Tactics and Tactical roles
 

Hello! I have a bunch of questions regarding tactics and tactical roles. I've read the manual, but couldn't seem to find my answers, at least to what I'm asking.

I'll be honest. I love hockey, and I absolutely *love* OOTP, and those are the only reasons I'm still playing FHM4 because, really... The design is awful, sometimes. Really. So:

On the strategy screen, I have Tarasov System [47]/2-3 System [48]. I assume those numbers are the higher the better. But where do they come from? The 1-5 from the player roles? Because when I change their roles, including to roles they're worse at, that 48 doesn't change at all. How well they're accostumed to the tactic? Well, I don't know, because the game doesn't tell me! It's not the sum of the player roles, that's for sure.

How well the tactic suits the team? Because the tactics' descriptions are interesting, but tell us little about what kind of players it needs, what it is good for and what is good against it, besides general 'hockey knowledge'.

On the GAME screen, we have Toronto Off vs Winnipeg Def, and so on. Those numbers, I assume, are our 'matchup' on these categories. Sometimes they are green or red. What does it mean? Again, the game should make this clear, but it doesn't. For example, Toronto's offense is 47 to Winnipeg's 44 defense, but the 44 is green. Green is usually good, but 47 is greater... Should we have the lowest number possible? Again, I don't freaking know... Same way, Toronto's PP is much higher than Winnipeg's PK, but it's in red.

Again, those things should be incredibly obvious to anyone willing to look at the screen, yet I've played for weeks and I still don't know *and can't find it*. For the longest time, I thought the red indicators for major countering roles were *bad*, because they freaking *red*, and, more often than not, red means 'danger, something is wrong, fix it'. I thought that player role was *being* countered, and it would be better to change it.


https://imgur.com/a/uyP9n

This is one of the reasons now that I just sim and am losing interest in the game. Its a good game but I have zero idea on what to do with each player and each line. I do what I should be, high passers as playmakers, grinding type forwards as grinders and things like that and nothing seems to work so basically, Ive given up. I wish I could play more extensively but I just cant figure out how the tactics work.

You hit the AI lines and scrubs like Alex Burrows are top line guys. Makes zero sense

We're looking at ways to make it a little clearer which tactics suit a team.

The number is the sum of the player fit scores (the 1-5 numbers), but it's also adjusted by the countering roles of the opposing team, the tactical ratings of the head coach (or possibly one of his assistants), and some smaller effects, like momentum.

The colour of the score should indicate the relative tactical advantage resulting from the difference in the scores (green at the lowest end of the scale). But it looks like it may not be updating properly to reflect in-game changes like shifting momentum, we'll have a look at that.

Most of the answers to your questions are in the manual, have you read it? To me it's not that bad as you say. The most important thing i watch is game momentum and how to gain it. If i see that i'm badly outshot or the puck never goes out of my defensive zone, i use the first stoppage in play to change things around. For example, giving other roles to some players to gain some 'reds' or major countering roles, It works pretty well and i find it a very fun part of the game.

I have. Have you? Because they're not there.

The manual does go over the tactical roles, explaining that you want as high of number set as possible and that green are primary roles. red are secondary. It also explains the counter roles, so you must have misunderstood it or missed that part entirely.

That being said, it definitely could use a bit more clarity in some aspects for those not full of hockey knowledge, even though all are explained in the game. If you don't know much about the players on your team, that would definitely make it feel like a guessing game more than anything. Obviously you're not going to want to give a smaller player a "Power Forward" tactical role or a team with poor puck handling skills the "Cycling" tactic.

I know they do. It doesn't explain what I asked, specifically, in my post, does it?

It doesn't mention the number beside the tactic, like Tasarov System [56], not even *once*, as far as I can tell. It doesn't explain what makes for a good playmaker, what's the difference between playmaker and setup man, etc etc. The coloring is off for countering roles, such that I thought it was the opposite of what it actually is, *before* reading it in the manual.

That's my entire point. It's *not* explained in the game. It should be obvious, intuitive. Even if it *were* very well explained in the manual, it's such a key component of the game, arguably it's the entire point of the gaming experience, that reading a manual shouldn't be necessary at all. It's a big flaw.


But I'm glad you advised me to read the manual and told me it's not too bad if you know what you're doing. All is solved now.

Seems like he's trying to help you out, I don't see anything he said that's insulting you, certainly not intending to. I don't see why the need for the attitude to be honest.

Well, with the Offense, Defense, PP/PK tactics those numbers increase with how familiar your team becomes with the tactics you are using I imagine, the higher the number you start with equates to how well it suits your team.. As far as difference between Playmaker and Setup roles, each are explained in the screen you select your tactical roles.

"Have you read the manual?" is condescending, and unhelpful, as I explain in my own post how those things are *not* in the manual.

If that's his best to help anyone, I pass.

Yes, that's my point. You imagine it. Shouldn't we know? Maybe not, I guess.

As far as player roles descriptions, they're awfully vague. Maybe it's intentional.

For example, I have Mike Bossy on my RW. He's 5/5 for Sniper, Perimeter Shooter, and Speedy Forward. What's the difference between perimeter shooter and sniper? Both descriptions say they affect their playmaking ("...but won't be passing much" and "...but his playmaking will suffer"). Does it affect playmaking the same way? No? If he's 5/5 there, it doesn't matter?

Perimeter shooter says he will shoot from farther out and won't drive the net. Does it mean he needs for shooting range? Seems like neither role needs 'screening', but can we know? Do we know? Shouldn't we know? Is the difference between perimeter shooter and sniper meaningless? Perimeter shooter goes better with a playmaker? A setup man? A guy from behind the net? A screener? Well, I don't know!

Again, maybe that's intentional, but if it is, I think it's a terrible design.

I would assume that a player that is not suited for a specific role would have 1/x in that role, if that is not true there is something very wrong with the design.

Why would you assume that? There are varying degrees of how well a player is suited for a role. If he's only slightly unsuitable for it, 2 or 3 may make more sense than 1.

Wouldnt a small player make a lousy (as in a "1") power forward?


I did not mean to say that a player that is only somewhat unsuitable for the role would hava a 1. From what you say, it seems to work as I assumed :)


Follow-up question: Someone that is playing on the fourth line where they can only have a max of 2, would it still be better to have a role with 2/5 than 2/2 or does it make no difference?

Power Forward has a few different requirements; the only one that tends to correspond directly to size is strength (which, granted, is the most important one.) But there have been effective power forwards who weren't huge.

For the fourth-line guy, it doesn't add any more to the overall tactical score to take a guy with a 2/5 score vs 2/2, but it makes more sense to put him in the /5 role because he'll get more of an advantage from the role's rating bonuses and be hurt less by its penalties - the bonuses are generally better at accentuating a player's strengths than compensating for his weaknesses. If, on the fourth line, you've got a good goalscorer who's a terrible playmaker and a good playmaker who's a terrible shooter, switching their roles will tend to make them both mediocre at everything, while putting them in the 'right' role will give you two guys who can feed off each other's strengths.

Jeff, we really need to be able to see what roles are best suited to players somewhere.

If you've watched their latest FHM4 stream, they were using a game build that included a suitability rating in the tactics screen. Hopefully it makes it into the next update.

Yeah, that's coming, but it's not exactly what he's requesting, which, if I understand correctly, is an indication of best roles for the player somewhere besides the role selection popup. Trying to find a way to do that, but it's a little clumsy to do outside of the strategy screen.

What's coming will be beneficial for sure though ;)

FHM4 stream?

Anyway, Something on the roster of strategy screen would be fine. It doesn't need to be too fancy.

I figured out that the biography and contract roster screens list players current major roles, which helps a bit at least. I can switch around players roles, but I'm unsure if switching them to roles that they don't like has any lasting effects. That and all we can currently see is the effect on happiness.