Re: EA SPORTS FC25 OS Community Sliders
Firstly, really appreciate the detailed response Matt. You make some great points regarding the impact of formations/roles and midfield spacing/depth.
One thing I would say is that you mentioned a couple of times teams that have a very high defensive line (95) - but even teams that are set to “High” by default, such as Liverpool (who are notorious for having a very high line) still only have the value set to 65. Unless it can dynamically increase during a game? If so that’s a feature I was completely unaware of. Either way, completely agree that this is one of those classic “pick your poison” situations; personally, given the majority of teams (in the lower leagues at least) seem to be either “Deep” (30) or “Balanced” (50), it seems preferable to me to use a higher line height slider value - I’ll definitely give 62 a try later today and feed back. Would you suggest pairing that with a slightly reduced line length value (i.e. 38-40) as a consequence to release some of the upfield pressure?
Completely agree with you on wanting to recapture the walk-jog-sprint animations that we started with, but unfortunately I’m personally seeing too many instances on 30 Sprint where it’s more like walk-jog-jog, especially with centre backs. I think they need more of a helping hand in trying to recover and the Acc bump isn’t quite enough to do it. As ever, it’s a very fine balancing act which I can completely understand.
Pass Speed is definitely going to come down to personal preference, especially depending on how much the individual utilises RB/R1 driven passes - I tend to use those quite a lot, so 45 is mayhem for me. I agree with you that anything too low kills the ball; personally I think 38-40 is the sweet spot, paired with 50-55 error - perhaps this is the middle ground you mentioned? One thing I haven’t experimented with up to now is the FT error, so it’s interesting to see the feedback from others - will definitely give this a try later too.
Would just like to add it’s great to see this level of productive, constructive discussion which is absolutely what this thread should be about. Cheers all.
This is good feedback, as was your previous post. I'll preface my response with an apology of how layered it will be as there are so many variables that have to be considered now when troubleshooting.
First off, this looks to be against 4-2-3-1, one of the worst formations in FC25 because the lack of a box-to-box midfielder on preset tactics, rather the handicapping presence of two holding midfielders.
Nonetheless, we definitely spent time with lower league teams (that's a lot of my game-time) and 30 deep line matchups. The issue that I saw was how deep the midfield was, practically touching the defensive line. At the time, the height value was at 62. It wasn't until it was moved to 58 that there started to be some better spacing. In addition, the 58 worked well for those who had really high defensive lines such as 95.
In the video above, two of those goals are counters, the defensive line 30 won't step up to that value until the 60's gameplay slider or higher acc, or higher marking. Even then, the biggest issue is defenders not meeting attackers regardless of slider value.
When playing with a gradual build-up of numbers, such as not playing directly into the striker and turning, the defensive midfield can recover in the height 55-60 range relative to the 40-42 line length. The 3rd and 4th goal the defensive line is there, but get too tight and have no support from the two holding mids. If this is WC, I'd suggest acceleration discrepancy and try to recreate it, but honestly, games against a 4-2-3-1 are pretty poor. This is why I will change those teams to a 4-1-4-1 with box-to-box midfielders.
We need depth on both sides of the ball. Line Height gameplay slider works as an upfield pressure mechanic. It pushes/squeezes midfielders through, and if it's too high, it won't release enough of that pressure to let those midfielders back in. This is why some sets, and the sim mode for example uses lengths under 40 as we had before. The issue with that value was that there was too much instant retreating and jumbling up in the midfield which gave up more and more space.
For reference, here's s screenshot from one of the main games I played versus Burton Albion who are a 30 depth, and I'm using 62 height. It looks decent, and I'm on board with it:
Play a different game against a 95 depth team with 62 line height, and now the midfield has become a single flat unit with the defensive line.
So, we're in a conundrum here with the Height value. We go too high on 30 depth teams, then we send the higher depth teams out of the equation. In addition, the higher height will also prevent those midfielders from tracking backwards enough, unless we want to really reduce length again.
The tweaks made were not just for WC, the main change there is Acc, Length Discrepancy and Marking.
The Sprint 30 was an agreement that we had just increased pass speed and acceleration, we need to ensure the game doesn't become too fast. We were on Sprint 35 for a while, but that really started to feel like it was just a sprint fest. Gone was the gradual walk-jog-sprint aspect that FC25 started out of the box with. The only time that was recaptured was with 30 Sprint, not even 32 Sprint could reestablish that pattern. So, the testing was done with the higher acceleration to act as a modifier of the lower sprint, so we can maintain the gradual movements.
So as you can see we're fighting an uphill battle against proper movements, and essentially defensive and midfield depth that covers all bases. This post-update has resulted in the striker not being met by the defenders as often unless we really drop width well below 48 (we were at 45 for a while as well) like in Version 2. Even then there is no guarantee, and then we run the risk of our outside mids venturing off to the center of the pitch too early. Even on 48 you can see in those videos how the central midfielders get caught too tight.
For Pass Speed, 45 just came to have a lot of benefits. In essence it brought back mastering the ball, not just having it stuck to your feet. The best being passes into space from the CPU, more deflections overall, different types of deflections, and most importantly the ball not being stuck underneath players so they aren't unrealistically striking the ball where their foot would never meet the same type of power IRL.
From the video, @WoodsFC , I'd guess you're using R1/precision pass on the majority of those passes? If that's your choice, I'd suggest drop user pass speed significantly, to something like 35 or 38, because those driven passes are taking the 45 to a 55-60 level and the FT Control value isn't punishing enough on 60.
Overall, I hope you understand how we got to where we are - and why some decisions were made. It's not to say we won't change them, it's just that if you provide examples, you have to know that there is a rule of opposites that follow where those examples or suggestions won't add up. Like any FIFA/FC, we have to sacrifice some things and maybe have to modify some things to get more out of the game. This year is filled with the need to modify to your personal preference and what you like. You're not playing or testing in the same fashion here. If 90% of the teams you face are going to be 30 depth teams, then please, change the value to what you want or already know that works.
First off, this looks to be against 4-2-3-1, one of the worst formations in FC25 because the lack of a box-to-box midfielder on preset tactics, rather the handicapping presence of two holding midfielders.
Nonetheless, we definitely spent time with lower league teams (that's a lot of my game-time) and 30 deep line matchups. The issue that I saw was how deep the midfield was, practically touching the defensive line. At the time, the height value was at 62. It wasn't until it was moved to 58 that there started to be some better spacing. In addition, the 58 worked well for those who had really high defensive lines such as 95.
In the video above, two of those goals are counters, the defensive line 30 won't step up to that value until the 60's gameplay slider or higher acc, or higher marking. Even then, the biggest issue is defenders not meeting attackers regardless of slider value.
When playing with a gradual build-up of numbers, such as not playing directly into the striker and turning, the defensive midfield can recover in the height 55-60 range relative to the 40-42 line length. The 3rd and 4th goal the defensive line is there, but get too tight and have no support from the two holding mids. If this is WC, I'd suggest acceleration discrepancy and try to recreate it, but honestly, games against a 4-2-3-1 are pretty poor. This is why I will change those teams to a 4-1-4-1 with box-to-box midfielders.
We need depth on both sides of the ball. Line Height gameplay slider works as an upfield pressure mechanic. It pushes/squeezes midfielders through, and if it's too high, it won't release enough of that pressure to let those midfielders back in. This is why some sets, and the sim mode for example uses lengths under 40 as we had before. The issue with that value was that there was too much instant retreating and jumbling up in the midfield which gave up more and more space.
For reference, here's s screenshot from one of the main games I played versus Burton Albion who are a 30 depth, and I'm using 62 height. It looks decent, and I'm on board with it:
Play a different game against a 95 depth team with 62 line height, and now the midfield has become a single flat unit with the defensive line.
So, we're in a conundrum here with the Height value. We go too high on 30 depth teams, then we send the higher depth teams out of the equation. In addition, the higher height will also prevent those midfielders from tracking backwards enough, unless we want to really reduce length again.
The tweaks made were not just for WC, the main change there is Acc, Length Discrepancy and Marking.
The Sprint 30 was an agreement that we had just increased pass speed and acceleration, we need to ensure the game doesn't become too fast. We were on Sprint 35 for a while, but that really started to feel like it was just a sprint fest. Gone was the gradual walk-jog-sprint aspect that FC25 started out of the box with. The only time that was recaptured was with 30 Sprint, not even 32 Sprint could reestablish that pattern. So, the testing was done with the higher acceleration to act as a modifier of the lower sprint, so we can maintain the gradual movements.
So as you can see we're fighting an uphill battle against proper movements, and essentially defensive and midfield depth that covers all bases. This post-update has resulted in the striker not being met by the defenders as often unless we really drop width well below 48 (we were at 45 for a while as well) like in Version 2. Even then there is no guarantee, and then we run the risk of our outside mids venturing off to the center of the pitch too early. Even on 48 you can see in those videos how the central midfielders get caught too tight.
For Pass Speed, 45 just came to have a lot of benefits. In essence it brought back mastering the ball, not just having it stuck to your feet. The best being passes into space from the CPU, more deflections overall, different types of deflections, and most importantly the ball not being stuck underneath players so they aren't unrealistically striking the ball where their foot would never meet the same type of power IRL.
From the video, @WoodsFC , I'd guess you're using R1/precision pass on the majority of those passes? If that's your choice, I'd suggest drop user pass speed significantly, to something like 35 or 38, because those driven passes are taking the 45 to a 55-60 level and the FT Control value isn't punishing enough on 60.
Overall, I hope you understand how we got to where we are - and why some decisions were made. It's not to say we won't change them, it's just that if you provide examples, you have to know that there is a rule of opposites that follow where those examples or suggestions won't add up. Like any FIFA/FC, we have to sacrifice some things and maybe have to modify some things to get more out of the game. This year is filled with the need to modify to your personal preference and what you like. You're not playing or testing in the same fashion here. If 90% of the teams you face are going to be 30 depth teams, then please, change the value to what you want or already know that works.
One thing I would say is that you mentioned a couple of times teams that have a very high defensive line (95) - but even teams that are set to “High” by default, such as Liverpool (who are notorious for having a very high line) still only have the value set to 65. Unless it can dynamically increase during a game? If so that’s a feature I was completely unaware of. Either way, completely agree that this is one of those classic “pick your poison” situations; personally, given the majority of teams (in the lower leagues at least) seem to be either “Deep” (30) or “Balanced” (50), it seems preferable to me to use a higher line height slider value - I’ll definitely give 62 a try later today and feed back. Would you suggest pairing that with a slightly reduced line length value (i.e. 38-40) as a consequence to release some of the upfield pressure?
Completely agree with you on wanting to recapture the walk-jog-sprint animations that we started with, but unfortunately I’m personally seeing too many instances on 30 Sprint where it’s more like walk-jog-jog, especially with centre backs. I think they need more of a helping hand in trying to recover and the Acc bump isn’t quite enough to do it. As ever, it’s a very fine balancing act which I can completely understand.
Pass Speed is definitely going to come down to personal preference, especially depending on how much the individual utilises RB/R1 driven passes - I tend to use those quite a lot, so 45 is mayhem for me. I agree with you that anything too low kills the ball; personally I think 38-40 is the sweet spot, paired with 50-55 error - perhaps this is the middle ground you mentioned? One thing I haven’t experimented with up to now is the FT error, so it’s interesting to see the feedback from others - will definitely give this a try later too.
Would just like to add it’s great to see this level of productive, constructive discussion which is absolutely what this thread should be about. Cheers all.
Comment