Alexandru said: @infxamus posted great info about traits for problem solving. I am copying it here as it is in his thread:
######### START Traits that are contrasting to team/player instructions will lead to the tactic being less effective
A negative trait for ALL POSITIONS: "Does Not Dive Into Tackles" affects the "Tackle Harder" instruction
Only try putting a trait on the player if he has the ability to do it (example: If a player has high technique and passing "tries killer balls often" trait is a good one
...
For PF - Positive Traits: "Comes Deep to Get Ball" or "Moves Into Channels", "Plays With Ball Back To Goal" Negative Traits: "Runs With Ball Through Centre". Avoid using players who also have "Will Try to beat Offside Trap" or "Gets Forward Whenever Possible" traits for the role because then they'll basically turn into another AF when there's no other playmakers
For IFs - Positive traits: "Runs With Ball Often", "Tries Killer Balls" "Cuts inside from *insert wing here*" Negative Traits: "Likes ball played into feet" (affects "pass into space" team instruction), "Comes Deep To Get Ball", "Dwells On Ball" ######## END
Though as I understood due to changes in "roam from position", new traits will be as following:
For PF - Positive Traits: "Moves Into Channels", "Plays With Ball Back To Goal"
For IF - "Comes Deep to Get Ball" or "Moves Into Channels", "Runs With Ball Often", "Tries Killer Balls" "Cuts inside from *insert wing here*"
Correct me if I am wrong. Expand Here you can find more.
The strategy varies depending on the opponent and their formation.
Against a weak opponent I play with a 4-2-4. My focus is on substituting tired players, as AI tends to react later in the game, so I prefer to have fresh players before their reaction. Against an equal opponent, I start with a 4-2-4 and shift to a 4-2-3-1 upon gaining the lead for better defence. If facing a superior team, I begin with a 4-2-3-1 and adjust according to the game's flow. If we're dominating in possession, shots, etc., I switch to a 4-2-4 for a more offensive approach. Once ahead, I revert to 4-2-3-1.
* Any 4-2-3-1 with "Excellent" stars from FM-Arena is recommended.
Yarema said: In the end testing will say putting dribble more on everyone is a +0,5 point gain so everyone will put it in their tactic ... That is why there is less diversity, not because it doesn't work but because we know one thing is just a tiny bit better. Expand These tests are not indicative of the players' overall performance. They are designed to determine which positions are influenced by specific instructions. Additionally, I believe that variations ranging from 0.01 to 0.1, and possibly slightly more, can be attributed to the RNG.
To assess player performance results and consider implementing the instructions "Run At Defence", "Dribble More" or both, one should refer to the FM-Arena table in the OP.
Steelwood said: The dream is to have an OOP system and an in-possession system with all of the roles fully customisable. We sort of have that now but there are many limitations to it Expand I don't believe that will ever occur because it would essentially negate the concept of roles. In my view, the most crucial aspect is to ensure complete transparency regarding the impact of every instruction in the game, allowing us full control over our team. Currently, we are left to speculate about the effects of each instruction and the roles or positions they influence.
It reminds me of Call of Duty, where each weapon is accompanied by a detailed box with bars. This could be implemented for each role, with the ability to adjust each instruction by altering the Player Instructions or Team Instructions.
For instance, if I use two winger roles with a predefined "Dribble More" instruction and I apply a "Dribble Less" team instruction that affects them, it should be reflected by a corresponding decrease in the Dribbling attribute bar.
Steelwood said: Fascinating. I'm somewhat glad that tackle harder doesn't appear to make much of a difference as it has always appeared to me that TIs and PIs that do the same thing should not be able to add together and 'maximise' things like aggression and dribbling.
Hopefully for FM25 we see plenty of tactical changes as I am a little bored of the way that the meta has been working for the last few years, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope on that front. Expand I always wondered about the double instructions and I always wanted to try them but one day I forgot and the next day I didn't have time. Now I think things are a bit clearer.
I too hope that in FM25 a lot of things will change and indeed the meta instructions have been a bit monotonous in recent years. But I'm keeping a low profile until we see them in action.
Steelwood said: Only just seen this, fantastic work Expand Thanks bro!
I've conducted additional tests on this experiment, and the results appear to be consistent with very slight variations in values. There have been no deviations from what was reported in my previous post.
Here is the final table: (including the one above along with it)
DATA TABLEDribbles Made / 90Matches played : 8,800
I have also conducted experiments with "Get Stuck In" and "Tackle Harder." Here are the results:
DATA TABLETackles Made / 90Matches played : 8,800
Based on these tests, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Both instructions do nothing to GKs. 2. Whether we use the "Get Stuck In" instruction or the "Tackle Harder" instruction we get the same output from all positions.
* Variations ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 points, and possibly slightly more, can be attributed to the RNG.
AF to PF
######### START
Traits that are contrasting to team/player instructions will lead to the tactic being less effective
A negative trait for ALL POSITIONS: "Does Not Dive Into Tackles" affects the "Tackle Harder" instruction
Only try putting a trait on the player if he has the ability to do it (example: If a player has high technique and passing "tries killer balls often" trait is a good one
...
For PF -
Positive Traits: "Comes Deep to Get Ball" or "Moves Into Channels", "Plays With Ball Back To Goal"
Negative Traits: "Runs With Ball Through Centre". Avoid using players who also have "Will Try to beat Offside Trap" or "Gets Forward Whenever Possible" traits for the role because then they'll basically turn into another AF when there's no other playmakers
For IFs -
Positive traits: "Runs With Ball Often", "Tries Killer Balls" "Cuts inside from *insert wing here*"
Negative Traits: "Likes ball played into feet" (affects "pass into space" team instruction), "Comes Deep To Get Ball", "Dwells On Ball"
######## END
Though as I understood due to changes in "roam from position", new traits will be as following:
For PF -
Positive Traits: "Moves Into Channels", "Plays With Ball Back To Goal"
For IF - "Comes Deep to Get Ball" or "Moves Into Channels", "Runs With Ball Often", "Tries Killer Balls" "Cuts inside from *insert wing here*"
Correct me if I am wrong.
Here you can find more.
PF to AF
Removed Run At Defence
Added Dribble More to all positions.
Added Pass Into Space
Added Underlaps
Attacking mentality
Added Play Out Of Defence, Run At Defence, Distribute Quickly, Get Stuck In
Removed Underlaps, Roll It Out
IFs to IFa
FBa to WBa
PI tweaks
Removed Focus Play
Added Distribute To Centre-Backs
PI tweaks
Added 'Get Further Forward' on DMs
Added 'Hold Position' on DMs
The strategy varies depending on the opponent and their formation.
Against a weak opponent I play with a 4-2-4. My focus is on substituting tired players, as AI tends to react later in the game, so I prefer to have fresh players before their reaction. Against an equal opponent, I start with a 4-2-4 and shift to a 4-2-3-1 upon gaining the lead for better defence. If facing a superior team, I begin with a 4-2-3-1 and adjust according to the game's flow. If we're dominating in possession, shots, etc., I switch to a 4-2-4 for a more offensive approach. Once ahead, I revert to 4-2-3-1.
* Any 4-2-3-1 with "Excellent" stars from FM-Arena is recommended.
These tests are not indicative of the players' overall performance. They are designed to determine which positions are influenced by specific instructions. Additionally, I believe that variations ranging from 0.01 to 0.1, and possibly slightly more, can be attributed to the RNG.
To assess player performance results and consider implementing the instructions "Run At Defence", "Dribble More" or both, one should refer to the FM-Arena table in the OP.
I don't believe that will ever occur because it would essentially negate the concept of roles. In my view, the most crucial aspect is to ensure complete transparency regarding the impact of every instruction in the game, allowing us full control over our team. Currently, we are left to speculate about the effects of each instruction and the roles or positions they influence.
It reminds me of Call of Duty, where each weapon is accompanied by a detailed box with bars. This could be implemented for each role, with the ability to adjust each instruction by altering the Player Instructions or Team Instructions.
For instance, if I use two winger roles with a predefined "Dribble More" instruction and I apply a "Dribble Less" team instruction that affects them, it should be reflected by a corresponding decrease in the Dribbling attribute bar.
Added Take More Risks on DMs
Added Shorter Passing, Focus Play, Higher Tempo, Narrow, Distribute Quickly, Much Higher Defensive Line, Get Stuck In
PI tweaks
Hopefully for FM25 we see plenty of tactical changes as I am a little bored of the way that the meta has been working for the last few years, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope on that front.
I always wondered about the double instructions and I always wanted to try them but one day I forgot and the next day I didn't have time. Now I think things are a bit clearer.
I too hope that in FM25 a lot of things will change and indeed the meta instructions have been a bit monotonous in recent years. But I'm keeping a low profile until we see them in action.
Thanks bro!
I've conducted additional tests on this experiment, and the results appear to be consistent with very slight variations in values. There have been no deviations from what was reported in my previous post.
Here is the final table: (including the one above along with it)
DATA TABLEDribbles Made / 90Matches played : 8,800
I have also conducted experiments with "Get Stuck In" and "Tackle Harder."
Here are the results:
DATA TABLETackles Made / 90Matches played : 8,800
Based on these tests, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Both instructions do nothing to GKs.
2. Whether we use the "Get Stuck In" instruction or the "Tackle Harder" instruction we get the same output from all positions.
* Variations ranging from 0.01 to 0.1 points, and possibly slightly more, can be attributed to the RNG.
DM to VOL
Removed Distribute Quickly
PF to AF, GK to support duty and AMR to support duty
PI tweaks