Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree3Likes
  • 2 Post By Qambu Yaasi
  • 1 Post By Cat Harrison

Thread: At what point do you sacrifice quality for a counterformation

  1. #1
    Dreamer fugazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    310

    At what point do you sacrifice quality for a counterformation

    Hi,

    Been pondering on this question for a while now. The reason is that every time I change my formation to the suggested counterformation my team seriously underperforms. I think the problem for me is that as a new player you dont know all the orders for each formation, or all the ins and out for that formation. My guess is that it's just these details that can win or loose a match and therefore using the rudimentary countertable can be dangerous.

    I'm now gonna go back o my standardformation, based on my own qualities and attributes rather then my opponents weakness and see from there what'll happen inmatch. Even more so bacause I'm usually the stronger one by at least a few skillpoints. My standardformation is a 3n-1-4-2, incredibly versatile, that is easy to modify during the match if needed.

    For the experts in here the question's still there. When and how much quality or you willing to sacrifice to field a counterformation?

  2. #2
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    171
    I am also thinking on that point!
    Changing formation in every single match can damage the team-shape.
    Now, I have decided to keep only 3 (may b 4) formations.
    So, please share your result and I will do too.
    Good Luck!

  3. #3
    Famous Qambu Yaasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,198
    I rarely look for counterformations.

    I prefer to look at my own team's strength and play 2 to 3 formations, depending.

    I favour twin strikers so my formation revolves is built around my twins. Usually I tweak a little, normally only taking into consideration whether the opponent plays an AMC or none. The rest are arrow plays and mentality orders.

    My basic formation is the 3-5-2 motivated and I play around with variations. A lot of times lately i've gone 3-1-4-2 which is a variation of a 3-5-2. That's probably because I've encountered a lot of AMCs.

    I can pull my DMC to a DC if the opponents AMC is having a quiet game and go 4-4-2 (I play with a DL/DC & DR/DC, so easy to switch). SOmetimes revert to 3-5-2- flat or motivated. I don't play AMCs so I dont quite use 3-4-1-2.

    Probably you can say I counter threats instead of formations.
    Cat Harrison and Belgji like this.
    Go Leo L24 Farmer ---

    Very Athletic L20 (Semi-Retired) --- Real Messy L16 (Retired) --- Athletic Kuching L17 --- Los Galaxy L14 28T

  4. #4
    English Forum Moderator Cat Harrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    StL
    Posts
    8,062
    Most of my teams (excluding BvB) are limited to just a few possible formations, and I generally have a full number of players, but only a few dual roles. So that means I usually have a favored offensive formation, and a favored defensive formation, with each having possible minor alterations. BvB I do try counters, sometimes, but I think teams do seem to perform best at what they play the most.
    Qambu Yaasi likes this.
    Expressed above is my own opinion. Your results may vary.
    ▬ ▬ ▬▬ ▬ ▬▬ ▬ >BvB
    < ▬ ▬▬ ▬ ▬▬ ▬ ▬
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  5. #5
    Famous Qambu Yaasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,198
    Not that Go Leo doesnt try counters once in a while but the boys tend to perform best when I just make small tweaks.
    Go Leo L24 Farmer ---

    Very Athletic L20 (Semi-Retired) --- Real Messy L16 (Retired) --- Athletic Kuching L17 --- Los Galaxy L14 28T