Subject: [idea] Role changing

For a long time now I have not understood how this does not exist yet...
Let's say I play 5-4-1 and I want to switch to 5-3-2, and I put a striker in instead of a midfielder.
The striker comes in as a "MID" role instead of an "ATT" role . I want him to come in as an "ATT". So the idea is to add the option to choose whether the substitute player will function as a midfielder or a striker.

What actually determines is the position of the player in the formation and this cannot be changed and in my opinion it is very outdated.
I also think it's not that difficult to make such a change...

I reckon they avoided such solutions because there's no variable to monitor which conditional instructions have prevailed, and also to make the limit of players per role impossible to violate with an automatic substitution if you had few players on the bench.

Of course, if there are already too many players in the same "role" then this won't make the change. I don't think that's the reason why such a change isn't made

why not delete roles? you assign independent training to your 10 players and thats all...
and players decide their next action based on their attributes, not the game order.

This is too big a change, I asked for something that is the simplest to implement. ;)

And regardless, I don't think your idea is that good because every role has a meaning, a player who functions as a "DEF" will kick more balls, a player who plays "MID" will look for a pass more, so for that matter, I sometimes place a defender with a "MID" role so that he looks for a pass to my winger more than "DEF" , so there is also another tactical element that can be used, I'm sure there are others who do such "tricks".

What I'm suggesting is just the option to choose the role of the substitute/player in the lineup

No of course the players would keep the roles on the pitch, it's just the training which wouldn't be dependent on their respective roles but would instead be adjustable individually. 8 roll-down options on the training page for everyone. And it would be up to you to track who's been doing what not to bore their form away.

Also, the requirement for a player to only be able to benefit from minutes in one but not more of the roles would be deservedly gone, because it's the most absurd aspect of the situation currently.

The players.xml file should also be made contain everyone's training topic and the efficiency because you still have to scrape them from the table which is a hassle turning prospective new users away.

The ME Will never change or they would need to make a new from scratch. And for these changes to work, the ME needs Adjustments. The simpeler the idea, the more likely it has a change to at least be considered. So the idea needs to be simpeler than it's current variant AND it has to be An improvement to the game mechanics. Withdrawing the order from training mechanics is easier, but I recon the owners Will consider that to be a change that weakens the challenge of the game.

Umish0's suggestion doesn't involve the match engine at all. It's not a threat to any challenges because it won't prevent any concurrent enhancements or complicating to the game. But it wishes to avoid the contradiction of the rule the developers like to adhere to - the one about how training minutes and injury risk should go together (I know they don't in extra times). And it would also enable your players with 18s in positional abilities not to have their choice of roles for the pitch limited when the other players need training in that positional skill.

On the bench you have 5 players for scheduled substitutions and 2 extra ones and not 4. So most of the time your substitute, say, goalkeeper, gets injured right away - a player from a different role comes on.

So the player from the different role spends a significant portion of the game on the pitch and all the minutes he plays GO TO WASTE while he's partaking in the risk of injury. Also, if he's not among the extra players, his scheduled minutes in his OWN role can't materialize. On the other hand if he is, then sometimes that emergency prevents ANOTHER player from appearing because the number of substitutions is exhausted.

If you have a player sent off, him and his substitute are forfeiting all their minutes and you can't divert the subbing to another slot on the pitch, except if you use an extra 'always' instruction. But for that, with 3 midfielders to sub in you'd need 6 on the pitch and you can't have that. And the only influence you have on how much your players risk getting booked is it's much less likely if you're attacking.

So while the pitch roles are serving their purpose well, the restriction of usable minutes to particular ones often leads to falling dominoes.

Thank you Omur!!! I gree totally...

Thinking like a programmer, I envision the following:

The player in the engine makes a decision in two steps. The issue would be simply removing or clearing the impact of their game order.

- Their attributes
- Their game order

As Omur mentions, this would give the game significant dynamism and flexibility. We would see a greater variety of tactics; it would be a fantastic change for the game. What would this entail?

- Removing the impact of the game order from the game engine, just clearing it.
- Modifying how training is assigned.

I'm not saying it's easy, but the game would gain a lot: flexibility, dynamism, a greater variety of tactics, and it would bring joy and vibrancy to the game.

No, removing the roles from the PITCH would mean a replacement of the entire game engine.

And why even do it. They're the vestige of influence you have over the behavior of your players. If you'd like a MID playmaker (pivote) to play BEHIND your DEF ball winner (recuperador) in the middle of the park then you can do it. If you'd like your DEF side backs (laterales) to weave inward of your side MIDfielders (interiores) then you can do it! You can set if your winger (alero) or support striker (punta) should look to push away and pass like a MID or to drive goalward from distant positions while OTHER people are looking to pass to him like to an ATT. And so on, many, many posibilities most managers aren't really using YET.

But off the pitch, without affecting the game engine, all these roles COULD be made available to draw training minutes from in a single week. This wouldn't deincentivize you from having a larger roster, because players with the appropriate profile still perform better. The original concern was that people would only teach, say, tackling to everybody, so there could be limits of 9 or 10 for how many players can utilize a particular POSITIONAL training option at a time. But it wouldn't force your 18-in-scoring performers off their best role anymore.

You know, it's funny to see you agree with Umish, then having me saying ME changes are not a good thing, then you say he doesn't proposed anything that changes the ME, then he agrees with you by stating he wants to alter the ME with his original idea and you disagreeing with him. So what is it now? :-p

Ah, actually we're exchanging ideas, that's what's important; the correction you made means we don't completely agree.

I understand but I must say that the importance or impact of game orders should be variable in the ME, that is, they can be manipulated without needing to delete them or edit the ME code. The idea would be to remove that limitation on player behavior, so that decisions are based on their attributes.

To prevent a striker from taking on defenders 90% of the time, even when there are good passing options, a midfielder from shooting more frequently, a defender from making vertical runs more often, etc.

I maintain that the engine needs a bit more dynamism, offering more alternatives to a 5-2-1-2, 5-3-2, or 6-2-2 (infamous in my opinion).

Regards