So between "Positive" and "Attacking" mentality, "Attacking" is better? And maybe different formations have different impact of each type of mentality?
I think it will be more effective if we use these test with the best formation.
Zippo said: Base Tactic: - No Team Instructions - No Player Instructions
Each mentality was tested for 2,880 matches and then the result was translated into a standard season of 36 matches Expand
Funny that I was testing exactly that, and now I have mixed feelings about it. Bad feeling because I lost almost two days testing, good feeling because I don't need to lose any more time. Thanks for testing!
Thanks for the hard work, really interesting to see these results.
Last year I felt height were important especially on center backs. Tall and strong centerbacks were dominent, this year I have very good results and performances from smaller center backs. Would be interesting to have height tested again this year. In some form or shape.
kjordafen said: Thanks for the hard work, really interesting to see these results.
Last year I felt height were important especially on center backs. Tall and strong centerbacks were dominent, this year I have very good results and performances from smaller center backs. Would be interesting to have height tested again this year. In some form or shape.
Keep up the good work! Expand
Waiting too for all attributes testing, i think we could have some surprises
Zippo said: Base Tactic: Team Instructions: None Player Instructions: None
Each mentality was tested for 2,880 matches and then the result was translated into a standard season of 36 matches Expand
Thanks for your great job, but i still think different formations can have different effects on different mentalities. It shouldn't be same as attributes, otherwise all maths in FM become rubbish.
RonaldoWeah said: Thanks for your great job, but i still think different formations can have different effects on different mentalities. It shouldn't be same as attributes, otherwise all maths in FM become rubbish. Expand
Yeah, but it's very hard to measure synergy between instructions.
RonaldoWeah said: Thanks for your great job, but i still think different formations can have different effects on different mentalities. It shouldn't be same as attributes, otherwise all maths in FM become rubbish. Expand
I can say that we've tested few different formations ( 4-4-2, 5-3-2 ) and also, some other roles and duties to see if there's any difference but the pattern was the same.
Of course, there might a small difference but as said the pattern is almost the same.
ZaZ said: Yeah, but it's very hard to measure synergy between instructions. Expand
You did before, you will do again.
Zippo said: I can say that we've tested few different formations ( 4-4-2, 5-3-2 ) and also, some other roles and duties to see if there's any difference but the pattern was the same.
Of course, there might a small difference but as said the pattern is almost the same. Expand
Sorry for misunderstanding, i thought you've just tried 4-2-3-1 according to tactical screen of your first post. Details can become more valuable sometimes, thank you for your detailed reply.
RonaldoWeah said: Sorry for misunderstanding, i thought you've just tried 4-2-3-1 according to tactical screen of your first post. Details can become more valuable sometimes, thank you for your detailed reply. Expand
There's about a thousand possible formations in the game, it would take forever (literally ) to test them all. We just tested few additional formations to see if the results have the same pattern and it was almost the same.
@Zippo, maybe you should at least alternate between a test of tactics and a test of instructions. It seems, that the test of instructions without communication with each other can be incorrect. And the instruction combination is too much, it will be difficult to check everything. For example, the Attacking mentality performed better than Positive, perhaps because it automatically increases tempo and pressure.
Sane said: @Zippo, maybe you should at least alternate between a test of tactics and a test of instructions. Expand
No need to worry, we'll back to tactic testing soon.
Sane said: For example, the Attacking mentality performed better than Positive, perhaps because it automatically increases tempo and pressure.
What do you think about this? Expand
From time to time on the official game forum SI representatives explain how the mentality works and what it does. It isn't only about Tempo and Pressing, it's also about many different things like "off the movement" during the defensive and attacking phases, decisions making and much more.
Of course, our tactical instructions testing isn't perfect because it doesn't testing synergy between instructions but still we believe it's a great help in creating tactics and it's worth doing.
Base Tactic:
Team Instructions: None
Player Instructions: None
Each mentality was tested for 2,880 matches and then the result was translated into a standard season of 38 matches:
Great idea! I'm looking forward to more of that stuff.
@Zippo, what about Defensive and Cautious mentalities? I see their results are empty.
Tsubasa said: @Zippo, what about Defensive and Cautious mentalities? I see their results are empty.
They'll be added soon too.
So between "Positive" and "Attacking" mentality, "Attacking" is better? And maybe different formations have different impact of each type of mentality?
I think it will be more effective if we use these test with the best formation.
dzek said: So between "Positive" and "Attacking" mentality, "Attacking" is better?
I'd say there's almost no difference between 'Positive' and 'Attacking'.
Grimlock said: I'd say there's almost no difference between 'Positive' and 'Attacking'.
"Attacking" produce more goals and concede less so maybe there is a small difference.
Grimlock said: I'd say there's almost no difference between 'Positive' and 'Attacking'.
3 GD, this is relevant.
Zippo said: Base Tactic:
- No Team Instructions
- No Player Instructions
Each mentality was tested for 2,880 matches and then the result was translated into a standard season of 36 matches
Funny that I was testing exactly that, and now I have mixed feelings about it. Bad feeling because I lost almost two days testing, good feeling because I don't need to lose any more time. Thanks for testing!
@Zippo, when we will have "Defensive" and "Cautious" results? Such outstanding tests. Thank you for your time! We really appreciate!
dzek said: @Zippo, when we will have "Defensive" and "Cautious" results? Such outstanding tests. Thank you for your time! We really appreciate!
Soon.
Can u guys please test Team Fluidity? @Zippo
I've added the missing results for 'Defensive' and 'Cautious' mentalities.
Thanks a lot for this brilliant stuff
Thanks for the hard work, really interesting to see these results.
Last year I felt height were important especially on center backs. Tall and strong centerbacks were dominent, this year I have very good results and performances from smaller center backs. Would be interesting to have height tested again this year. In some form or shape.
Keep up the good work!
kjordafen said: Thanks for the hard work, really interesting to see these results.
Last year I felt height were important especially on center backs. Tall and strong centerbacks were dominent, this year I have very good results and performances from smaller center backs. Would be interesting to have height tested again this year. In some form or shape.
Keep up the good work!
Waiting too for all attributes testing, i think we could have some surprises
Zippo said: Base Tactic:
Team Instructions: None
Player Instructions: None
Each mentality was tested for 2,880 matches and then the result was translated into a standard season of 36 matches
Thanks for your great job, but i still think different formations can have different effects on different mentalities. It shouldn't be same as attributes, otherwise all maths in FM become rubbish.
RonaldoWeah said: Thanks for your great job, but i still think different formations can have different effects on different mentalities. It shouldn't be same as attributes, otherwise all maths in FM become rubbish.
Yeah, but it's very hard to measure synergy between instructions.
RonaldoWeah said: Thanks for your great job, but i still think different formations can have different effects on different mentalities. It shouldn't be same as attributes, otherwise all maths in FM become rubbish.
I can say that we've tested few different formations ( 4-4-2, 5-3-2 ) and also, some other roles and duties to see if there's any difference but the pattern was the same.
Of course, there might a small difference but as said the pattern is almost the same.
ZaZ said: Yeah, but it's very hard to measure synergy between instructions.
You did before, you will do again.
Zippo said: I can say that we've tested few different formations ( 4-4-2, 5-3-2 ) and also, some other roles and duties to see if there's any difference but the pattern was the same.
Of course, there might a small difference but as said the pattern is almost the same.
Sorry for misunderstanding, i thought you've just tried 4-2-3-1 according to tactical screen of your first post. Details can become more valuable sometimes, thank you for your detailed reply.
RonaldoWeah said: Sorry for misunderstanding, i thought you've just tried 4-2-3-1 according to tactical screen of your first post. Details can become more valuable sometimes, thank you for your detailed reply.
) to test them all. We just tested few additional formations to see if the results have the same pattern and it was almost the same.
There's about a thousand possible formations in the game, it would take forever (literally
@Zippo, maybe you should at least alternate between a test of tactics and a test of instructions. It seems, that the test of instructions without communication with each other can be incorrect. And the instruction combination is too much, it will be difficult to check everything. For example, the Attacking mentality performed better than Positive, perhaps because it automatically increases tempo and pressure.
What do you think about this?
Sane said: @Zippo, maybe you should at least alternate between a test of tactics and a test of instructions.
No need to worry, we'll back to tactic testing soon.
Sane said: For example, the Attacking mentality performed better than Positive, perhaps because it automatically increases tempo and pressure.
What do you think about this?
From time to time on the official game forum SI representatives explain how the mentality works and what it does. It isn't only about Tempo and Pressing, it's also about many different things like "off the movement" during the defensive and attacking phases, decisions making and much more.
Of course, our tactical instructions testing isn't perfect because it doesn't testing synergy between instructions but still we believe it's a great help in creating tactics and it's worth doing.