I'm puzzled by the fullbacks personal instructions.
Take more risks - Cut inside - Cross from byline
I've played and watched this tactic many seasons and the fullbacks all have the same behavior.
They will run with the ball to the byline and cross.
So why take more risks when they're not passing. They're receiving passes, not making them. (Assuming passing ≠ crossing)
Cut inside vs cross from byline are straight up opposing movements.
Cutting inside they simply never do. This might be a trait problem because most fullbacks have playing wide traits and/or because the Inside Forwards are already occupying these spaces so the engine's positional play triggers and they never cut inside.
I don't know why you would want them to anyway. This tactic is obviously very effective and the main reason is because the front 4 narrow the opposition defense so the fullbacks have free space out wide to attack.
So either this combination of instructions somehow exploits the engine or they are meaningless which I'm guessing is the answer as we've seen many tests on this website that show how little most personal instructions have an impact.
Combining with that is the Tactical Instruction to underlap each side which no player on the pitch does even with the insistence on having the "hold up ball" Personal Instruction on the Inside Forwards.
Personally I got rid of "Take more risks" and "Cut inside" from my fullbacks and saw no meaningful change in play or results.
As we all know, Pace & Acceleration dwarfs any and all other attributes.
So a player with 20 Pace & Acceleration but 5 on every other attribute unconsentually intercourses a player with 5 Pace & Acceleration but 20 on every other attribute.
But the AI clearly doesn't see it that way and values them very low. This makes it very hard to flip them for a profit or, sometimes, even selling them.
Is there a case to be made to buy a less than optimal player (in terms of Pace & Acceleration) just to get a consistent profitable inflow of money ?
Considering also that you need to be playing them on a somewhat consistent basis for them to value.
CBP87 said: Very well written and I agree, but unfortunately there has always been 1 dominant shape per game for as far as I remember. Hopefully with the new match engine from next year we will say a different variation of top tactical shapes and instructions allowing people to play a different style of football that will achieve similar results.
By number 10, I assume you mean an AM role, if so, there are a lot of very good 4231s out there that will get the best out of your number 10 Expand
Thank you for the compliment.
Yes that's what I mean by number 10, an attacking midfielder AMC.
Unfortunately, from what I see, the small amount of tactics here that use a number 10 are using it as an inferior version of having two strikers up front, aiming for that exact same situation of narrowing the defense and being a goal scorer.
My personal preference is a Mesut Ozil type number 10 that orchestrates play by sitting between the lines and spamming through balls which I have been unable to accomplish despite all my efforts.
The closes I've ever come to that dynamic is actually having 2 numbers 10's. That brazilian box tactic that was popular some time ago. But that obviously is inferior in terms of results, although in my opinion is a much more entertaining spectacle to watch.
I appreciate the tactic but it's another example of how broken the game is.
Every top tactic is a slight variation of getting the front players to force the opposition defense to go narrow so your fullbacks have space.
The 4 up front accomplish this and the fullbacks get a free run every time.
The one-twos and the through balls are virtually non-existent and it's very predictable and boring to watch. Also unbelievably unrealistic, crossing has gone almost extinct IRL because of how ineffective it is. Not to mention corners. IRL teams always favor keeping possession instead of crossing and short corners for a reason.
Every other style of play pales in comparison and makes the game very unfun for lack of options. They claimed counter-attacking was buffed but it's a cruel joke.
It's particularly worse for me because I love a number 10 and not only is this position unsuited for narrowing the opposition defense it's also just fundamentally useless in the game itself regardless of the tactic/role/instructions. I've yet to get a single 7+ average rating throughout a season on a 10 no matter how good he is. He just gets lost and hardly receives the ball ever.
This game forces you to play the only viable tactic or get left behind.
How come the requirements for getting a tactic tested here are brutally unforgiving and yet you change a single team role or team instruction from an already posted tactic and gets it through ?
No hate on you bruh but I wanna get a tactic tested, I feel like shorter passing cripples the team, there are literally no through balls or risky passes and you need to have a numerical advantage anywhere on the pitch to even try to progress the ball. I was racking my brain trying to fix this with PI's, roles and other TI's for days until I finally figured out it was the passing slider.
Can you try this tactic or any other you've posted exactly the same just with the passing slider in the middle so the community can compare? Thanks.
Take more risks - Cut inside - Cross from byline
I've played and watched this tactic many seasons and the fullbacks all have the same behavior.
They will run with the ball to the byline and cross.
So why take more risks when they're not passing. They're receiving passes, not making them. (Assuming passing ≠ crossing)
Cut inside vs cross from byline are straight up opposing movements.
Cutting inside they simply never do. This might be a trait problem because most fullbacks have playing wide traits and/or because the Inside Forwards are already occupying these spaces so the engine's positional play triggers and they never cut inside.
I don't know why you would want them to anyway. This tactic is obviously very effective and the main reason is because the front 4 narrow the opposition defense so the fullbacks have free space out wide to attack.
So either this combination of instructions somehow exploits the engine or they are meaningless which I'm guessing is the answer as we've seen many tests on this website that show how little most personal instructions have an impact.
Combining with that is the Tactical Instruction to underlap each side which no player on the pitch does even with the insistence on having the "hold up ball" Personal Instruction on the Inside Forwards.
Personally I got rid of "Take more risks" and "Cut inside" from my fullbacks and saw no meaningful change in play or results.
So a player with 20 Pace & Acceleration but 5 on every other attribute unconsentually intercourses a player with 5 Pace & Acceleration but 20 on every other attribute.
But the AI clearly doesn't see it that way and values them very low. This makes it very hard to flip them for a profit or, sometimes, even selling them.
Is there a case to be made to buy a less than optimal player (in terms of Pace & Acceleration) just to get a consistent profitable inflow of money ?
Considering also that you need to be playing them on a somewhat consistent basis for them to value.
By number 10, I assume you mean an AM role, if so, there are a lot of very good 4231s out there that will get the best out of your number 10
Thank you for the compliment.
Yes that's what I mean by number 10, an attacking midfielder AMC.
Unfortunately, from what I see, the small amount of tactics here that use a number 10 are using it as an inferior version of having two strikers up front, aiming for that exact same situation of narrowing the defense and being a goal scorer.
My personal preference is a Mesut Ozil type number 10 that orchestrates play by sitting between the lines and spamming through balls which I have been unable to accomplish despite all my efforts.
The closes I've ever come to that dynamic is actually having 2 numbers 10's. That brazilian box tactic that was popular some time ago. But that obviously is inferior in terms of results, although in my opinion is a much more entertaining spectacle to watch.
Every top tactic is a slight variation of getting the front players to force the opposition defense to go narrow so your fullbacks have space.
The 4 up front accomplish this and the fullbacks get a free run every time.
The one-twos and the through balls are virtually non-existent and it's very predictable and boring to watch. Also unbelievably unrealistic, crossing has gone almost extinct IRL because of how ineffective it is. Not to mention corners. IRL teams always favor keeping possession instead of crossing and short corners for a reason.
Every other style of play pales in comparison and makes the game very unfun for lack of options. They claimed counter-attacking was buffed but it's a cruel joke.
It's particularly worse for me because I love a number 10 and not only is this position unsuited for narrowing the opposition defense it's also just fundamentally useless in the game itself regardless of the tactic/role/instructions. I've yet to get a single 7+ average rating throughout a season on a 10 no matter how good he is. He just gets lost and hardly receives the ball ever.
This game forces you to play the only viable tactic or get left behind.
It's sad.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Is that training related ? I always delegate that to the ass man.
So is there a way to accomplish this ?
No hate on you bruh but I wanna get a tactic tested, I feel like shorter passing cripples the team, there are literally no through balls or risky passes and you need to have a numerical advantage anywhere on the pitch to even try to progress the ball. I was racking my brain trying to fix this with PI's, roles and other TI's for days until I finally figured out it was the passing slider.
Can you try this tactic or any other you've posted exactly the same just with the passing slider in the middle so the community can compare? Thanks.
i've tried it and been raped.
these 1.2k games might just been very RNG positive heavy, i don't know.