Are u reading the post. First page it tell you. Or are u trolling us?Quote:
Originally Posted by D3thf0rge13
Printable View
Are u reading the post. First page it tell you. Or are u trolling us?Quote:
Originally Posted by D3thf0rge13
Because you need to have 3 M (Mc, aMc, aMl, aMr etc...) players in the formationQuote:
Originally Posted by Lê Anh Minh
@Lê Anh Minh, like what nsretkovic said. It'll be legal formation if remove ur 1DC to DMC. #advice
Or a ST to AMC or MCQuote:
Originally Posted by fadhul17
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juan Fernandez
Thing is I don't get how an illegal formation may hold up 1:1 score with 20% possession.
i have a question
i just look up in my friends league and the team that finnish first play like this
dc dc dc
mc mc mc
amc
st st st
isnt illegal?? he dosent have any players on the side
and still he took the champions
Yes, it was illegal due to no players on the flanks.
On how he won the league, a more likely answer is he just changed to illegal formation towards the end of the season. Even if he played with illegal formation through out the season, he could still win the league. Illegal formation only results in 20% possession and many ppl on the forum had experienced losing to an illegal formation.
So even if u play an ilegal formation u can win. I wish this woulda happen to me last CL. When i play that same formation and tied.
Attachment 10205
I seen that. It can happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by D3thf0rge13
DittoQuote:
Originally Posted by nsretkovic
5-2-1-2 is legal fyi
I played the left formation below and it was illegal despite meeting the requirements on the first page. All players met their positions too.
The illegal problem arose as i changed a DMC for an AMC. Maybe there is a problem with the pitch being 4 players on my side and 6 on the opponents half on the field.
Attachment 10339
Thanks, Malko.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maiko Frenz
My guess is it has something to do with not having a player in midfield ( an MC or DMC)
We've revised this rule several times:
- at least 3 midfielders (DM*, M*, AM*) at least one of which has to be an DM* or M*
Maybe it should be:
- at least 3 midfielders (DM*, M*, AM*) at least one of which has to be an DMC or MC
???????
If you can do any testing of this, i'd appreciate it. I can probably do some testing as I got bounced from the Cup in the first round this season :-(
Note that the new wiki contains this information
I'm trying to ascertain whether this information is official and/or represents recent changes in the game engine.Quote:
Some formations are not allowed in Top Eleven and may lead to a very low ball possession, which in turn reduces the chance of victory.
Throughout the whole match you must have:
- a goalkeeper (blue)
- at least two defenders (green)
- at least one striker (red)
- at least one player on both flanks.
One player on the flank is enough, but three players on the same flank will also lead to low ball possession.
The wiki is mainly written by forum membersQuote:
Originally Posted by Razz
Do You have any official info yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Razz
So, 4-2-2-2 Hegaxon it's a legal formation, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Razz
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper™
They weaseled. It's officially unofficially official.
I won't be making any changes on the basis of the wiki.
He use illegal formation - but i'm loser and possession - 53% (something wrong?)
Attachment 10484
Attachment 10485
ST - A Rubiato is GK
Attachment 10486
Attachment 10487
Please re-read the first post in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Đỗ Lập Kem
I find the at least 1 striker nonsense.
Nowadays more and more teams play 4-6-0 as a variant of the 4-2-3-1. The only striker will be changed for an extra midfield player.
4-2-3-1 is used to counter a lot. When a teams needs to maintain a win or a draw they change to 4-6-0.
AML---AMC---AMR
--------MC------
----DMC---DMC---
DL---DC---DC---DL
Nothing wrong with this imo
I use
--- ST ST
--- --- --- --- AMR
--- MC---MC---MC ---
--- DC---DC---DC---DR
----------GK------------
I got 20% possession, why..
is it illegal? and it works?
Attachment 10695
Illegal formationAttachment 10729
Looks like you're missing the 3 in the back row part...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamil Kamill
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacksonVin
According to the beginning post, it says, "At least 1, but no more than 2, players on EACH..." You've got two on the right, but not a single one on the left.
i will play with this opponent tomorrow, which formation do i need to use and tactics?
Attachment 10746
How come this is an illegal formation? Is it true that there must be at least one MC?
By the way, what formation would you have used against the team on the right?
Attachment 10804
4-5-1 V-style?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veysel Diril
I've used that before in a rare occasion, it should be legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brushami
One opponent it my season got this formation.
----------Gk----------
Dr ------- dc ------- Dl
----------Mc----------
Amr amc amc amc aml
----------st-----------
I think its illegal. He win every game with 5:0 up. I lost 3:0 vs him
It's not illegal. Illegal formation doesn't make you win, you will be destroyed by that. This is a super-attacking formation, which seems to meet all requirementsQuote:
Originally Posted by Julian Staudacher
Y he won the game 3:0
I try this formation in next time self. Thx
How was his team's ball poscession?Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian Staudacher
68% but o changed my formation in the game 1 time. From 3-4-1-1-1 to 4-5-1 v style
In my league there's this team where he/she uses the formation of 3-4-3 BUT with a DMC as the GK. I didn't take much notice of it at first until i saw him getting 5-7 successive wins. Made me ponder for some time. Then finally he lost a match to another team, and immediately afterwards in his next fixture my club also won against him in the league. hehe.
is this illegal?
how to beat this amazing team? i have same skillz...
Attachment 11054
This is a legal formation. It seems to meet all requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Naretafra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perry Sih
- Goalkeeper (Must be player's natural position i.e. a GK) **
- Some combination of at least 3 defenders (i.e. 3 players anywhere in the back row )
- 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}
- at least 3 midfielders (DM*, M*, AM*) at least one of which has to be an DM* or M*
- At least 4 players on the opponents side of the pitch.
- at least 1 Striker
It meets all the known requirements, therefore:
6. Post-match results are inconclusive for various reasons. If a formation appears to be legal, but shows a 20% possession in post-match results (one you didn't watch), first check the GK in the game - if that is his natural position, and you find no other reason for the possession penalty, test the formation yourself. If it IS illegal, make a screenshot and post here please.
There could be several reasons for the 20% possession other than the formation shown being illegal. Some of these include: severe disparity in team quality, changes in formation after the match started, red cards, or injuries. Often a non-GK in the GK position will result in 20% possession for an otherwise legal formation.
Or you may have discovered something nobody else has recorded so far.
Preliminary testing confirms that 4w-0-2w-2n-2 IS illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perry Sih
Moving one of the AMCs to MC resulted in a legal formation.
Attachment 11142Attachment 11143
Previous testing has shown that an MC is NOT required IF you have a DMC. Will have to follow up on this and see if a DMC or DML or DMR makes it legal.
Thanks for posting.
To be illegal formation, it has to be 20% ball poscession, not 30...Quote:
Originally Posted by Razz
