My plan of Total Football - A Football Manager creation
- Thread starter CodeX
- Start date
- Replies 25
- Views 11K
I thought that this theory of Shape had been disproved?
My understanding of Shape is that it increases/decreases the individual Duties so as to create divergence or conergence in relation to the Mentality. In plain English: The more fluid your Shape the more the players will be committed to doing the same thing, i.e - Attacking or Defending. The more Structured your shape the more the players will simply do what their Duties tell them to do. A Balanced Shape leaves it up to the players.
Examples:
Shape: Very Fluid
Mentality: Attacking
= Attack Duty players' mentality is reduced slightly, Defend Duty players' mentality is increased a lot. Meaning your whole team is instructed to get forward and carve out opportunities.
Shape: Very Fluid
Mentality: Defensive
= Defend Duty players' mentality is increased slightly, Attack Duty players' mentality is decreased a lot. Meaning that your whole team is instructed to get back as soon as you lose the ball and defend.
Shape: Very Structured
Mentality: Attacking
= Defend Duty players' mentality is increased slightly, Attack Duty players' mentality is maxed out. Meaning that Defend Duty players mostly stay back & Attackers just stay forward.
Shape: Very Structured
Mentality: Defensive
= Defend Duties players' mentality is reduced slightly, Attack Duty players' mentality is still very high. Meaning that Defend Duty players always stay back and Attack Duty players usually just stay forward.
Yo
I'm not sure mate. It might be that they did customize the script, so it's working in both ways mentality and specialist roles. Must work even better if it was aligned to both I reckon ??
I just share what has been working
Sometimes you can read, read and read but sometime you learn by doing. And everyone remember mistakes are existing to be learned from
I'm not sure mate. It might be that they did customize the script, so it's working in both ways mentality and specialist roles. Must work even better if it was aligned to both I reckon ??
I just share what has been working
Sometimes you can read, read and read but sometime you learn by doing. And everyone remember mistakes are existing to be learned from
I don't think so. That would make the "Stick to Positions" and "Roam from Positions" shouts out of use. Plus you got individual instructions to change the players moves by "Get Further Forward", "Hold Position", "Stay Wider" etc.
D
Deleted member 91052
Guest
[FONT="]Quote from Rashidi re team shape
I am inclined to shut this thread up, because it deals with a subject "Generalists/Specialists", that has neither been accepted nor has it been verified by any SI developer. Furthermore, when Richard first brought this up it was way back in 2012 when Creative Freedom was delinked from Shape. Today Shape and CF are intrinsically linked. His attempts were merely to simplify role selection within some larger framework. Even then, it wasn't universally accepted since it couldn't be empirically verified. In 2012 there were also fewer unique roles. And to make this even more redundant, a generic role can easily morph into one of the "specialist" roles with some PI changes. When I spoke to some of the devs, they confirmed that there is no co-relation within the game that supports such a distinction.[/FONT]
[FONT="]However in all fairness to the OP, I will leave this thread open, no matter no much I dislike the initial observations, which seem to be sweeping in nature. 8 matches does not even qualify as a pattern. When we did mentality and shape tests we used to run seasons of tests which would number in the 100s of games before any one of us dared even making an observation that came close to a pattern that could be predicted in the game. So while my personal opinions remain the same I want to caution anyone who seeks to raise the whole generalist/specialist discussion again: there is nothing in the game that makes the distinction. In fact roles that are "generalists and specialists" are also open to debate. And these were once again the opinion of one person that is out-dated, and even when it was initially mooted, it couldn't be verified. So if this thread heads into aimless territory, the mods will close it. [/FONT]
I am inclined to shut this thread up, because it deals with a subject "Generalists/Specialists", that has neither been accepted nor has it been verified by any SI developer. Furthermore, when Richard first brought this up it was way back in 2012 when Creative Freedom was delinked from Shape. Today Shape and CF are intrinsically linked. His attempts were merely to simplify role selection within some larger framework. Even then, it wasn't universally accepted since it couldn't be empirically verified. In 2012 there were also fewer unique roles. And to make this even more redundant, a generic role can easily morph into one of the "specialist" roles with some PI changes. When I spoke to some of the devs, they confirmed that there is no co-relation within the game that supports such a distinction.[/FONT]
[FONT="]However in all fairness to the OP, I will leave this thread open, no matter no much I dislike the initial observations, which seem to be sweeping in nature. 8 matches does not even qualify as a pattern. When we did mentality and shape tests we used to run seasons of tests which would number in the 100s of games before any one of us dared even making an observation that came close to a pattern that could be predicted in the game. So while my personal opinions remain the same I want to caution anyone who seeks to raise the whole generalist/specialist discussion again: there is nothing in the game that makes the distinction. In fact roles that are "generalists and specialists" are also open to debate. And these were once again the opinion of one person that is out-dated, and even when it was initially mooted, it couldn't be verified. So if this thread heads into aimless territory, the mods will close it. [/FONT]