Delicious said: So you getting hard life because of thrown-in? What kind of setup you using? BTW this can be fixed, that's a good feedback Ty! Expand
I can't remember exactly because I changed them when I conceded a few goals like that. A few of those routines with 2 CBs in opposition box and like 4 players near the throw in taker to supposedly cross. What happened was either the cross got headed away with a quick counter following or the crosser already lost the ball with same effect. Not that it happened every game, but chances given were very high quality and I felt using the routine was harmful overall.
Delicious said: i am testing those set pieces since like 10 test ago.. I don't think they make that huge difference in test, but we will see Expand
Most issues I generally have with imported set pieces are attacking throw ins. When you lose the ball and get hit by a counter attack because everyone is way out of position. Not sure how much that is tinkered with.
As far as corners go it made a huge difference for me when I added both near post and far post routines on both sides. Just near post scored maybe 5 per season, when I added far post the number went up to 15, most are still scored from near post like 10 vs 5 or so. It's as if variety is more effective than sticking to "the best" routine over and over. Could be just anecdotal, I've played quite a bit with both option but obviously nowhere near the testing levels.
Poacher said: Nahh, I don't think it's about the consistency roll.
I've seen many times how 2-3 players had 5.8-6.0 ratings in the 1st half and then 7.5-8.0 ratings in the 2nd half.
It's just players might have a very bad RNG for their actions in the 1st half but in the 2nd half they might a very good RNG for their actions.
We all know even with a very good tactic sometime you can hit a bad run ( few loses/draws in a row ) but we don't change our tactic after that because we know it's good and it was just bad luck that happens. The same goes for the players in a match, they might have periods when they have bad RNG for their action but it won't last forever and as I said if a player did poorly in 1st half then he might do great in the 2nd half and subbing him you just take away his opportunity for a good RNG.
That's my philosophy. Expand
8 times out of 10 the player that had a bad 1st half won't be that much better in 2nd. Even though I agree ratings can be kind of a joke sometimes.
In general I sub 1-3 players around 60 mins and then all the rest until 70th minute. Players don't get rating if they are subbed on after 75th and I think it's the same for expected playing time.
I don't save any for cases of injuries unless it's an important cup game or last couple of league games. I've played at least 10 seasons so far, the number of times I lost a player due to injury is 2 or 3. I do have to mention though that I'm very aggressive in keeping the guys fit. Anyone carrying an orange injury isn't selected in the team or is subbed off as soon as I notice it. I also don't play anyone that is "tired" before the game even though it shows nearly full fitness. Plus most of the subs I make are for fitness reasons - whoever is red on fitness at 60th and then 70th minute.
I can't remember exactly because I changed them when I conceded a few goals like that. A few of those routines with 2 CBs in opposition box and like 4 players near the throw in taker to supposedly cross. What happened was either the cross got headed away with a quick counter following or the crosser already lost the ball with same effect. Not that it happened every game, but chances given were very high quality and I felt using the routine was harmful overall.
Most issues I generally have with imported set pieces are attacking throw ins. When you lose the ball and get hit by a counter attack because everyone is way out of position. Not sure how much that is tinkered with.
As far as corners go it made a huge difference for me when I added both near post and far post routines on both sides. Just near post scored maybe 5 per season, when I added far post the number went up to 15, most are still scored from near post like 10 vs 5 or so. It's as if variety is more effective than sticking to "the best" routine over and over. Could be just anecdotal, I've played quite a bit with both option but obviously nowhere near the testing levels.
I've seen many times how 2-3 players had 5.8-6.0 ratings in the 1st half and then 7.5-8.0 ratings in the 2nd half.
It's just players might have a very bad RNG for their actions in the 1st half but in the 2nd half they might a very good RNG for their actions.
We all know even with a very good tactic sometime you can hit a bad run ( few loses/draws in a row ) but we don't change our tactic after that because we know it's good and it was just bad luck that happens. The same goes for the players in a match, they might have periods when they have bad RNG for their action but it won't last forever and as I said if a player did poorly in 1st half then he might do great in the 2nd half and subbing him you just take away his opportunity for a good RNG.
That's my philosophy.
8 times out of 10 the player that had a bad 1st half won't be that much better in 2nd. Even though I agree ratings can be kind of a joke sometimes.
I don't save any for cases of injuries unless it's an important cup game or last couple of league games. I've played at least 10 seasons so far, the number of times I lost a player due to injury is 2 or 3. I do have to mention though that I'm very aggressive in keeping the guys fit. Anyone carrying an orange injury isn't selected in the team or is subbed off as soon as I notice it. I also don't play anyone that is "tired" before the game even though it shows nearly full fitness. Plus most of the subs I make are for fitness reasons - whoever is red on fitness at 60th and then 70th minute.