So at least 1 player in the middle row? That second image makes it seem that there's nothing in having 4 players in the opponent's half.
Printable View
So at least 1 player in the middle row? That second image makes it seem that there's nothing in having 4 players in the opponent's half.
Well, I had a formation set to test tomorrow 4-1-0-2w-3 ... but the game already played due to the server glitch .. possession was (will be?) 54-46 ... but is that a reliable result?? I thought I tested that formation before with illegal results.
I can test a few in friendlies today, but I'll have many players out of position. Do you think I'll still win? Roughly 85 average quality against maybe 25 average quality max? Level 14 against level 1 anyway. :p Just tell me what formations to play.
Just need to test a few formations with at 3+ middles without any in the middle row. e.g 4-3-0-0-3, 4-0-0-3-3, 4-4-0-0-2, 4-2-0-2-2
You got back to me a bit late, though, I had already played the friendlies, and then the server reset itself so my players were in very bad condition, luckily my final match was against the bottom side. I can do some experiments tomorrow if you haven't already done them by then. :)
My players are pretty well hashed and I think I have to prepare for cup and CL games tomorrow??? or Monday???
So if you (or anyone else) are in good shape for a friendly or two i think we just need to test otherwise legal formations (3+ defenders in back row, proper wingers, 1+ striker) with nobody in that middle row [ M(L/C/R) ]
ok, i use this formation from time to time...
----st----st----
------amc------
--mc-mc-mc----
------dmc------
then either...
dl-----dc-----dr
or...
---dc-dc-dc---
so as im reading, is that illegal to play the latter? (or both for that matter?)
and what happens if you do play an illegal formation?
----st----st----Quote:
Originally Posted by ernie.m.
------amc------
--mc-mc-mc----
------dmc------
dl-----dc-----dr
Good.
----st----st----
------amc------
--mc-mc-mc----
------dmc------
---dc-dc-dc---
'Illegal because you need At least 1, but no more than 2, players on EACH outside flank. {the D(L/R), DM(L/R), M(L/R), AM(L/R) slots}
If you play an illegal formation, possession is 80%-20% in favor of your opponent.
Unless he has an illegal formation too .. then i dunno what would happen ... need to test that.
I'm guessing 50%-50%? As each teams 30% possession loss would cancel each other outQuote:
Originally Posted by Razz
I'd guess 50-50 too, but not for that reasoning as it's not exactly a 30% possession loss, just definitely 80-20. I won't assume that it's 50-50 if legal because one side or the other will have the lion's share of possession.Quote:
Originally Posted by dv8r
Watched this match today ... adds a new wrinkle again, because I see no reason why it's illegal
Attachment 909
EDIT: On further review, this team has a DL playing GK. See post below
It's not, unless something is very wrong with the DR?Quote:
Originally Posted by Razz
Sticker plz! :D
Attachment 970
Ok, at first blush, this looks ok. 4-3-2-1 should be good, right?
On further investigation, it turns out E. Silva is a MC playing keeper.
So, I'm thinking rule 1 is: a Goalkeeper playing Goalkeeper.
I don't think that's it, though. You play against plenty of abandoned teams with other players as GK, and you only get something over 70% possession most of the time. Very confusing, and there's also someone claiming that they played 5-1-1-0-3 for the whole of last season and it was fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razz
Tempting to make a second team just to test this stuff
personally don't see how any formation can be considered "illegal" football is a game that requires flexibility therefore surely football management games should have this also?
Not sure who first used the term illegal, I wouldn't exactly call it that. You have to agree that if you have noone on the left or right, then you're going to concede lots of possession. Yes, in real football, players can drift out wide to defend, but there will still be plenty of space more than usual for the opponents on that side.Quote:
Originally Posted by scale89
At the top of this thread however it is discussed that you should have a minimum of 3 defenders etc. I cannot see how having only 2 defenders is "illegal" or against the rules of the game. Like I say football is an evolving game and surely people should be given a freedom to play whatever formation they wish. For example on the game you cannot have 4 out and out forwards yet there is a formation in real life football 4-2-4. Whilst I concede this is not football manager etc. surely managers should be given the freedom to create new formations to trouble opponents? for example if I wanted to play a 2-5-3 formation.
It would be good if a moderator or admin could sticky this thread as it keeps falling off the main page and is very useful for people playing this game.
I have found out what happens when 2 illegal teams play each other.. It seems as though the possession penalty cancels out and the possession would be how it would be if they were playing normally.
Check it here
'Why' doesn't really matter for our purposes here. The fact is, some formations in this game result in a major possession penalty. We're trying to identify what those rules are.Quote:
Originally Posted by scale89
Quote:
Originally Posted by scale89
you are joking, right?>
4-2-4 is a 2 striker formation with 2 wingers, wingers are considered forwards in spain italy and south america, while in english speaking countries they are considered part of midfield
Someone like to comment on why this formation was penalised with 20-80 possession.
I cannot see anything that seems to infringe on the current known guidelines if illegal formations.
All players are in their correct positions also.
Possession remained constant for the 90, no H/T in this match. :confused: I was ready to make a sub as some players had not recovered from a late game last night, the game clock went from 44min to 52min.
Also another manager joined the game on 12min supporting me, not a clue who he is, made no difference to the possession so I suppose 80% is the maximum the engine will allow.
http://i48.tinypic.com/2ijmsg.jpg
FAO Potemy.
In reply to your post on the other thread about above image.
Played same team against similar quality teams twice now in the away legs of the cup 1st match 64 and second 62% to me.
They also had at least one player playing out of position, They were both L1 he is L3.
So this poses another question then.
The lower the level you play are the engine codes set to increase the posses
What is FAO, and what did I say? Sorry, I make too many posts on here. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Accyrover
FAO = For the attention of.
THe post in 'How are you doing, topic with the images of the formation 3-2-2-3.
A friend contacted me last night. He has a team in his Level 5 League playing this:-
DC-DC
DMR-DCM-DML
MC-MC
AMC
ST-ST
Now, according to current information this is an illegal formation with only 2 DCs. This team gets only 20% possession every game, yet, has won its last 2 games against the teams running 2nd & 3rd in the League. One of those this team beat of course was my friend who plays a straight 4-4-2 classic formation every game.
Can anyone explain how an illegal formation with only 20% possession can win any game, let alone games against much stronger opponents?
Speculation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Accyrover
Utter and complete domination. Possession should have been 90%+ (check vs real life record??) but code only allows 80% maximum???
There is more to it than that look at the shots for 'Utter domination' four shots? your kidding me. lol
As Gabe has mentioned and I agree at the moment the engine has had some serious mods.
I think this proves that having less than 4 players in your opponents half is considered an illegal formation.
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1da2ec0b.jpg
So... any ideas, why this formation is illegal? Away-Team-Manager was watching and Home-Team-Manager not, btw.
http://666kb.com/i/cax7ypndac8g363z3.png
Kemi, I've used that exact formation before. Without penalty.
So, we're getting some weird results that don't seem to fit any rule. I'm more confused than ever.
Attachment 1181Quote:
Originally Posted by Accyrover
No possession penalty for me
I got possession penalty with this formation too.Quote:
Originally Posted by dv8r
Attachment 1182
I think something is wrong with game engine...see below. 4-3-3 loose possession....
I'm the away side though:D
http://i50.tinypic.com/eqe7nk.jpg
Is 3-3-4 legal?
I think it would be, but it's not possible on T11 with only 3 striker slots. The closest you can get is 3-0-3-2-2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juanse642
No 4-2-4 is not two wingers! they are wing FORWARDS! different positions in that the wing forwards are more attacking than wingers. for players to be considered "Forwards" they don't have to be Centre forwards, they are different positions within a band such as forwards, defenders. For example in the Centre back position there are normal CB's then there are sweepers who don't necessarily have to be set up behind CB's. similarly in the forward positions there are different types of forwards Target man, wing forwards, second strikers, poachers etc. a wing forward differs to a winger!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapyer
Is just one player on the flank illegal or does both sides have to be occupied?
Like this...
----ST---ST---ST---
----MC---MC---MC--
---------------------
DML-----------------
----DC---DC----DC---
Both flanks should contain playersQuote:
Originally Posted by dv8r
