new formations?

Here you can talk about wanted and upcoming game features

Moderators: Moderator, Programmer

sljivovica
Member of the Soccer Project Association
Posts: 4424
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:39 pm
Location: Enschede, Nederland
Contact:

Post by sljivovica »

They don't respond to most topics, and even that doesn't mean much about if they like it or not.
But rest assured, they read almost everything.
But even some idea that are supported by all of the community don't make it into the game. Every change you have to think about very very carefull...
FC Wageningen
S2: started in E.34
S13 - S19..: B.2
S20..: A!! (12th)
S21 - S22: B.2
S23..: A!! (15e)
S24-26: B.2 (12e)
S27 & onwards: C-division and lower.
Currently (S41): E.45
gazza88
Team Manager
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 8:45 am

Post by gazza88 »

oh ok.
Manager Name: gazza1988
Team Name: Mansfield Town
kayos
Assistant Coach
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:27 pm

Post by kayos »

x42bn6 wrote:Liverpool won the Champions League playing 3-6-1. Baros up alone, cramming 6 in midfield - two as attacking midfielders.

3-3-4 is another one that can be done. DC/DL-DC-DC/DR-ML/MC-MC-MR/MC-FL-FC-FC-FR

You can use sweepers and wide strikers together: 5-2-3 (though very infrequent): DL-DC-SW-DC-DR-MC-MC-FL-FC-FR

The alternative is, of course, to give players two possible positions (FC-FL, FC-MC, FL-ML, ML-DL, SW-DC, for example), so it doesn't punish certain formations.

4-3-3 is a formation where you cannot really focus on one thing, because it uses everything but a sweeper, while 5-4-1 players have the liberty of selling every single FL and FR they have, irregardless of ability. And because newcomers love strikers, they get sucked into buying rubbish strikers, but the 5-4-1 guy isn't complaining. Same applies for 4-4-2 (SW, FL, FR).

I don't think the engine uses formation-based AI (i.e. 4-4-2 tends to have an advantage over 4-3-3, which tends to have an advantage over 4-5-1, which tends to have an advantage over 4-4-2), more like calculation-based depending on who is where. So it would be pretty simple to implement more formations, depending on how sensible they are. I do not want to see custom formations - and then see formations like 10-0-0 winning by a penalty.

Or perhaps have defenders give some sort of boost to the midfield, but sweepers a boost to the goalkeeper. Or wingers and wide strikers giving a slight boost to each other. Basically anything that stops punishing certain formations and allows for some sort of flexibility.
This is a good post on the topic.

I wanted to play a 4-2-4 recently against a team that played 5-4-1 a lot...but i couldnt. (4-3-3 with kick and rush was the best I could do...and I lost)

I wanted to play a 5-2-3 before to "wall up" defensively but keep a lot of attacking options for the long ball...but I couldnt. The best I could do in that case was 5-4-1 long ball, and my lone striker couldnt do the job. a 5-3-2 in that case would have left my flanks empty

Depending on how the AI works, I think there should be an option to use more formations...and there are a few good reasons above (relating to the transfer market dynamics etc)...I think its worth looking at.
sljivovica
Member of the Soccer Project Association
Posts: 4424
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:39 pm
Location: Enschede, Nederland
Contact:

Post by sljivovica »

Some nice examples you got there :wink:
FC Wageningen
S2: started in E.34
S13 - S19..: B.2
S20..: A!! (12th)
S21 - S22: B.2
S23..: A!! (15e)
S24-26: B.2 (12e)
S27 & onwards: C-division and lower.
Currently (S41): E.45
Illusion1970
Assistant Manager
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:41 am
Location: Amsterdam

Post by Illusion1970 »

1 (SW) – 4 – 3 – 2
1 (SW) – 3 – 3 - 3

you will be increasing the value of SW's in the game....
Zé da Silva
Member of the Soccer Project Association
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:55 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Post by Zé da Silva »

Illusion1970 wrote:1 (SW) – 4 – 3 – 2
= 5 - 3 - 2
Illusion1970
Assistant Manager
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:41 am
Location: Amsterdam

Post by Illusion1970 »

Zé da Silva wrote:
Illusion1970 wrote:1 (SW) – 4 – 3 – 2
= 5 - 3 - 2
you are totally right :)
see, you forget all the formations that include a sw :lol:
it just shows how important SW's are.. :lol:
C.A. Peñarol
Team President
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:08 am
Location: Originally from Uruguay.

Post by C.A. Peñarol »

Illusion1970 wrote:1 (SW) – 3 – 3 - 3
I like this formation, i would definitely start making use of my SW's :)
Manager: Gabriel_

Season 23 G.240 16th
Season 24 H.720 5th
Season 25 H.720 1st
Season 26 G.240 1st
Season 27 F.80 1st
Season 28 E.27 1st
Season 29 D.9 1st
Season 30 C.3 3rd
Season 31 C.3 1st
Season 32 B.1 2nd
Season 33 A.1 ???
C.A. Peñarol
Team President
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:08 am
Location: Originally from Uruguay.

Post by C.A. Peñarol »

x42bn6 wrote:The alternative is, of course, to give players two possible positions (FC-FL, FC-MC, FL-ML, ML-DL, SW-DC, for example), so it doesn't punish certain formations.
This is a great idea, some players should be able to play in two positions. This would enhance the value of many players out there :)
Manager: Gabriel_

Season 23 G.240 16th
Season 24 H.720 5th
Season 25 H.720 1st
Season 26 G.240 1st
Season 27 F.80 1st
Season 28 E.27 1st
Season 29 D.9 1st
Season 30 C.3 3rd
Season 31 C.3 1st
Season 32 B.1 2nd
Season 33 A.1 ???
kayos
Assistant Coach
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:27 pm

Post by kayos »

C.A. Peñarol wrote:
x42bn6 wrote:The alternative is, of course, to give players two possible positions (FC-FL, FC-MC, FL-ML, ML-DL, SW-DC, for example), so it doesn't punish certain formations.
This is a great idea, some players should be able to play in two positions. This would enhance the value of many players out there :)
I like this idea.
I was told there is a rating penalty if you play someone out of position, which seems a bit...harsh really. Considering if you have a RM who is ambidextrous, why wouldnt he be able to play on the left too?
Current Manager of Havoc Warriors; G.138 leaders.
http://www.soccerproject.com/spnewl_man ... rid=208534
Illusion1970
Assistant Manager
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:41 am
Location: Amsterdam

Post by Illusion1970 »

gvido wrote:and how about supper attacking 3-3-4 :))
4 players in attack
that is a good one...

and as i suggested before:
1 (SW)–3–3-3
warchilde
Member of the Soccer Project Association
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Behind You

Post by warchilde »

don;t u want 3-2-5??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Betis used to play that when Joaquin was still there :lol: :lol: :lol:
Illusion1970
Assistant Manager
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:41 am
Location: Amsterdam

Post by Illusion1970 »

warchilde wrote:don;t u want 3-2-5??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Betis used to play that when Joaquin was still there :lol: :lol: :lol:
why not :)
you are the manager and you decide what your team plays.. right :lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol:
Zé da Silva
Member of the Soccer Project Association
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:55 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Post by Zé da Silva »

I'll want Roma's 4-6-0 next. :lol:
lee400
Team President
Posts: 561
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Bournemouth
Contact:

Post by lee400 »

And you could also get really wierd formations like 4-2-4 or 5-0-5 :lol: when playing Long Ball - Mids don't do much. Its just a big punt from the keeper/defenders and hope that it will land on one of our forwards' foot.
Username: Sir Lee (former lee400)
Team: AFC Bournemouth (Former Yunderland FC)

NEED ANY HELP, TIPS OR ADVICE?
JOIN www.sptips.co.nr NOW AND ASK FOR 1:1 HELP! RECEIVE A REPLY WITHIN 24 HOURS!
Locked

Return to “Requested / Upcoming features”