Ok check this out, guys. What has actually happened is that the
tactical influence of players in the M line has been reduced while all the others have been increased.
ENGINE 2.0 (old system) ENGINE 3.0 (new system) Change
Position sum of tactics(A) specialization factor* sum of tactical weights(B) specialization factor* (B÷A)
DC 4 3.0 8.0 1.20 200%
DLR, DM 6 2.0 9.0 1.07 150%
M 12 1.0 9.6 1.00 80%
AM 8 1.5 9.2 1.02 115%
FC 6 2.0 9.0 1.07 150%
FLR 8 1.5 10.0 0.96 125%
-
sum of tactics is the cumulative sum of weighted tactics. In game engine 2.0 all were either 100% or 0%. New engine uses 100%, 80% and 50%
-
specialization factor is the ratio of position's sum of tactics with that of the M line, presumably the most well-rounded players. A given number of skill points can be more effectively distsributed among a smaller number of tactical categores. The assumption is that the M line is the most well-rounded (affecting overall tactics the most) as it was in the previous engine.
-
Change in tactical influence represents the factor by which a position's overall tactical influence has changed. 100% means no change, 200% means a player in this position has twice as much impact on ovarall tactics as in previous engine. <100% means the tactical influence of a player in this position has decreased.
Interesting that DC is the biggest; nobody has mentioned it really. The DC was the position most capable of tactical specialization (just marking and opponent roaming) and now its overall tactical influence has doubled!
Also AMLR need to be even more well-rounded players than the M line indicates this was a mistake by programmers. Surely forward wings won't have such a strong effect on press tactics....
Anyway this is a huge change; it's almost as if we have a new game entirely and
the biggest losers are inevitably some of the biggest clubs who have been training the first round of high LA players around a game architecture that has been radically changed. Who, then are the winners?
The winners are bot teams (their 4-4-2 has become much strengthened) and newly emerging top clubs who now find themsleves on a much more level playing field with even the most powerful teams.
If this system were to be postponed for a season (as some have suggested) it would greatly benefit the biggest, wealthiest clubs, who would be able to use their might to prepare for the change much faster than smaller clubs. So...I say let's keep the new system and see how it plays out. I have no expectations for this season tbh.
Having said that,
I still feel very strongly that this system is a great first step but it needs to be more dynamic, with adjustments made to relevant tactical weights
based on tactical selections, specifically "strategy" (for all players), "defensive line" (for centre backs and fullbacks), and player setting (more attack/more defend/default). These are
tactical calculations, after all, and should depend on them!
Something like this, for example:
Remember, these adjustments are not made to the player tactical scores themselves, but to the amount of weight each receives in the team tactics calculations. Ranges presented express extremes. For example, a DC could have as low as a 0% weight for many attacking tactics (OZM, OPM, etc.) but only when using (a) contain strategy, (b) very deep defensive line, and (c) more defend individual instructions (player setting). Using push up with an attacking strategy would actually increase the existing weight. And yes, it is equally acceptable to use a weight that is >1 (>100%) as it is to use one that is < 1.
