46Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYes. u r right! he knows what the illegal formation is. That's why he changed his MR to Mc immediately after his MC sent-off.Originally Posted by Francesko901
but... at least 3 midfielders, not 2, please double check?
Yes. u r right! he knows what the illegal formation is. That's why he changed his MR to Mc immediately after his MC sent-off.
but... at least 3 midfielders, not 2, please double check?
Last edited by Belgji; 01-04-2014 at 07:40 PM.
hi,
why this saison, i can let play my gk as a mc/st and it was not a illegal formation? if i make that i have normal ball possesion over 50%
Really? I find that odd, but then I never play my GK anywhere but goal.
Expressed above is my own opinion. ☻ Your results may vary.
▬ ▬ ▬▬ ▬ ▬▬ ▬ >BvB< ▬ ▬▬ ▬ ▬▬ ▬ ▬
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Because it is not illegal to let your player play on field different from his specialization (1 to 3 fields out of all 14 fields). When your player plays on fields his is not specialized to, his performance his slightly worse, but if his skills are huge he still could play better than opponents player on right field. In the end you lose some ball possession by player on wrong field, but it could be from 1 to 5 % (no one knows because Nordeus has not revealed game equation yet nor tells us exactly the penalization for playing players on wrong fields).
So, having GK on ST field (instead of ST) is better than have no ST, because formation without any ST is illegal. But no one knows if it is better to have on ST field brilliant GK with high attacking skills or ST with skills under average. And no one knows what is the skill compensation for playing wrong field (let us say e.g. that playing on ST without specialization to ST reduces all skills of such a player by 5 points during such a match). I think Nordeus owes us such an explanation.
i think so , has been sticked
Chris Rath already answered your question above.
If you think the rules as posted here are wrong, you can easily check by playing a friendly with a questionable formation.
~^~*~^~ My opinions are best when taken with a grain of salt. No iodine added. ~^~*~^~
Can someone explain what happened my last match? Or is it just a fluke result.
I was playing against an illegal formation. 3N-1-3N-3N. My players lvl is higher then his and I played 4-3N-2W-1, (V-style, with the DMC changed for a MC and arrows on the DR/DC) Obviously, my opponent got 20% possesion, he also suffered 2 injuries midgame but I still lost 1-0. Now I'm knocked out in the prelims again on conceded home goals. Shots were just 10-12 in my advantage. How is this possible, or am I missing something tactic wise?
Just bad luck /troll result? How were your shots on target? 80% possession is no guarantee of victory.
Did you adjust your tactics at all ... focus passing down the flanks should (theoretically) be good against that.
In the end, i'd say just bad luck ..
~^~*~^~ My opinions are best when taken with a grain of salt. No iodine added. ~^~*~^~
Hmm, I replied already yesterday, but for some reason I got the msg saying its awaiting approval? Maybe too lengthy for using quick reply? I expected it to be here already? Ah well, not going to rewrite everything. I will nevertheless summarize it.
Shots on target 3-5 in his favor. Unfortunately I couldn't watch the match. Must admit I underestimated it otherwise I'ld have made sure I could . I'm quite sure I could've turned it as I played my young fast trainer with my best striker on the bench, or red arrows added on my AML/R. I guess this is the main reason, without arrows on the wingers my striker was too weak on his own. And well, his strikers were strong, so a goal against is always a possibility against 3 of them.
Lesson learned I guess... even if it's a bit trollish.
So I'm new to this: do I need a ML and an MR to make this legal?
ST -- ST
-- -- AMC -- --
-- MC -- MC --
-- -- DMC -- --
DL DC --- DC DR
GK
Reply With Quote