Onderwerp: »General Questions

Still, it should be possible with the same error box as when placing 6 MIDs. It doesn't seem too hard to implement.
(gewijzigd)

I disagree! Tactics above individual preferences! Team before man. It's a code which needs to be preserved!
As a coach, you need to be prepared. Having 8 bench places and 5 subs would help, though.

As a coach, you need to be prepared. Having 8 bench places and 5 subs would help, though.

+1

I don't get your point. The only small change is substituting an attacker for a defender to have more flexibility in tactics when I am winning. It is not very flexible to start with 4-3-3 in an important match and be unable to park the bus with 5-4-1 for the last 20 minutes. What is the individual preference there?
(gewijzigd)

But this is a completely different story.
You speak about changing tactics during a game, which should be possible.
Though, going from 5 to 6 defs isn't compatible with the game code and with the game tactics, so therefor it's not allowed.

But, how things go now...I don't see a change in tactics or ME happen...ever.

Is not compatible with training idea but it is with everything else...

Playing with 3-4-5...8 attackers/midfielders/defenders should be a free choice for us users, and we would see the penalty in the performance of the players on the field.

Removing this restriction would allow the staff a greater number of tactical variants and this would only improve the game, they should only review and modify the view or module to make the lineups.

I also think that these restrictions causing training failure should be taken down (2 GK, 5 DEF etc.). I think Raul was even suggesting it but it probably wasn't liked by the rest of owners.

Liked or not... I don't see anything happen any day soon...

When you say owner, you mean the rest of staff/dev?? I hope that they reconsider that topic...

I hold firm the idea that they are not seeing the full context, because they want to limit a specific action to users, they do not see the positive dynamics that they would add to the game.

yes, I mean Raul, Mekene, Greg and Damian, but I dont remember exactly how it was
it might be even that I remember it entirely wrong

Okey okey, thanks for explain me that dude
Regards

Adding something else to the topic, in current soccer we see dynamic tactics and at moments of the game, teams play a 424, 631 or a 235. As we also have the famous 361 that Scolari used with Brazil to win the World Cup.

Taking this to sokker, we know the negative impact it would have for the team that wants to apply it on their teams but this should be a free choice for the user, and that's my point, the ME would already have a negative impact for the teams or we would see teams adapt to this change and widen the range of tactics.

Its mostly a residue from previous training system, which was used to limit max number of trained players in a week (max 6 ATT, max 10 MID etc.)

Now it doesnt make a difference, so they could change it. More important things to do first, so I wouldnt count on this happening anytime in near future.

Ok, I understand...

It's sad that it's not considered important. I think that modifying these 2 rules would make a pretty significant change to the user experience. It would give more freedom to the organization of the squad, training plans and the range of tactics allowed.

Regards.

There are layers of important. For example it's more important to improve/change the way the youth school works, or finish the work with game layout. First the Tier 1 important things which would allow to have a decent product for advertising and bringing users, then "detailed" important stuff like the one you mentioned, or possibility to make 5 changes in a game etc.

Theoretically of course, in practice any kind of progress slowed down terribly in last months.

Okey I understand... a little question, do you think the users of this kind of game, give priority to the visual aspect over the logic behind it?