主题: Questions & Answers

You have to buy 14 players too, and if you have to get in the same level at the best teams with 7 players right now you'll need 14 players with over 300 or. You can figure out what that will cost

No, i'm serious.
It has pros and contras. You forgot, that my players gain half experience, half chemistry in each game. It is 2x more expensive on players (also staff will have some effect - more players = more staff). I don't think, that everybody will play this tactics.

In fact, penalty for this tactics may lead to situation, that managers that played this way will start to play on universals = all will play the same tactics.

And btw, what is different in football and hockey? Everybody train the same number of players in the same ratio... Handball at least have one big alternative tactics.

Oh come on, don't raise that point again. You're not being completely honest because using 12+2 also means half of the energy is lost.

And, as I told you before, if you use same line-up for defense and offense (or 7+2, 8+2 starters...), then you surely have to change formations, otherwise you will loose too much energy. At least over the course of a season. So if you don't play 12+2 you will need a compatible bench. Which will be more costly, devides experience and chemistry...
If you want to compete in the long run you will this way or another need at least 14 good players.

Sorry, I just realized that you were answering to a post that was raising the energy question. I was too rash. So I take back the 'not honest' thing. Ok?

But I'll stick to the main point, regardless which tactic you use, in the long run you need to posses and use at least 14 good players.

Anyway, I think most arguments have been exchanged over the last days.
I really hope now that someone official cares to answer to this!

No, problem.
I agree with you, that main argument is that some teams (me ) started to play this way from the beginning and they can be aggrieved by the change.

If we were penalized when changing players every attack/defense, we would have a very interesting decision to take: is it bigger the benefit I get by changing only one player (better attacker when attacking, better defender when defending; energy saving, etc.), than the penalty I get for doing so? Same decision with two, three, four, five or six changes.

I think this is a really interesting tactical aspect, trying to find a balance between getting the pros and the cons of changing players. If penalties don't exist, you only have to choose between playing with 12+2 or 6+2. It's clear that penalties add tactical options, they don't reduce them.

Besides that changing all your players it's completely unrealistic, we all know that.

It is also true that no one forced you to take this strategy knowing that there was an open possibility in the future that could change. As I did not chose that option knowing it could stay.

You can't be serious.
Do you know, that in beta version was allowed also substitution during fastbreak? I was one of that asked to disable it. So yes, nobody forced me to tactics, that was prior option ...
And the posibility of change was officialy not comunicated in news, only in this minor thread (in neutral way - "maybe" ) , where 5 people laments.

I was reading this thread, but right now I don't have the answer whether this will be changed and if yes, when. The problem is that it's not that easy to implement. The one thing I took away from this discussion is that we will have to announce the change in advance, before we actually implement it.

Imho the size of the penalty has to depend on a lot of facts:

- fastbreak
- ball posession (=> change from offense to defense or defense to offense)
- tactic of the opponent team

The problem is that if they implement this proposal at the end many managers will be affected by raising from one season to another strategy to make actual changes. I mean by this that will be two lost seasons or who knows maybe three.

I think they not will be many mangers affected by the change and it would benefit reality simulator. Moreover other managers also will have to modify their teams, but obviously less.

Thanks for your response. I understand it's difficult to implement and would take time. But for those who are not following the strategy of two teams (attack-defense) I think we're at a disadvantage right now with the current engine.
If this can not be done due to technical difficulties, would it not be better choose an option as soon as possible and start having all the managers same strategy to play on equal terms?
At this point the game would not be costly to re-make the team whatever the chosen option, but later became a problem.

"...and start having all the managers same strategy to play..."

nice, exactly as I said on this page. very funny to play manager game, where you are forced to play the same strategy...

at least I hope, developers will ask wide community, if the change is supported.

Yes, this will be fun when we all of us make 6 changes throughout the game... If they choose this option at the end