Belmorn said: How do you test your tactic atm ? I find it hard to draw conclusions on creating a tactic and just do one big holiday. Expand
There is no right answer for that question. Each testing platform has a different methodology and all of them are valid. If you want to test it without going on holiday, you can just play a normal season with the tactic, managing the team, and see how it performs compared to other tactics you have tested before.
ZaZ said: There is no right answer for that question. Each testing platform has a different methodology and all of them are valid. If you want to test it without going on holiday, you can just play a normal season with the tactic, managing the team, and see how it performs compared to other tactics you have tested before. Expand
yes ofc but you stated you do 10 tests or so per day so I was wondering how you doing that atm ?
Belmorn said: yes ofc but you stated you do 10 tests or so per day so I was wondering how you doing that atm ? Expand
I just do one big holiday, like you said. If result is not terrible, I run the tactic three times. If at least two of the results are not bad, then I run five times in total. Then, I discard the two best and worse results for points per match and goal difference (which can be from different runs) and use it as my measurement of quality. This score (median) means I expect half of any future runs to be better and half to be worse, having an advantage over doing the average because it discards outliers (which can distort results). Running five holiday runs (from the same save) give me some confidence that my results might be good or bad, for the conditions I am testing.
@ZaZ When you talked about 1 TF supported by 2 SS performing well… what kind of formation were you talking about ? What about a 3(CBs)-3(WBs+DM)-1(CM)-2(SSs)-1(TF) ? Basically your formation with SS instead of IW and one more CB instead of 1 TF, that allows WB to be a bit higher.
pixar said: How likely are IWBs doing better on the opposite foot? I'm almost certain they have a higher tactical aptitude. Expand
Foot of IWB doesn't matter, since they don't shoot or cross. You can safely ignore the opinion of your assistant manager on that, it has no affect on performance.
Jimmy said: @ZaZ When you talked about 1 TF supported by 2 SS performing well… what kind of formation were you talking about ? What about a 3(CBs)-3(WBs+DM)-1(CM)-2(SSs)-1(TF) ? Basically your formation with SS instead of IW and one more CB instead of 1 TF, that allows WB to be a bit higher. Expand
@ZaZ What do you think about this one ? I just don't know if I should tell my SSs to stay outside and to take the flanks when they/we have the ball on their player instructions.
Jimmy said: @ZaZ What do you think about this one ? I just don't know if I should tell my SSs to stay outside and to take the flanks when they/we have the ball on their player instructions. Expand
It's better for the SS to play by the middle instead of going to the flanks.
P.S.: Current match engine has way more variance than previous. I am gonna create a custom test league to improve my tests accuracy.
I'm having some inconsistencies with the results, so I'll have to run some things again. Either I screwed up somewhere, or they changed the match engine last patch.
Normal holiday tests are super high variance this year, at least for me. For example, the most basic test - one season with City on the default database - a good tactic last year would consistently get between 93-100 points every run no matter what, while this year I had tactics that got 90 points on the first run and then 75 points on the next. It's hard to tell right now what really works and what doesn't, at least not until the editor is available and fmarena starts their testing.
Egraam said: Normal holiday tests are super high variance this year, at least for me. For example, the most basic test - one season with City on the default database - a good tactic last year would consistently get between 93-100 points every run no matter what, while this year I had tactics that got 90 points on the first run and then 75 points on the next. It's hard to tell right now what really works and what doesn't, at least not until the editor is available and fmarena starts their testing. Expand
Holidays test just seem unreliable in general, very dependent on how well other teams are doing, injuries to both player and AI and obviously sometimes you just get really lucky and is much easier to fluke 38 games than 456 or whatever the tests are.
Kyle said: Holidays test just seem unreliable in general, very dependent on how well other teams are doing, injuries to both player and AI and obviously sometimes you just get really lucky and is much easier to fluke 38 games than 456 or whatever the tests are. Expand
arsenal737 said: @ZaZ which would be a better tactic between the test, red 0.1 & red 0.2?? Expand
Answered in the other topic.
Kyle said: Holidays test just seem unreliable in general, very dependent on how well other teams are doing, injuries to both player and AI and obviously sometimes you just get really lucky and is much easier to fluke 38 games than 456 or whatever the tests are. Expand
Unfortunatelly, it's the only way to test before editor is out.
@ZaZ Should we expect your new tactics with changes in the coming days? Did you hide your findings in the first post because they probably don't work anymore?
Sane said: @ZaZ Should we expect your new tactics with changes in the coming days? Did you hide your findings in the first post because they probably don't work anymore? Expand
Yeah, I am trying to get a new tactic in the coming days.
About spoilers in first post, I did it because results suddenly got way different from before. I'm not sure if match engine changed or if variance was too big, but I hope I can get something solid soon. Meanwhile, some good tactics are already around, like Electro from @Cyborg.
Jimmy said: I'd love to see some sort of 3-4-1-2 working with WCB (maybe on attack since support doesn't seem that great ?) and on the flanks maybe something else than WB-Su since it doesn't seem great there. But it's not like there is nothing else, we have CWB, IWB, … or maybe no WB but Defensive Wingers if it's not too attacking. Curious about that. Expand
I made a 3-4-1-2 one. but i don't know the way how effectively defended in this beta-engine.
Gaksital said: I made a 3-4-1-2 one. but i don't know the way how effectively defended in this beta-engine. Expand
I don't remember when the last time a 3 defenders tactic worked well in FM. They always have been very leaky and it looks like this year isn't an exception
Bogeyman said: I don't remember when the last time a 3 defenders tactic worked well in FM. They always have been very leaky and it looks like this year isn't an exception Expand
I have had a bit of a look at @Eric results to try and see if there are any patterns. I have excluded the tactics where he hasn't tested for a full season. I have also started testing them in my lower league tests. Here are the results from @Eric Tests.
I have focused on the teams that have either made 2 points per game or had a goal difference of over one goal per game.
Mark said: I have had a bit of a look at @Eric results to try and see if there are any patterns. I have excluded the tactics where he hasn't tested for a full season. I have also started testing them in my lower league tests. Here are the results from @Eric Tests.
I have focused on the teams that have either made 2 points per game or had a goal difference of over one goal per game.
I hope this helps someone Expand
Thanks! I will try to check it after this batch of experiments. Red 0.4 is getting a bit more solid at the back, but I couldn't get that 0.5 goals conceded per match yet with top team.
Mark said: I have had a bit of a look at @Eric results to try and see if there are any patterns. I have excluded the tactics where he hasn't tested for a full season. I have also started testing them in my lower league tests. Here are the results from @Eric Tests.
I have focused on the teams that have either made 2 points per game or had a goal difference of over one goal per game.
I hope this helps someone Expand
I'm really surprised to see Cerber's tactic doing better than Zaz's, because at the beginning of my game I was using Cerber's tactic and my results were really mixed, and quite bad away from home, and when I switched to Zaz's tactic, my results improved dramatically, I won the French cup and reached the final of the Europa League (with Marseille in Ligue 1). I lost in the final 3-0 against Lazio. I only finished 4th in the league though, but Lyon and Monaco are very strong teams. And Paris of course, they didn't lose a single match all season, and I think only drew 3...
Alexis said: I'm really surprised to see Cerber's tactic doing better than Zaz's, because at the beginning of my game I was using Cerber's tactic and my results were really mixed, and quite bad away from home, and when I switched to Zaz's tactic, my results improved dramatically, I won the French cup and reached the final of the Europa League (with Marseille in Ligue 1). I lost in the final 3-0 against Lazio. I only finished 4th in the league though, but Lyon and Monaco are very strong teams. And Paris of course, they didn't lose a single match all season, and I think only drew 3... Expand
It's just Beta, it doesn't matter much which tactic is the best. I just hope we have many different tactics with good score early, so people have options for different tastes.
Are you sure about cross less often being the strongest option? Heading just seems so nuts, the amount of goals I get from my RB crossing it to a tall AM/L is ridiculous.
Kyle said: Are you sure about cross less often being the strongest option? Heading just seems so nuts, the amount of goals I get from my RB crossing it to a tall AM/L is ridiculous.
Cross less often basically tells players to avoid crossing when probabilities are low, but they still do when probabilities are good. For example, below are the goals of a season using Red 0.4. As you can see, even with IWs and that option, they still got 40 assists from crossing. That's over 140 goals using cross less often and low crosses. I'll still test again removing those options, and even adding the opposite (cross more often and floating/whipped crosses).
I might be wrong, but I have a feeling they increased the effect of the new stamina system. It doesn't affect much stronger teams, but weaker teams with high intensity are really suffering right now. It might be just me, though.
I have tested 6 tactics today since the release. Selected tactics based on a combination of Eric's testing and my Beta testing. Ran the tactic in 5 divisions with sides that were all 33/1 with the bookmakers and rated between 16 and 20 with the media. L1 Shrewsbury, L2 Carlisle, VNL Halifax, VNN Southport and VNS Hungerford.
Here are the results.
You will notice that Electro and Arrowhead had less games. Electro Manager was sacked by Shrewsbury after 37 League games and Arrowhead Manager was sacked after just 14 games by Hungerford. This probably meant they faired better than they would have given their under performing team didn't play out the season. Next to test is ZaZ Red 1.0 and then the remainder of the tactics of interest.
As always my interest is lower league sides so there are columns for Non League PPM and Rank. The main column of interest should be PPM. I do find it interesting in my tests to date that no one formation is dominating so far with this release.
pixar said: Where is update tactic bro?
https://fm-arena.com/thread/1630-zaz-red-0-2/
How do you test your tactic atm ?
I find it hard to draw conclusions on creating a tactic and just do one big holiday.
Belmorn said: How do you test your tactic atm ?
I find it hard to draw conclusions on creating a tactic and just do one big holiday.
There is no right answer for that question. Each testing platform has a different methodology and all of them are valid. If you want to test it without going on holiday, you can just play a normal season with the tactic, managing the team, and see how it performs compared to other tactics you have tested before.
ZaZ said: There is no right answer for that question. Each testing platform has a different methodology and all of them are valid. If you want to test it without going on holiday, you can just play a normal season with the tactic, managing the team, and see how it performs compared to other tactics you have tested before.
yes ofc but you stated you do 10 tests or so per day so I was wondering how you doing that atm ?
Belmorn said: yes ofc but you stated you do 10 tests or so per day so I was wondering how you doing that atm ?
I just do one big holiday, like you said. If result is not terrible, I run the tactic three times. If at least two of the results are not bad, then I run five times in total. Then, I discard the two best and worse results for points per match and goal difference (which can be from different runs) and use it as my measurement of quality. This score (median) means I expect half of any future runs to be better and half to be worse, having an advantage over doing the average because it discards outliers (which can distort results). Running five holiday runs (from the same save) give me some confidence that my results might be good or bad, for the conditions I am testing.
@ZaZ When you talked about 1 TF supported by 2 SS performing well… what kind of formation were you talking about ?
What about a 3(CBs)-3(WBs+DM)-1(CM)-2(SSs)-1(TF) ? Basically your formation with SS instead of IW and one more CB instead of 1 TF, that allows WB to be a bit higher.
How likely are IWBs doing better on the opposite foot? I'm almost certain they have a higher tactical aptitude.
pixar said: How likely are IWBs doing better on the opposite foot? I'm almost certain they have a higher tactical aptitude.
Foot of IWB doesn't matter, since they don't shoot or cross. You can safely ignore the opinion of your assistant manager on that, it has no affect on performance.
Jimmy said: @ZaZ When you talked about 1 TF supported by 2 SS performing well… what kind of formation were you talking about ?
What about a 3(CBs)-3(WBs+DM)-1(CM)-2(SSs)-1(TF) ? Basically your formation with SS instead of IW and one more CB instead of 1 TF, that allows WB to be a bit higher.
Not sure, I didn't test it.
@ZaZ What do you think about this one ?
I just don't know if I should tell my SSs to stay outside and to take the flanks when they/we have the ball on their player instructions.
Jimmy said: @ZaZ What do you think about this one ?
I just don't know if I should tell my SSs to stay outside and to take the flanks when they/we have the ball on their player instructions.
It's better for the SS to play by the middle instead of going to the flanks.
P.S.: Current match engine has way more variance than previous. I am gonna create a custom test league to improve my tests accuracy.
I'm having some inconsistencies with the results, so I'll have to run some things again. Either I screwed up somewhere, or they changed the match engine last patch.
Normal holiday tests are super high variance this year, at least for me. For example, the most basic test - one season with City on the default database - a good tactic last year would consistently get between 93-100 points every run no matter what, while this year I had tactics that got 90 points on the first run and then 75 points on the next. It's hard to tell right now what really works and what doesn't, at least not until the editor is available and fmarena starts their testing.
Egraam said: Normal holiday tests are super high variance this year, at least for me. For example, the most basic test - one season with City on the default database - a good tactic last year would consistently get between 93-100 points every run no matter what, while this year I had tactics that got 90 points on the first run and then 75 points on the next. It's hard to tell right now what really works and what doesn't, at least not until the editor is available and fmarena starts their testing.
Holidays test just seem unreliable in general, very dependent on how well other teams are doing, injuries to both player and AI and obviously sometimes you just get really lucky and is much easier to fluke 38 games than 456 or whatever the tests are.
Kyle said: Holidays test just seem unreliable in general, very dependent on how well other teams are doing, injuries to both player and AI and obviously sometimes you just get really lucky and is much easier to fluke 38 games than 456 or whatever the tests are.
Here's how a proper testing should be done - https://fm-arena.com/thread/652-fm-arena-tactic-testing-league/
@ZaZ which would be a better tactic between the test, red 0.1 & red 0.2??
arsenal737 said: @ZaZ which would be a better tactic between the test, red 0.1 & red 0.2??
Answered in the other topic.
Kyle said: Holidays test just seem unreliable in general, very dependent on how well other teams are doing, injuries to both player and AI and obviously sometimes you just get really lucky and is much easier to fluke 38 games than 456 or whatever the tests are.
Unfortunatelly, it's the only way to test before editor is out.
Lapidus said: Here's how a proper testing should be done - https://fm-arena.com/thread/652-fm-arena-tactic-testing-league/
I agree, but can't be done without the editor.
@ZaZ Should we expect your new tactics with changes in the coming days? Did you hide your findings in the first post because they probably don't work anymore?
Sane said: @ZaZ Should we expect your new tactics with changes in the coming days? Did you hide your findings in the first post because they probably don't work anymore?
Yeah, I am trying to get a new tactic in the coming days.
About spoilers in first post, I did it because results suddenly got way different from before. I'm not sure if match engine changed or if variance was too big, but I hope I can get something solid soon. Meanwhile, some good tactics are already around, like Electro from @Cyborg.
Jimmy said: I'd love to see some sort of 3-4-1-2 working with WCB (maybe on attack since support doesn't seem that great ?) and on the flanks maybe something else than WB-Su since it doesn't seem great there. But it's not like there is nothing else, we have CWB, IWB, … or maybe no WB but Defensive Wingers if it's not too attacking. Curious about that.
I made a 3-4-1-2 one. but i don't know the way how effectively defended in this beta-engine.
Gaksital said: I made a 3-4-1-2 one. but i don't know the way how effectively defended in this beta-engine.
I don't remember when the last time a 3 defenders tactic worked well in FM. They always have been very leaky and it looks like this year isn't an exception
Bogeyman said: I don't remember when the last time a 3 defenders tactic worked well in FM. They always have been very leaky and it looks like this year isn't an exception
New role sucks.
I have had a bit of a look at @Eric results to try and see if there are any patterns. I have excluded the tactics where he hasn't tested for a full season. I have also started testing them in my lower league tests. Here are the results from @Eric Tests.
I have focused on the teams that have either made 2 points per game or had a goal difference of over one goal per game.
I hope this helps someone
Mark said: I have had a bit of a look at @Eric results to try and see if there are any patterns. I have excluded the tactics where he hasn't tested for a full season. I have also started testing them in my lower league tests. Here are the results from @Eric Tests.
I have focused on the teams that have either made 2 points per game or had a goal difference of over one goal per game.
I hope this helps someone
Thanks! I will try to check it after this batch of experiments. Red 0.4 is getting a bit more solid at the back, but I couldn't get that 0.5 goals conceded per match yet with top team.
Mark said: I have had a bit of a look at @Eric results to try and see if there are any patterns. I have excluded the tactics where he hasn't tested for a full season. I have also started testing them in my lower league tests. Here are the results from @Eric Tests.
I have focused on the teams that have either made 2 points per game or had a goal difference of over one goal per game.
I hope this helps someone
I'm really surprised to see Cerber's tactic doing better than Zaz's, because at the beginning of my game I was using Cerber's tactic and my results were really mixed, and quite bad away from home, and when I switched to Zaz's tactic, my results improved dramatically, I won the French cup and reached the final of the Europa League (with Marseille in Ligue 1). I lost in the final 3-0 against Lazio. I only finished 4th in the league though, but Lyon and Monaco are very strong teams. And Paris of course, they didn't lose a single match all season, and I think only drew 3...
Alexis said: I'm really surprised to see Cerber's tactic doing better than Zaz's, because at the beginning of my game I was using Cerber's tactic and my results were really mixed, and quite bad away from home, and when I switched to Zaz's tactic, my results improved dramatically, I won the French cup and reached the final of the Europa League (with Marseille in Ligue 1). I lost in the final 3-0 against Lazio. I only finished 4th in the league though, but Lyon and Monaco are very strong teams. And Paris of course, they didn't lose a single match all season, and I think only drew 3...
It's just Beta, it doesn't matter much which tactic is the best. I just hope we have many different tactics with good score early, so people have options for different tastes.
Are you sure about cross less often being the strongest option? Heading just seems so nuts, the amount of goals I get from my RB crossing it to a tall AM/L is ridiculous.
Using Electro with Isak AM/L scoring this type of goal on average once or twice a match
https://streamable.com/1daryh
https://streamable.com/0wvjc1
https://streamable.com/c1djlw
Kyle said: Are you sure about cross less often being the strongest option? Heading just seems so nuts, the amount of goals I get from my RB crossing it to a tall AM/L is ridiculous.
Using Electro with Isak AM/L scoring this type of goal on average once or twice a match
https://streamable.com/1daryh
https://streamable.com/0wvjc1
https://streamable.com/c1djlw
Cross less often basically tells players to avoid crossing when probabilities are low, but they still do when probabilities are good. For example, below are the goals of a season using Red 0.4. As you can see, even with IWs and that option, they still got 40 assists from crossing. That's over 140 goals using cross less often and low crosses. I'll still test again removing those options, and even adding the opposite (cross more often and floating/whipped crosses).
Looks like the match engine might be marginally different. The Beta final was listed as ME 22.1 and it is now ME 22.2
I might be wrong, but I have a feeling they increased the effect of the new stamina system. It doesn't affect much stronger teams, but weaker teams with high intensity are really suffering right now. It might be just me, though.
I have tested 6 tactics today since the release. Selected tactics based on a combination of Eric's testing and my Beta testing. Ran the tactic in 5 divisions with sides that were all 33/1 with the bookmakers and rated between 16 and 20 with the media. L1 Shrewsbury, L2 Carlisle, VNL Halifax, VNN Southport and VNS Hungerford.
Here are the results.
You will notice that Electro and Arrowhead had less games. Electro Manager was sacked by Shrewsbury after 37 League games and Arrowhead Manager was sacked after just 14 games by Hungerford. This probably meant they faired better than they would have given their under performing team didn't play out the season. Next to test is ZaZ Red 1.0 and then the remainder of the tactics of interest.
As always my interest is lower league sides so there are columns for Non League PPM and Rank. The main column of interest should be PPM. I do find it interesting in my tests to date that no one formation is dominating so far with this release.
Hope this helps someone.