Cheers mate, it's pretty much how thought it worked. I just can't seem to notice the changes I make. Making the CMF more attack minded by having him as a AMF when on the ball. Luis Alberto for Lazio for example, I feel he acts the same way as if I don't use Fluid formations and have him as a CMF (or AMF).
Logically he would operate higher up the pitch as a AMF and not come as deep but he seems to move around the same area anyway.
Edit: he's a Classic no10 so that might have something to do with it though.
I am very suspicious on this. I have many ideas on why and how, but in order to be short and non-repeatitive, i believe that since the developers give the game half-baked, such "complicated" or contradicting or "more than meets the eye" instructions maybe self-neutrilised, I.E.: a CMF that has a "Destroyer" playstyle, when he is assigned to play as AMF and he is not a "Hole Player" maybe he just stays like a scarecrow! The midfield is already a void btw, but this is an other topic.
In shorter terms, when the problem is 1+1=?, the game runs ok and smooth and whatever, resulting to 1+1=2. When the problem is 1+0,5+0,5=?, the games seems to struggle to answer, resulting to ERROR404 at times!
I had similar question, when i tested the fluid on my 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 variations, while the only changes were, the WFs that should become SMFs to cover the front of my SBs. The performance did not convince me that it worthed the mess.
PS: If anyone has tested it, and can assure that it works 100% in minor switches, i would be the first to try it , as i have some ideas in mind. And ONLY if it works without draining out the stamina from someone that is instructed to play in a close area. Of course if i set the LB to become CF on attack, i expect he gets exhausted. I mean, i do not want the stamina drain to the CMF thats becomes AMF , some meters ahead.
