Positional openings?

I realized i play maybe too much tactically and always try to find the best move instead of improving my position when there isn't an outright better move.

So i want to know more openings that lead to positional play instead of complicated ones now, can i see some examples?

The fact that you are asking this question, shows you have no idea what you are talking about.  Any opening can be "positional", just like any opening can be "tactical" 

2 of the most overused, and misused words here.

Wow such good behivor from a good lady

You're confusing behavior with honesty.  Since you obviously dont understand that any openings can lead to any type of position, that is why you asked the question you did.

The short answer to your question is that there is no such thing.  When you open the game as White, you play a move, Black responds.  The course of the game is determined by 2 players, not by one.  That is, you cannot play 1. d4 and expect to get a "positional" game or 1. e4 and expect to get a "tactical" game.  You can get either (or both) from any choice you make.  In fact, many times, an opening can be a series of tactical traps that leads one side or the other to a better position (e.g. the Poisoned Pawn variation of the Najdorf).

That said, openings are not what you should care about right now.

Maybe i explained myself poorly. Few months ago i was really into playing sharp positions because i wanted to go for tactics and also challenge myself into difficult positions. I played Winawer, Sozin Sicilian and Kings Indian 'till i got bored.

Also i liked lines that have traps in case my opponent was unfamiliar/greedy/daydreaming.

Now i have a bad habit of looking for tactics and expecting my opponent not to play the best moves, and dont usually think about strats and improving my position. Also i don't see myself as a 'positional player' and wanted to shake things.

Maybe i'll go more for Ruy Lopez and other theoretical openings. Unless the lady over there tells me there is no such thing as a theoretical opening

@lendacerda If you play stuff like the KID, anything can happen, from extremely sharp to practically every closed center structure you can imagine. That's extremely difficult to handle. The Ruy Lopez also is a monster. Also, positional does not mean less complicated. I'd go for strategically simpler open games. You can still try to avoid sharp lines, but if your opponents goes for them, sound or not, you have to be ready anyway.

You want tactics? 

You will need to have 3 of the 4 following:

Advantage in material.

Advantage in space.

Piece activity.

Weakness(es) in the opponent position.

You get these advantages by playing openings that give you midldegames you understand.

@lendacerda Note that just because an opening usually leads to calm positional play in GM games, it doesn't mean that it will in mine or yours.

If you do not like the middlegame positions you are getting from the opening, change the opening you are playing.  What you are describing is nonsense because each of those openings are 1) highly theoretical, and 2) can be both positional and tactical - and as I stated, many times they are both.

This describes a thought process problem, not an opening choice problem.  Changing your opening will not fix your thought process.

Nothing wrong with the Ruy Lopez, but realize that it can be both positional and tactical.  In fact, there are many times where White builds up on his position until there is a chance to sacrifice and blow open the position.

You are placing too much emphasis on the opening.  You pick your openings by identifying the middlegame structures you like and the openings that are likely to reach those structures.  You pick your middlegames by identifying the endgame types you like and picking the middlegames that are likely to reach those endgames.  However, neither of those things will fix your thought process.