It's not ideal, but I set manual man marking for the DMF/CMF opposing the other. I find that this instantly creates that midfield resistance I am looking for. It's not exactly 100% man-marking either as in it tethers the mark all the way throughout the pitch. It simply pulls the responsibility that should have been done in the first place. In addition, the transition position is much better, so the midfielders are not running back to a set position.
Very simply, this is how I do it in the gameplan. I'm on the PC so I can edit both User and CPU. I am trying to find a way for consoles, but not sure it can be done without being able to edit the gameplan of the CPU. You may still get a decent match though as your players will be focused on their task - thus instantly retreating back and forth, which could spark the CPU players to do the same.
------------
I'm using Perugia, playing against AC Pisa, the same team from the first video I posted. I just set marking for the central midfielders only, not the LMF or RMF (or AMF if I had one in this formation). For the opposing AMF, I can leave them unmarked, but have also found that putting my CB to man-mark them helps. Only in some rare spots is the CB out of position.
Then do the same for the CPU.
That's all I do. No other changes to tactics, advaned instructions, player alignment, fluid formations.
Here's the Result. You wouldn't even know there is any true man-marking going on. It's simply forcing the defending team to pay attention to the ball carrier and intended recepient :
So you bring defence and midfield to their highest positions? Does that leave a huge gap between midfield and defence? Can you show a pic of an example.
And does the cpu keep your man marking changes ?
Also Matt ffs fix the ai dribbling for once
And does the cpu keep your man marking changes ?
Also Matt ffs fix the ai dribbling for once
I see, I’ll give it a go. Thanks. The man marking certainly makes a big difference to the midfield so hopefully this will compliment it and slow some of the attacks down. I like to play 20 min matches but not have chance after chance for both me or the AI - a slower approach. Sometimes pes is just too end to end.
That’s what I’ve done on PS4 with auto offside on SS and it’s a battle now , really good find.
You program them to try shoots from positions when cutting inside, not only search for lobbed-throughs, cutbacks and shoots only from pointblank positions.
Maybe if you assign them as SS instead of WF?
Yes you are correct.Ah! I think just remembered a workaround @PesBuck is using IIRC. You MAYBE can run different OFs on same console, if the PSNs or the GAME, or both?? are from different regions. IE have an UK pes and a USA or Japanese PES???
PS.: Bucky sorry for the random tags!!! I just read you on pesgaming !
To be honest since pes5 i play with 3-forwards: 2SS on the wings and 1 CF. My general idea back then was when i attack from the one side, the opposite SS to join in the box for a cross or a second time deflection. And i try to place them as wide as possible on the formation screen.
You're welcome. The problem is, i think, that for the occasion of your question, we return to my first reply. Since you are playing a fixed cursor ML you are still dependent on the CPU AI. I mean it is more a "CORE" thing.
I’ve tested this for a few days and it’s a massive improvement. I’ve made a slight adjustment though which I think has helped an issue I was having with it. I found that the DM’s marking the other DM often results in my AM being the deepest midfielder in the defensive phase (as they naturally drop without the marking). I sometimes also found there was a gap which I can play into between defence and midfield as the marking advanced the DM a little too high up the pitch.It's not ideal, but I set manual man marking for the DMF/CMF opposing the other. I find that this instantly creates that midfield resistance I am looking for. It's not exactly 100% man-marking either as in it tethers the mark all the way throughout the pitch. It simply pulls the responsibility that should have been done in the first place. In addition, the transition position is much better, so the midfielders are not running back to a set position.
Very simply, this is how I do it in the gameplan. I'm on the PC so I can edit both User and CPU. I am trying to find a way for consoles, but not sure it can be done without being able to edit the gameplan of the CPU. You may still get a decent match though as your players will be focused on their task - thus instantly retreating back and forth, which could spark the CPU players to do the same.
------------
I'm using Perugia, playing against AC Pisa, the same team from the first video I posted. I just set marking for the central midfielders only, not the LMF or RMF (or AMF if I had one in this formation). For the opposing AMF, I can leave them unmarked, but have also found that putting my CB to man-mark them helps. Only in some rare spots is the CB out of position.
Then do the same for the CPU.
That's all I do. No other changes to tactics, advaned instructions, player alignment, fluid formations.
Here's the Result. You wouldn't even know there is any true man-marking going on. It's simply forcing the defending team to pay attention to the ball carrier and intended recepient :
The difference is staggering in my opinion and there’s hardly any editing as you’re just telling players what they should be doing anyway. In my last game I did the three midfielders and then Van Dijk marking ibramivovich , my CB won every headed ball , he was glue tight to him all game. Finished 0 0 as there were was little space but I still managed 5 shots on target and Milan had 3 one on ones so chances still there
