. So will it be possible to change the shape in response to a red card? This would be a very nice option.
I'm assuming that the conditions for tactic changes will be the same as the current triggers. So will it be possible to change the shape in response to a red card? This would be a very nice option.
changing your tactic when red card and giving team orders in general (like shoot more ,pass more ,long shots ,attacking style of play ,defensive style of play and etc) would be really WOW additions for me !!
but on topic ,this is a great improvement !!
but on topic ,this is a great improvement !!
3) The "this is against the smaller teams" argument:
This argument is actually poorly formulated. ... 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.
I think the argument is well forumulated. :) Currently, a team can, through scouting and luck, achieve a tactical advantage by covering all the opposing offensive players well, and getting their own offensive players into space. Anything they get right is correct for the full game. If they get everything right, they can achieve a "tactical" victory.
When a team is able to change tactics, it means way more permutations. There is no way to get it all right all game long. Being able to predict an opponent will change from a 442 to a 433 doesn't help as much as it sounds. It is the change in details which makes the difference.
So I think "this is against the smaller teams" is a valid point, but not a valid complaint. Being able to change tactics simply corrects a long standing flaw in the Sokker ME. In RL, if a throw-in doesn't work, a team will not persist in doing it for 90 minutes. That weak Sokker teams could in the past win because their opponent single-mindedly stuck to the original game plan was unrealistic.
You are right to say savvy managers will still have an advantage. But IMO weaker teams will need more luck then before to knock off a stronger opponent.
This argument is actually poorly formulated. ... 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.
I think the argument is well forumulated. :) Currently, a team can, through scouting and luck, achieve a tactical advantage by covering all the opposing offensive players well, and getting their own offensive players into space. Anything they get right is correct for the full game. If they get everything right, they can achieve a "tactical" victory.
When a team is able to change tactics, it means way more permutations. There is no way to get it all right all game long. Being able to predict an opponent will change from a 442 to a 433 doesn't help as much as it sounds. It is the change in details which makes the difference.
So I think "this is against the smaller teams" is a valid point, but not a valid complaint. Being able to change tactics simply corrects a long standing flaw in the Sokker ME. In RL, if a throw-in doesn't work, a team will not persist in doing it for 90 minutes. That weak Sokker teams could in the past win because their opponent single-mindedly stuck to the original game plan was unrealistic.
You are right to say savvy managers will still have an advantage. But IMO weaker teams will need more luck then before to knock off a stronger opponent.
Your point (and the argument's point) would be valid only if the merit of a good tactic would be just the positioning of throw-ins, corner kicks, and goal kicks. If a "good tactic" for a smaller team would consist only of that, then your point would be valid.
Fortunately, the merit of a good tactic doesn't rely on that.
1) First of all, a complete 100% cover is already impossible, since the ME introduced the "team work" and "experience" factor, players do not always stand in exactly the same position. So, it happens that even if you manage to predict where your opponent is going to place his players, your defender will not be always be just next to him... sometimes will be closer, sometimes away (at least away enough to allow your opponent's player to try something with the ball).
2) In spite of that, even assuming that, if not 100%, a 90% coverage is possible, I don't think that the advantage of a good tactician lies just on that.
First of all, because if we are talking about a "inferior" team, probably placing a defender next to a striker would not necessarily means that the defender is good enough to stop the striker. The assumption is that "inferior" teams have inferior players with, then, inferior skills.
Secondly, you don't win matches "just blocking". Blocking is important, but sooner or later they will go trough. So, what makes a smaller team win games against bigger teams (next to the always necessary dose of luck) lies in other tactical resources, such as drawing defender lines back and creating "successive" match ups (drawing the defender line back allows them to have their opponents in front of them rather than taking them from a side, given the technical players a better chance to use their technique; and "successive" match ups avoids the risk of strikers taking the ball with a lot of space and shooting to goal long shots); or also developing good and/or useful counterstrike tactics in the offensive.
So, it's not all about blocking.
3) If today you can scout a team and predict that he is going to be positioning his players here or there, that means that your opponent does not have a lot of variation in his tactics, that's why you would be able to "block" him.
If that's the case, and ceteris paribus, with the new tactics your opponent will not only lack the same variation for his tactics, but, as said before, will also lack variation in his conditional orders for tactic changes.
Thus, you would be able to block his A tactic, block his B tactic, and predict with relatively high chances of success when he is going to switch from A to B, if any switch happens.
So, in my opinion, the argument was not only an invalid complaint but also and invalid point.
____________________
Going beyond this (legitimate) difference of opinion, I agree with you on the fact that in RL a team does not do during 90 minutes the same throw-in (or corner kick, or goal kick) if after 10, 15 minutes it becomes evident that your opponent has a pre-set response for that.
Because of what I said in my previous paragraphs, I am not so optimistic regarding the fact that this options will change radically this problem: predictable teams will continue being predictable (also concerning tactic changes). It's going to be better than today (yes), but not radically better.
However, it's also true that, unless SK allows managers to produce tactic changes during the matches while the matches are being played (as, for instance, you might do with EA Football Manager, a PC game, when you can change your tactics 100 times during a game choosing among 20 options), that limitation will go on. And SK will not allow managers to do this because the whole ME should be re-written in order that to happen (and we are not even touching the point of the fairness of that feature for those who cannot watch a game "live").
Thus, I think (as an idea for future improvements) that the only solution for this "unrealistic" chance of "blocking" in throw-ins and so on would be to add a random factor (similarly to the way tactical discipline is working today) that slightly modifies the position of players in those "fixed" situations, so the throw-ins are not always exactly the same.
It would still be important to "scout" your opponents, because it would still be useful to have a player "close" to the potential action, it would be still better to have a guy in the area than not having anyone there. But there would be no "guarantee" of having always a guy blocked, or always a guy free... just like RL :)
Fortunately, the merit of a good tactic doesn't rely on that.
1) First of all, a complete 100% cover is already impossible, since the ME introduced the "team work" and "experience" factor, players do not always stand in exactly the same position. So, it happens that even if you manage to predict where your opponent is going to place his players, your defender will not be always be just next to him... sometimes will be closer, sometimes away (at least away enough to allow your opponent's player to try something with the ball).
2) In spite of that, even assuming that, if not 100%, a 90% coverage is possible, I don't think that the advantage of a good tactician lies just on that.
First of all, because if we are talking about a "inferior" team, probably placing a defender next to a striker would not necessarily means that the defender is good enough to stop the striker. The assumption is that "inferior" teams have inferior players with, then, inferior skills.
Secondly, you don't win matches "just blocking". Blocking is important, but sooner or later they will go trough. So, what makes a smaller team win games against bigger teams (next to the always necessary dose of luck) lies in other tactical resources, such as drawing defender lines back and creating "successive" match ups (drawing the defender line back allows them to have their opponents in front of them rather than taking them from a side, given the technical players a better chance to use their technique; and "successive" match ups avoids the risk of strikers taking the ball with a lot of space and shooting to goal long shots); or also developing good and/or useful counterstrike tactics in the offensive.
So, it's not all about blocking.
3) If today you can scout a team and predict that he is going to be positioning his players here or there, that means that your opponent does not have a lot of variation in his tactics, that's why you would be able to "block" him.
If that's the case, and ceteris paribus, with the new tactics your opponent will not only lack the same variation for his tactics, but, as said before, will also lack variation in his conditional orders for tactic changes.
Thus, you would be able to block his A tactic, block his B tactic, and predict with relatively high chances of success when he is going to switch from A to B, if any switch happens.
So, in my opinion, the argument was not only an invalid complaint but also and invalid point.
____________________
Going beyond this (legitimate) difference of opinion, I agree with you on the fact that in RL a team does not do during 90 minutes the same throw-in (or corner kick, or goal kick) if after 10, 15 minutes it becomes evident that your opponent has a pre-set response for that.
Because of what I said in my previous paragraphs, I am not so optimistic regarding the fact that this options will change radically this problem: predictable teams will continue being predictable (also concerning tactic changes). It's going to be better than today (yes), but not radically better.
However, it's also true that, unless SK allows managers to produce tactic changes during the matches while the matches are being played (as, for instance, you might do with EA Football Manager, a PC game, when you can change your tactics 100 times during a game choosing among 20 options), that limitation will go on. And SK will not allow managers to do this because the whole ME should be re-written in order that to happen (and we are not even touching the point of the fairness of that feature for those who cannot watch a game "live").
Thus, I think (as an idea for future improvements) that the only solution for this "unrealistic" chance of "blocking" in throw-ins and so on would be to add a random factor (similarly to the way tactical discipline is working today) that slightly modifies the position of players in those "fixed" situations, so the throw-ins are not always exactly the same.
It would still be important to "scout" your opponents, because it would still be useful to have a player "close" to the potential action, it would be still better to have a guy in the area than not having anyone there. But there would be no "guarantee" of having always a guy blocked, or always a guy free... just like RL :)
I love your english...! You must become a lawyer.... (I'm not Joking)
I just can't sop laughing :P
Anyway, I can't wait to lay my hands on this new feature... and hopefuly achiev even more draws than this season! :D
I just can't sop laughing :P
Anyway, I can't wait to lay my hands on this new feature... and hopefuly achiev even more draws than this season! :D
Anyway, I can't wait to lay my hands on this new feature... and hopefuly achiev even more draws than this season!
Nice concept! You must become an economist!
[he][he][he][666]
Nice concept! You must become an economist!
[he][he][he][666]
I love the changes.
At the same time i try to understand the other side (managers with very time consuming girlfriends:). I assume that rewritten Sokker ME could support a "snap to grid" function while defining tactics to they can continue using the old system.
(edited)
At the same time i try to understand the other side (managers with very time consuming girlfriends:). I assume that rewritten Sokker ME could support a "snap to grid" function while defining tactics to they can continue using the old system.
(edited)
what's the problem? they need just to make 2-3 tactics and that's all. what will that take? 2 hours? Not that long.
I don't see how any of your protracted post contradicts what I said.
Scouting helps you to predict where the opponent's players will be. This allows you to plan your approach (whatever that may be) both offensively and defensively. If you guess right, then there is a better chance your approach will succeed giving your team the advantage. Weaker teams, unless blessed by luck, need this advantage to compete.
With the ability to change tactics it becomes much harder to guess right. It's more likely that at some point in the game your opponent will be doing something you didn't plan for. At this stage, the playing field which had been leveled by the tactics tilts to the team with the better players.
Like I said before, I'm all for this change - I think it's great, and that it will have a significant impact on how tactics are designed. It will add more complexity and realism to an already great game. But it's not going to help weaker teams win matches.
Scouting helps you to predict where the opponent's players will be. This allows you to plan your approach (whatever that may be) both offensively and defensively. If you guess right, then there is a better chance your approach will succeed giving your team the advantage. Weaker teams, unless blessed by luck, need this advantage to compete.
With the ability to change tactics it becomes much harder to guess right. It's more likely that at some point in the game your opponent will be doing something you didn't plan for. At this stage, the playing field which had been leveled by the tactics tilts to the team with the better players.
Like I said before, I'm all for this change - I think it's great, and that it will have a significant impact on how tactics are designed. It will add more complexity and realism to an already great game. But it's not going to help weaker teams win matches.
I don't see how any of your protracted post contradicts what I said.
Lol.
Lol.
With the ability to change tactics it becomes much harder to guess right. It's more likely that at some point in the game your opponent will be doing something you didn't plan for.
This is precisely where I disagree. I have already given several reasons why I think this is wrong (which, apparently, only have serve you to presume on your English vocabulary) and won't go back to the point.
I could understand if you told me that, in spite of all my arguments, you still think that that it's a valid point. But I certainly consider almost pedantic to say that you don't see how what I say doesn't "contradict" what you say.
Fair enough, it's all said already.
(edited)
This is precisely where I disagree. I have already given several reasons why I think this is wrong (which, apparently, only have serve you to presume on your English vocabulary) and won't go back to the point.
I could understand if you told me that, in spite of all my arguments, you still think that that it's a valid point. But I certainly consider almost pedantic to say that you don't see how what I say doesn't "contradict" what you say.
Fair enough, it's all said already.
(edited)