My guess is that a lot of things (counter formation, arrows, morale, win bonus? etc.) do not make a difference so they don't want to disclose it because it would prove that the game is silly. Maybe not all of those that I listed but I think some, and especially the in-game adjustments we make. I don't think they matter as much as we would like to believe.Originally Posted by kebess
As the name implies mentality is the focus on which you orient your team into playing. Offensive mentality will much likely pressure the opponent's midfield and 3/4 zone in order to break through. It doesn't change the stats, this is not a fighting game.
On the other side, mentality means nothing if not supported by the right team. As example. a 3-3-1-3 module with defensive mentality is as much trash as a pen with no ink. On the other side, a 4-2dmc-3mc-1 with offensive mentality won't bring any good that the normal mentality.
Basically, modules needs to match orders and orders need to match modules to be effective.
A 4-3-3 will be more offensive and have more chanches with attacking mentality. But attacking mentality will leave you open to counters. To answer once to your reply before, during your match if the other manager was present and at the moment of red card switched to defensive/counter on you most probably would have taken in a second goal.
a 3-3-2-2 like yours profits more with defensive/counter strategy as well, along with own half pressing. WHen i wrote that it's an AI you're facing i meant that even on defensive/counter the AI won't produce a scenario when you get pressured and got less possession than the enemy. You would actually have the same pressure on pitch but the AI woul pick better and more chanches for your players to score rather than with the orders you used.
So according to your orders you needa put your module to favour them. A 4-3N-3 plaied on flanks will fail due to lack of wingers, as much as an offensive mentality won't bring any good if 7 of your players are playing in you own half, as i said earlier in your situation.
It's possible, I have played some games where this has been proven to be the case.
At the other end of the spectrum, it could be that what they do is fairly straightforward and 'solvable' and if they revealed what they did, players would quickly be able to conclude which settings are 'best'.
This doesn't answer my question... You know how it works or you don't ? I'm gonna rephrase :
"Where" exactly do you get the mentality bonus ? Assuming you're right, and it does depend on your formation, then where does it advantage you exactly ?
Who's getting the advantage ? MFs and STs if you're playing "Attacking /Hard Attacking", and Defenders if you are playing "Defending /Hard Defending" ?
And does it mean then that no one really gets a "penalty" from the mentality you're playing even if it doesn't fit their position?
That is my question.
Last edited by kebess; 09-16-2013 at 09:51 PM.
It seems, just like the rest of us, you have no clue about it, : (
I will say I have observed in game that attacking mentality with a defensive formation loses possession.
But yeah there's no definate answer, like so much of this game... trial and error.
Last edited by Cat Harrison; 09-17-2013 at 08:50 PM. Reason: grammer und speeling
Expressed above is my own opinion. ☻ Your results may vary.
▬ ▬ ▬▬ ▬ ▬▬ ▬ >BvB< ▬ ▬▬ ▬ ▬▬ ▬ ▬
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Nice "theories", because that's all they are without concrete proof and/or confirmation from Nordeus.
a 4-3N-3 played on flanks might not fail if the opponent also plays illogical and/or uses wrong instructions/tactics. there are defensive formations that can be played with attacking mentality and win, simply because I do it all the time. I am ALWAYS playing attacking mentality no matter what formation I use.
Until Nordeus confirms the actual definition and usage of mentalities, it is all trial and error with no way of actually knowing 100%
Indeed. I'm too used to the saying "the best defense is the strongest attack" or something like that... well, you know what I mean.
If you're attacking your opponent constantly and firmly, and can keep it up long enough, then he can't really do anything else but defend, inevitably giving you an advantage.
Obviously, this doesn't always apply, but I'd say it's the way to go as a "default" mentality.
For example, many people say, Hard Attacking mentality is bad, etc... but the truth is, every single time I've "dared" to use it, I won the game pretty abruptly, and most goals were yielded right after the switch.
So either, it's all about luck and I was very lucky, every single time, or there's definitely something to this logic.
It is nowhere like a question what you're asking. You are missing the whole meaning of team orders.
You keep treating T11 as a RPG or MMORPG game thinking that this or that mentality will affect/boost some of your players but it's far from what it does (should do). I do think there is nothing hard to catch. The mentality you use doesn't boost ****, doesn't get players better. It only can BETTER fit into your module.
Expecially, it influences the way the AI considers your team's movements and actions (towards the goal pressing or waiting to defend), but specifically it challenges your opponent's orders. That kind of clash too is randomized and calculated into the engine's work.
A team playing attacking mentality will mostly pressure more against a team with normal one, finding some spaces.
Reversely, a defensive mentality going on counter will leave the initiative to the offensive mentality team BUT will give less spaces and, above all, provide dangerous counters.
Normal mentality gives you an "equal" amount of chanches for and against, making it balanced with spaces found and conceided.
In the end, mentality is just a way to counter the opponent's mentality, and this is where you have to bet: the most interesting part of the matches is to be able to figure out your opponent's orders before hand, and among all, the changes during the live match. Many of those defeats where people claim "i used a right counter and right orders for my module" are simply losses born by not being able to read the opponent's orders.
As examples, many people bitches about losing to 4-4-2 flat believing the sistem is alwais played through both flanks and whole pitch, but many times i tried playing it with through middle/offensive mentality and smashed easily the ND, while the 3-1-4-2 made me suffer.
Ofc, this applies when facing equal qualities on both sides and expecially balanced orders/setups.
Rather, you pretended me to answer immediatly while i do not work on the forums rather than real life, so sorry if i was late!
1)Of course they are theories, cause if they weren't there wouldn't be a point into playing or asking on forums. But they are theories taken from seasons over seasons tests while considering ONLY matches against stronger or same quality opponents.
2)As first istance, you are arguing posing given circumstances which aren't the neither the normality nor the standard of the game. It's obvious that if you are facing someone who set up an illogical tactic/module you're bound to win more or less with whatever orders you use. As for you, before talking about your experiences you should see first if you took examples from fighting weaker, same or higher quality teams. As example i wouldn't mind to see your CUP road and results as to compare since for me that is the only territory where almost all the matches are equally balanced.
3) Captain obvious again. Ofc it is a matter of trial and error but more specifically as i already stated you should consider only same or higher Quality teams, although such assumptions wouldn't make much sense. WHat i posted earlier is a sum taken considering only my RR CUP experiences as as i said already League has too many differences in powers and so does the CL apart for those 2-3 good teams you might find and not even face till the final.
So far, i faced teams up to 20Q better than mine and most of the times i've beaten them with what i considered a good counter-tactic and counter-formations. Ofc, quality is what in the ends weights more than any else and eventually in the away matches i suffered more and sometimes lost, but never by a gap wider than 1 goal even against 20Q + difference for them. That is why i do think what i write has not 100%, but at least 60% righteousness. As proof, so far i NEVER once lost playing home against a way stronger team than mine.
As for your orders, whenever i tried playing attacking mentality in an away match vs stronger or equal teams i alwais had my ass handled or won nearly on a balanced match.
EDIT: forgot to add, that ofc this could apply when the Engine actually works normally or at least when Nordeus isn't using poor customers as live examples testing out new features. WHen the engine becomes troll, all i said above is as useful as fried **** sticks.
Last edited by HateMeNow; 09-17-2013 at 10:05 PM.
From what I understand, mentality affects your team's positioning and behaviour towards your opponent right ?
So why is it bad to play "Attacking" with a non offensive formation ? I mean, your team can still assume an attacking behaviour, and positioning, right ?
For example your defenders might defend a bit closer to the midfield line and would even cross that line on occasions, if a pass is less effective (a bit like what my defender did, in the match I described in the OP). Your attackers will basically sit in the opponent's goal and wait for passes, and midfielders would play a bit higher and press towards the AM section.
With a defensive formation, you'll have more defenders obviously, but why should that necessary be bad for an attacking mentality, if things works like described above ? All they'll do is try to press more when they have the ball, by helping the DM section and even the midfield area.
When they don't have the ball, they won't just stand around, and wait for it to come at their feet. They'll naturally resume a defensive position and try to get it back, but as soon as they get it, they'll resume the pressing yet again.
This is how I picture it from your description, so why is it bad to play offensive with a defensive formation and vice versa ?
Sure if you play offensive with an offensive formation, you'll have more players doing the pressing in the opponent's half of the field, but like you said, you'll also be more vulnerable to counter-attacks.
However, with a defensive formation, although your pressing would be less effective, your defense would still remain much stronger, even though you have an attacking mentality, allowing you to block much more counter-attacks. Don't you agree? That is not a "disadvantage" at all. It's just as valid as any other formation.
Last edited by kebess; 09-17-2013 at 10:49 PM.
19Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote