Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Chat Remove roles in FMM2017


rseven
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi. mates,

Have you noticed that many roles are removed in FMM2017.

At AMC position, BBM and BWM are removed.

At AMR/L position, WM is removed.

At DMC position, BBM is removed.

At DMR/L position, DW is removed.

My guess is that SI want to simple the roles, and remove some roles which are not well defined in engine.

What is your idea, mate? Do you think this change is good or bad?

Screenshot_2016-11-18-15-11-23.png

Screenshot_2016-11-18-15-11-11.png

Screenshot_2016-11-18-15-12-04.png

Screenshot_2016-11-18-15-12-19.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard DW's were removed but I had no idea that many were :o. So we have less options than ever in an already limited tactically game? Yikes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those roles were removed purely because they don't make sense in those positions! There's no such thing as a BWM at AMC :P  we're always looking to add more roles in the future, but only in positions where they make sense ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, aligempf said:

Those roles were removed purely because they don't make sense in those positions! There's no such thing as a BWM at AMC :P  we're always looking to add more roles in the future, but only in positions where they make sense ;)

So a defensive winger at DMR doesn't make sense? A BBM in AMC or DMC doesn't make sense? I've used many of these roles. If they make no sense why have they been in the game years? Why do we have no Treq at AMC which we were promised in 2013? When was the last time we even had new outfield roles? Was Treq in 2013 right? 

Edited by Ashez
Link to comment
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, aligempf said:

Those roles were removed purely because they don't make sense in those positions! There's no such thing as a BWM at AMC :P  we're always looking to add more roles in the future, but only in positions where they make sense ;)

 

So if Pep wants to play a certain player in position the FA would enter the dressing room and stop him? Surely the choice is up to us as managers. 

I think you will find plenty of teams played a tough tackling player in the AMC position to directly stop Pirlo dictating the game. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aligempf said:

Those roles were removed purely because they don't make sense in those positions! There's no such thing as a BWM at AMC :P  we're always looking to add more roles in the future, but only in positions where they make sense ;)

I do not agree with you. 

Why not set a BWM at AMC position when you want to use a press tactics?

If I want to set a wide player at AMRL position and I want him to use more pass to support other players instead of dribbling, I can set a WM  role to him. 

But now, we are robbed these options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or can't you see roles on the main screen of a player anymore?

i know you can go into the positions sections and see, but not during a match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna lie, I've never played those roles in those roles. I mostly rotate between a flat 442, a left inside forward 442, narrow 4312 and standard 4231. Never even used the DML/R positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really miss the options for wing backs. Played them as WMs and got some decent results out of them, now I'm back to having the same problem where they don't press high enough on the attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aligempf said:

Those roles were removed purely because they don't make sense in those positions! There's no such thing as a BWM at AMC :P  we're always looking to add more roles in the future, but only in positions where they make sense ;)

add more in the future? surely this is the future? You've just released a new game, dont start saying things like that already.

I've not played much yet but honestly so far it feels exactly the same as 2016 only with updated player stats and footedness which i'm honestly not sure effects anything at all,....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of these make sense but the removal of WMs in AMR/L positions doesn't. In real life, most wide players are not traditional wingers, not inside forwards, not advanced Playmakers, but something in between, which the WM is IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, nick2528 said:

add more in the future? surely this is the future? You've just released a new game, dont start saying things like that already.

I've not played much yet but honestly so far it feels exactly the same as 2016 only with updated player stats and footedness which i'm honestly not sure effects anything at all,....

I don't think it feels the same. The 2d match engine has improved a lot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it's major bummer there's fewer roles to choose from. A good manager is supposed to (or will eventually) know which roles are and aren't suitable for a specific position or particular type of player.

More importantly, it's educational and just fun to allow managers a variety of combinations so they can learn as they go. Really hope SI team re-considers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this be a hint that new roles are coming soon to us? I really hope that is the case. Fmm is a tactical match simulator and we get our fix from tweaking our formations and roles to find the best tactics for our players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kicking and screaming over this. I've bought the game every year, and the illogical - frankly lazy - implementation of roles has continually been it's biggest failure. I mean, Central Midfielder in the DM and AM positions, really? How simple it would be to replace that with Defensive and Attacking Midfielder in the respective strata... It's laughable, honestly.

The roles that have been removed do make sense and are cohesive with the full version, but the fact that the mobile edition remains devoid of so many essential ones found in the former renders it an unjustifiable move. I don't think anyone would disagree that for FMM to feel complete in this respect, as opposed to the unconsidered hash-job we have at present, the following simple additions in the following positions are imperative:

  • DMC: Anchorman (a role that sits in front of the defence, intercepting and holding up the ball in a manner different to the more aggressive BWM); Defensive Midfielder (replacing the current Central Midfielder option, mostly an aesthetic change)
  • MR/L: Wide Playmaker (a role that naturally cuts inside from this stratum is needed, especially since the belated inclusion of footedness)
  • AMC: Shadow Striker (replacing the current Inside Forward option, responsible for both scoring goals and regaining possession - thus accounting for the loss of the BWM in this position); Attacking Midfielder (again replacing the silly Central Midfielder option)

I understand that FMM is supposed to be a simplified incarnation of the Football Manager game, and so I can accept the omission of some roles. However, the inclusion of those described above shouldn't be difficult, and would allow us to utilise important instructions and styles that are inaccessible at current. Moreover, roles were brought into the series in the first place to simplify things, so the argument for the introduction of a few more should be taken seriously. The Libero, Inverted Wingback, Half Back, Roaming Playmaker, Trequartista/Enganche, Wide Target Man, Raumdeuter and False 9 all perform tasks not accounted for by the hitherto available options and would thus be welcome additions.

Rant over! But honestly, I think it's important to make a fuss about this about this until we see some improvement in this important area of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't disagree with the need for more roles especially since the tactics screen isn't as fluid as the full PC version (which is fine given the platform), but some of your examples feel a bit extreme.  

Like wouldn't using a CM in the most defensive of the three possible levels kind of tell him to stay a little further back a bit ala a Defensive Midfielder?  Or you can try using a DLP at that same level as your anchorman - it's not perfect but likely workable for most tactical options.  Try using one with higher aggression/tackle maybe?  Inside Forward kind of does most of the things you want the "shadow striker" to do which is probably fine for this simpler mobile version (you may have problems with how IF operates in the engine as per another thread here but the idea of the IF is solid so that's outside of the scope of this discussion).  Or you can try using a Deep Lying Forward as a kind of a False 9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're talking about removed roles, let's talk about one that probably should've been cut.  Can anyone tell me the point of Inside Forward being an option in the CENTRAL AMC spot?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, veerus said:

Since we're talking about removed roles, let's talk about one that probably should've been cut.  Can anyone tell me the point of Inside Forward being an option in the CENTRAL AMC spot?  

To set an if at amc position is quite different with an ap.

If at amc more like a shadow striker.

 

 

Edited by rseven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The roles which were removed were done as part of feedback from players and QA - its possible we might put some of these back in or add others in the future, depending on how persuasive arguments are and how we feel the balance is, but generally they were felt to be inappropriate for the positions involved.

(with regards to adding new ones - we likely will in the future at some stage, but doing so takes quite a bit of time as I have to tune the match engine to ensure they behave in the way you'd expect and I'm also balancing tuning the rest of the game at the same time ... at present I'm trying to ensure that everything is stable and sane so you can all fully enjoy the game ... once that is done I'll look at enhancing things further ..)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Marc Vaughan said:

The roles which were removed were done as part of feedback from players and QA - its possible we might put some of these back in or add others in the future, depending on how persuasive arguments are and how we feel the balance is, but generally they were felt to be inappropriate for the positions involved.

(with regards to adding new ones - we likely will in the future at some stage, but doing so takes quite a bit of time as I have to tune the match engine to ensure they behave in the way you'd expect and I'm also balancing tuning the rest of the game at the same time ... at present I'm trying to ensure that everything is stable and sane so you can all fully enjoy the game ... once that is done I'll look at enhancing things further ..)

Not too fussed about the removed roles since they still exist in popular positions, but the addition of new roles would be grand. It's been an annual request and quite a few, including myself, were left disappointed that this year's features did not touch upon tactics. Hope you guys get things stable soon to work on the good stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can believe that someone would ask for a certain role 'instead ' of one of the roles that has been removed. 

I can't believe anyone would ask for roles to be removed without adding new ones meaning  less roles. 

QA is fine but sometimes it can be made to look a certain way or interpreted wrong. 

A simple example. 

Q-  'What would you like to see in regards to player roles?

A-   'I don't see the point in a Box to Box Midfielder in the DM position. I would much rather have an anchor man role instead'

 

Findings. 

The person surveyed does not see the point in a b2b role.

 

That is factually correct but if you said we will remove the B2B role but not give you the anchor man, I'm sure the person would not be happy.

 

Roles should  have only been removed to make way for new ones. If someone doesn't want to use a certain role then they don't have to. It WAS personal choice, now that choice has been taken away.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QA means Quality Assurance not Question and Answer but I agree. I asked for these roles to be removed in favour of ones which make more sense and offer more variety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @Dec, I have to produce Quality Assurance portfolios for my business annually. 

Part of the QA will be getting feedback from customers which is why I gave the example above. 

Your example is perfect. You asked for removal in favour of something different. However, would you have asked for roles to be taken away if you knew nothing would be added?

Edited by billy2shots
Link to comment
Share on other sites
On 28 November 2016 at 22:10, veerus said:

Like wouldn't using a CM in the most defensive of the three possible levels kind of tell him to stay a little further back a bit ala a Defensive Midfielder?  Or you can try using a DLP at that same level as your anchorman - it's not perfect but likely workable for most tactical options.  Try using one with higher aggression/tackle maybe?  Inside Forward kind of does most of the things you want the "shadow striker" to do which is probably fine for this simpler mobile version (you may have problems with how IF operates in the engine as per another thread here but the idea of the IF is solid so that's outside of the scope of this discussion).  Or you can try using a Deep Lying Forward as a kind of a False 9.

I do use the Central Midfielder role in the DMC/AMC positions in the absence of appropriately named alternatives, yes, which is why I referred to the inclusion of Defensive/Attacking Midfielder roles in place of the CM options as simply an aesthetic change; merely a rewording of the names that would take only seconds, surely, but would give the game a more professional and considered finish. The case is similar for the central Inside Forward role: just changing the name of that role to Shadow Striker would be sufficient (perhaps also noting in the description that this player is responsible for chasing down loose balls in his position of the field etc.). I admit that my desire to see these minor changes is influenced by my OCD: it genuinely makes me feel a little bit queasy to have a 'Central Midfielder' in the DM/AM stratum - or likewise an 'Inside Forward' in the centre - when I know that this could be easily amended.

However, I don't agree that using a DLP in place of an Anchorman is feasible. The Anchorman differs from the DLP in that he makes exclusively simple passes - very few through balls, and differs from the BWM in that he doesn't push forward to close down and isn't as aggressive in the tackle. If, for example, you have a player with great positioning, decisions and strength, but poor passing and not brilliant tackling, this is the best role for him. Moreover, if your tactic requires a shield in front of the defence that doesn't assertively close down or play probing passes, the Anchorman is necessary.

I do agree that the DLF probably covers everything that a False 9 could do in the mobile version, for now, which is why it's only the ones I've listed in bullet points that I think the game is really, sorely missing. 

On 30 November 2016 at 08:06, Marc Vaughan said:

The roles which were removed were done as part of feedback from players and QA - its possible we might put some of these back in or add others in the future, depending on how persuasive arguments are and how we feel the balance is, but generally they were felt to be inappropriate for the positions involved.

(with regards to adding new ones - we likely will in the future at some stage, but doing so takes quite a bit of time as I have to tune the match engine to ensure they behave in the way you'd expect and I'm also balancing tuning the rest of the game at the same time ... at present I'm trying to ensure that everything is stable and sane so you can all fully enjoy the game ... once that is done I'll look at enhancing things further ..)

Please see the above. And, if you have time, I would really appreciate a response specifically to the arguments made in the bullet points in my earlier post. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anchorman is a role I personally would like to get in. There are a few others ;)

I also think the differences between a DLF and a false nine are quite cosmetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...