Watching games doesn't make a big difference in Match results,

[Sunil Chetri]

Because win bonus or changing formations and tactics doesn't make you win, because the game is fixed before the match as some of are said it earlier,
Me & my friend did a experiment in officially league game,
I played with my usual formation & tactics( my team was at the top place and never loss a league game)
His team is not in good form despite having a good players,
He changed his all tactics( Hard attacking, low pressing, easy tackling, long ball passing, man to man marking, he removed win bonus, we both were present in match,
My players missed many easy chances, at the time of half time score is 0-0
My friend missplaced his players after 45 mins, but still my players missing a lot of chances, my team scored 3 goals after 80 mins, so the changes my friend did in his team when the game was going on it applied very late? & the tactics he used is stopped my team why?
I Still have to do lot of experiments

[khris]

I am not agree with that, as I usually tend to see a good effect when I do substitutions, or move players of position inside lines like invert the MC's left-right and vice.
+attending is a +8% and this is something that after seasons one can see that can make a differance, in terms of chances.

Another thing is that, if one don't attend the scenario is one, and if one attend, the scenario is another.

[Al Svanberg]

I am not agree with that, as I usually tend to see a good effect when I do substitutions, or move players of position inside lines like invert the MC's left-right and vice.
+attending is a +8% and this is something that after seasons one can see that can make a differance, in terms of chances.

Another thing is that, if one don't attend the scenario is one, and if one attend, the scenario is another.

Yeah I agree.

I think a good experiment would be to play like 5 friendlies vs the same opponent with easy tackling and then 5 friendlies vs the same opponent with hard tackles (make sure conditions are as similar as possible in all games, conditioning, morale etc). Good stats will be available and I am willing to bet that fouls, cards etc will be affected a lot by this. That is at least my experience, tough tackling and you seem to get a lot more fouls etc.

In general, I also believe that it is important to remember that any setting is just orders at to what preference players shall use. I mean, if you set go down both flanks and play like a DC-DC-DC-MC-MC-MC-AMC-ST-ST-ST you will not see many attacks down the flanks. Passing options down the flanks will not be available for the players. Like giving an order is not like an order in chess. There obviously is a great deal of randomness in this game which also is the case in the real game of soccer, who can for sure know how a real game will play out?

[Tactician]

I have made some test matches lately, and based on what I have observed, I can say that the game is messed up.

Game does not react as expected to logical changes made. Counter formations and counter orders do not seem to work as expected these days. In many of the test matches, doing changes have not changed the final outcome (who is going to win and who is going lose, not the scoreline as such).

A.M advice are ****, up to the point where you follow his advice and you lose control of the match or concede instantly or so. There are also a lot of 'ping-pongs'. For instance, do A, then slightly later, doing A is not good, do B, or do C which is logically not compatible with A. A.M says to attack more, switched to more attack and next advice comes up: we should not be attacking so much. How come this can be like this, especially if the opposing manager was not present or has not changed anything? Let's press high, and then let's force counter-attack? There is no logic in the combinations of orders to be used too.

Below are some scenarios.

One team used hard tackling, and it is the other team that was using normal tackling that got a red card.

One team was on hard attacking and attack bonus, A.M advice came: we should attack more if we want to win. What?

A team, playing with no centre-back (DC), has been winning matches in my league. When I played against it, my team scored only 1 goal.

Briefly, the game has gone **** (maybe not all servers or users have been affected, but I have noticed the decline). There is not much sense in this game lately.

[Al Svanberg]

One team used hard tackling, and it is the other team that was using normal tackling that got a red card.

Sounds like Diego Costa, hit someone in the face and the other guy will be sent off! But just asking, how many games did you test this with? A sample size of less than 10-20 games is definitely too small to measure something like that.

A team, playing with no centre-back (DC), has been winning matches in my league. When I played against it, my team scored only 1 goal.

This is one "complaint" I also have. Man-man defense is just -- waaay -- to good with with a nutty defensive formation. It especially feels like if you pressure someone a bit, they can get away with anything defensively. IE if you face someone with a defensive hole and that team is better than you, that hole is very often exposed with counter attacks etc. But if you face a team with a defensive hole that you own possession against, and presumably they play man-man, their defense more often than not is rock solid.

For example, last season in the cup I faced an extremely offensive wide 3 D team, and the DC was sent off in the second half. I was maybe 105% and this guy 110%. I pressured him some for the reminder of the second half and the 2x15 additional time, but his D was just rock solid still. You just can't even remotely play with 3 STs, a AML and a AMR, 2 MCs and only a DL and a DR in real soccer just because you play "man-man". I was the better team in both the first leg and second leg before he had a player sent off too, so it was not some scenario where a much better team just prevailed (both games finished 2-2 and he won on the penalties...).

In short, a simulation engine for soccer is faulty if it works to play DL-DC-DR to start with in my opinion. I don't know what you guys think? I mean, from my point of view it just wouldn't work in real life. The DL/DR are pretty offensive with the ball and they are still not exposed defensively. I definitely would love to see some tinkering with this from Nordeus side. I think you see a lot of teams playing this system right now and it just takes a bit from the game since it's very unrealistic. I think I am going to take it up in the suggestion section, but I would want to hear what you guys think first!

On the other side of the coin, I think it's a huge plus in TE that formation choosen isn't what decides everything. You can't just like play some nutty 4-2-4 that beats everything else. But IMO the fact that a DL-DC-DR defensive line works so well is takin it too far.

[Sons of Pitches]

Tactician,

There are different ways you can attack and defend so this may be something you've not considered which could have given you poor results. For example, instead of changing your commands from Defense to Attack or full Attack, you can simply move a DMC into a MC position or a AMC up into Striker. I think everyone automatically assumes the AM is implying you need need to change your commands when that might not always be the case.

With that said, i also think the AM still needs a lot of fine tuning.

I hope this recommendation helps.

[Tactician]

Tactician,

There are different ways you can attack and defend so this may be something you've not considered which could have given you poor results. For example, instead of changing your commands from Defense to Attack or full Attack, you can simply move a DMC into a MC position or a AMC up into Striker. I think everyone automatically assumes the AM is implying you need need to change your commands when that might not always be the case.

With that said, i also think the AM still needs a lot of fine tuning.

I hope this recommendation helps.

No, because there are dedicated advice for that. The A.M tells you put one man more in attack or one man more in defense. Both of these have appeared in the past. In fact, a few months ago, the A.M advices were much better; it is only from a few weeks ago that things seem to decline noticeably. Maybe Nordeus have been getting poor feedback from users, and thus they got mislead and made inappropriate adjustments.

Another ****ty A.M advice: a team was playing defensive 4-1-4-1 (order was defensive, I know it because I was managing both teams - this was for one of the experimental matches recently done). A.M advice that came for the opposing team (the other team): the opponent is playing a lot in our half, let's break them with some quick counter-attacks. What?

[Tactician]

Sounds like Diego Costa, hit someone in the face and the other guy will be sent off! But just asking, how many games did you test this with? A sample size of less than 10-20 games is definitely too small to measure something like that.



This is one "complaint" I also have. Man-man defense is just -- waaay -- to good with with a nutty defensive formation. It especially feels like if you pressure someone a bit, they can get away with anything defensively. IE if you face someone with a defensive hole and that team is better than you, that hole is very often exposed with counter attacks etc. But if you face a team with a defensive hole that you own possession against, and presumably they play man-man, their defense more often than not is rock solid.

For example, last season in the cup I faced an extremely offensive wide 3 D team, and the DC was sent off in the second half. I was maybe 105% and this guy 110%. I pressured him some for the reminder of the second half and the 2x15 additional time, but his D was just rock solid still. You just can't even remotely play with 3 STs, a AML and a AMR, 2 MCs and only a DL and a DR in real soccer just because you play "man-man". I was the better team in both the first leg and second leg before he had a player sent off too, so it was not some scenario where a much better team just prevailed (both games finished 2-2 and he won on the penalties...).

In short, a simulation engine for soccer is faulty if it works to play DL-DC-DR to start with in my opinion. I don't know what you guys think? I mean, from my point of view it just wouldn't work in real life. The DL/DR are pretty offensive with the ball and they are still not exposed defensively. I definitely would love to see some tinkering with this from Nordeus side. I think you see a lot of teams playing this system right now and it just takes a bit from the game since it's very unrealistic. I think I am going to take it up in the suggestion section, but I would want to hear what you guys think first!

On the other side of the coin, I think it's a huge plus in TE that formation choosen isn't what decides everything. You can't just like play some nutty 4-2-4 that beats everything else. But IMO the fact that a DL-DC-DR defensive line works so well is takin it too far.

No. It can't be man-on-man because the opponent had 9 outfield players and you 10; so you had one man always being unmarked. And yes, this game is **** in terms of formation; you will see formations like 3W-5-2V, 3N-1-2-3W-1 and so on being superior when in fact they should be inferior. There is also the narrow formations being overpowered in this game; narrow formations seem to have an edge.

The game engine itself needs a lot of improvement. There is not much sense in this game lately. The game was in fact better a few months ago; it seems that the feedback the users have been sending to Nordeus (surveys and so on) were poorly done, and hence the adjustments recently made by Nordeus made the game worst.

[Tactician]

Yeah I agree.

I think a good experiment would be to play like 5 friendlies vs the same opponent with easy tackling and then 5 friendlies vs the same opponent with hard tackles (make sure conditions are as similar as possible in all games, conditioning, morale etc). Good stats will be available and I am willing to bet that fouls, cards etc will be affected a lot by this. That is at least my experience, tough tackling and you seem to get a lot more fouls etc.

In general, I also believe that it is important to remember that any setting is just orders at to what preference players shall use. I mean, if you set go down both flanks and play like a DC-DC-DC-MC-MC-MC-AMC-ST-ST-ST you will not see many attacks down the flanks. Passing options down the flanks will not be available for the players. Like giving an order is not like an order in chess. There obviously is a great deal of randomness in this game which also is the case in the real game of soccer, who can for sure know how a real game will play out?

I have seen situations where the formations used are wide (DL,DR, AML,AMR) and players passing in the middle only to lose the ball despite that there were players free on the wings. For instance, in the case of 4-3N-2W-1 or 4-5-1V. It is not only about passing focus. Many orders given are not being obeyed as such. You set P1 to take right side corners and left side free-kicks for example, it is P2 who takes them. You asked players to pass long, and they pass short or vice versa, again only to lose the ball.

[Al Svanberg]

Tactician- I agree with a lot of what you say, but in other cases I think you are way to cathegoral. Even if you tell your players to prefer to take long passes, there will of course still be short passes made in a soccer game. Have you ever seen a real soccer game where only short/long passes are made? Like I said, you cannot think of it like you are playing a game of chess, where if you move your queen you move your queen. A coach ordering his player to make the long pass in a soccer game would in a real game result in what, 3-4% more long passes being made? 10%? You don't set your players to only make long passes, a soccer team making a lot of long passes means that they in a few transition plays send long passes on a target striker instead of going through the midfielders. Most passes in a soccer game is other type of passes that are not long/short, but passes made with the back against the field, under pressure, up field and what not. And even besides that, the players aren't robots. They don't do what the coach tells them to do always.

BTW I don't understand your comment on the man-man issue. It's of course possible to play man-man if you are down a man. It's not like the defending team short a player would just stand and look if the player "left out" would get the ball. I am not even sure it matters if you play man-man or zonal, I've never tried and just guessed at man-man. The problem is this. With that formation you are good offensively, which I recon is warranted. BUT, you should be exposed defensively. With a DL-DC-DR defensive line, the DL and DR will be quite offensive when you have be ball. They will support the wingers, go up field and cross balls etc. But they are not exposed defensively to the extent they should be. From my POV, in real soccer that would be a suicide strategy. That is why there -- never -- have been a team at any kind of level that have played with one DC in real soccer. Hence I think Nordeus should tinker with the engine since it's so successful in TE. Defensively it works like you have 3 DCs and offensively like you have wing backs. That would be suicide in a real game, shouldn't be able to have both in TE.