If you play with Phoenix 3.0 tactic or any other attacking-aggressive tactic then you also need a "Physical Conditions saving" tactic to use when you want to save the Physical Conditions of your players for further matches.
I usually just lower the mentality to cautious when winning by two goals or more, as it reduces 1/3 of the likelihood to concede goals as well as reducing intensity. I save a tactic on cautious so it trains the mentality and get tactical familiarity. I've tried other stuff like wasting time, lower tempo, lower pressing intensity and such, but all of them make the tactic way worse, putting the result at risk.
For resting, I would rather rotate the squad, give one or two days of resting from training, or just do lighter training sessions during a tight schedule (like just team bonding, recovery and some match preparation, like attacking/defending movement).
Usually, when my team leads by 2 goals or more in a match then I go for a very defensive tactic that implies very low tempo and time wasting to save the conditions of my players and I'm sure if you don't do something like that then you'll burn the conditions of your players very fast.
Eric said: Usually, when my team leads by 2 goals or more in a match then I go for a very defensive tactic that implies very low tempo and time wasting to save the conditions of my players and I'm sure if you don't do something like that then you'll burn the conditions of your players very fast. Expand
I don't like to do that because I hate when my real team does that, putting the result at risk. But it's probably not a bad choice in game.
All top tactics in the table have almost maximized "Intensity".
Of course, you need an alternative tactic to slow down things or you'll end up with a team full of tired players already somewhere in the middle of the season.
I am testing different things to lower the intensity and concede less goals for ZaZ 2.0, without losing much performance. The plan is to use that when winning to rest players and hold the result, but without risking too much. I suppose the same instructions can also be applied to Phoenix. Right now, I can say changing mentality to cautious and asking goalkeeper to slow pace down are effective measures to reduce intensity and concede less while keeping similar chance to win the match. Lower tempo, lower pressing intensity and deeper pressing line all reduce your chance to win, increasing the likelihood to concede goals. I am currently testing waste time often.
Grimlock said: Also, it makes sense adding "Stay On Feet" TI if you want to reduce the amount of fouls your players produce and yellow/red cards they receive. Expand
It makes sense. I am running tests for that right now.
My way of testing is like this: I set the tactics for both teams (Manchester City and Fulham) and go in holiday for the season. Repeat it three times and consider the worst result. If the worst result is too different, then I run two more times and pick the second worst. That is to make sure my tactic is consistent.
For theses experiments with lower intensity, I am trying to get a tactic with lower intensity and results as close as possible to Blue 2.0. That would mean the tactic won't increase my chances of losing too much for pulling back.
Right now, the best option is cautious mentality with slow pace down. With that, my worst result had Manchester City with 100 points winning the Champions League. The results make me wonder if Light Blue 2.0 (name I chose for this tactic) is actually as good as Blue 2.0. I wonder if @Zippo would allow one test for this lower intensity tactic, when I figure the best shape for it.
Anyway, waste time often is good when you have a comfortable lead. It will make you concede as much as without the instruction at the cost of scoring less goals. However, scoring less golas can make you lose a match that you normally wouldn't, making it less effective than without wasting time. If you know you won't lose, then it's worth it to keep your players in shape.
I will bring more info when I get the results for stay on feet.
ZaZ said: when I figure the best shape for it. Expand
Why do you need using a different shape? Use the same shape as Blue 2.0 because it's the best shape at the moment, just bring the intensity level into the "green" zone.
Grimlock said: Why do you need using a different shape? Use the same shape as Blue 2.0 because it's the best shape at the moment, just bring the intensity level into the "green" zone. Expand
I said shape meaning team instructions. I plan to keep the same formation and roles than Blue 2.0. However, I don't think I will be able to bring it to green while achieving close to 100 points in the league with Manchester City, as well as good result with Fulham.
P.S.: Stay on feet also performed worse. However, I will keep one tactic with stay on feet and waste time often to use when the match is already decided.
ZaZ said: I said shape meaning team instructions. I plan to keep the same formation and roles than Blue 2.0. However, I don't think I will be able to bring it to green while achieving close to 100 points in the league with Manchester City, as well as good result with Fulham. Expand
but it should not be as effective as Blue 2.0, you need this tactic when you already have a solid lead in a match and you just want to save the Physical Conditions of your players and "kill" the game.
ZaZ said: P.S.: Stay on feet also performed worse. However, I will keep one tactic with stay on feet and waste time often to use when the match is already decided. Expand
That isn't surprising, obviously, "Hard Tackling" is more effective but when you already have a solid lead you don't need it.
Grimlock said: but it should not be as effective as Blue 2.0, you need this tactic when you already have a solid lead in a match and you just want to save the Physical Conditions of your players and "kill" the game. Expand
I want one that I can use when winning 2-0 with 15 min of match, so I can safely change without fear of losing. I can still have another with everything on for when I know I can't lose anymore. I am just trying to find a park the bus and rest with points per match similar to Blue 2.0.
ZaZ said: I said shape meaning team instructions. I plan to keep the same formation and roles than Blue 2.0. However, I don't think I will be able to bring it to green while achieving close to 100 points in the league with Manchester City, as well as good result with Fulham.
P.S.: Stay on feet also performed worse. However, I will keep one tactic with stay on feet and waste time often to use when the match is already decided. Expand
As people say "you can't sit in two chairs with one butt".
You have to choose between two modes: "conditions saving mode" and "extreme effectivity mode"
Sometimes you need the first and sometimes you need the second
Rince said: As people say "you can't sit in two chairs with one butt".
You have to choose between two modes: "conditions saving mode" and "extreme effectivity mode"
Sometimes you need the first and sometimes you need the second Expand
Like I said, I am thinking of 3 tactics. Blue 2.0, high performance rest and training mode. Training mode is the one you are talking about, when you have no chance of losing. I am trying to figure out the best tradeoff in the middle ground.
I am actually getting some good results with some variant now, using both stay on feet and waste time often, but keeping high tempo.
P.S.: I often play in lower divisions, with little money to get a large squad, then need to play two matches with one day to rest. I am talking here about the lowest divisions, with semi-professional teams. In that case, you need a balance between performance and resting your players.
ZaZ said: I am actually getting some good results with some variant now, using both stay on feet and waste time often, but keeping high tempo. Expand
I would say something like that is a half-measure.
I think having more than two tactics would make things too complicated for many people.
I'm sure you need to keep things as simple as possible.
Everyone just need some defensive tactic with a very low intensity to use when they achieve desirable score in the match and want to kill the game and save the players conditions.
Rince said: I would say something like that is a half-measure.
I think having more than two tactics would make things too complicated for many people.
I'm sure you need to keep things as simple as possible.
Everyone just need some defensive tactic with a very low intensity to use when they achieve desirable score in the match and want to kill the game and save the players conditions. Expand
You are comparing apples and oranges. For resting, you can just turn off anything that increases intensity and turn on what decreases it. That's not my goal. I am trying to find the most effective tactic which concedes less goals than Blue 2.0 and has significantly lower intensity. I plan to use it to park the bus and rest players. My goal is not to just rest players, as that is trivial to do and don't need much testing at all.
ZaZ said: After lots of trials and errors, this is my "low intensity", less conceding, less fouls. Expand
That isn't a low intensity tactic, the intensity bar is red and it isn't even blue or green.
When the intensity bar is red then the tactic still takes a ton of the players conditions.
Low intensity tactic is when the intensity bar is green, and average intensity is when the intensity bar is blue and high intensity is when the intensity bar is red
Markizio said: That isn't a low intensity tactic, the intensity bar is red and it isn't even blue or green.
When the intensity bar is red then the tactic still takes a ton of the players conditions.
Low intensity tactic is when the intensity bar is green, and average intensity is when the intensity bar is blue Expand
Low intensity compared to Blue 2.0. My main goal was to concede less goals and keep a similar win ratio, while having as low intensity as possible. That is the most I can go without sacrificing too much in performance. For even lower intensity, you can use the one from Magician.
ZaZ said: Low intensity compared to Blue 2.0. My main goal was to concede less goals and keep a similar win ratio, while having as low intensity as possible. That is the most I can go without sacrificing too much in performance. For even lower intensity, you can use the one from Magician. Expand
I think the point of this thread was having a tactic that offers the most effective "conditions" saving mode and something like that is only possible when the intensity bar is in the green zone.
If you need a defensive tactic then it's a different story because a defensive tactic might not be a low intensity tactic.
You can't tag a tactic with the intensity bar in the red zone as a low intensity tactic.
Milakus said: I think the point of this thread was having a tactic that offers the most effective "conditions" saving mode and something like that is only possible when the intensity bar is in the green zone.
If you need a defensive tactic then it's a different story because a defensive tactic might not be a low intensity tactic.
You can't tag a tactic with the intensity bar in the red zone as a low intensity tactic.
You can't have all at once. Expand
Fair point. Maybe I shouldn't have posted here. I just posted because I was already developing a tactic like that to use when the team has a comfortable lead. I thought "lower intensity than normal" would be enough to make it useful for resting players, for thos interested.
Hey, guys.
If you play with Phoenix 3.0 tactic or any other attacking-aggressive tactic then you also need a "Physical Conditions saving" tactic to use when you want to save the Physical Conditions of your players for further matches.
Hi,
How to create such tactic? Any details?
Or you need a large roster
I keep a 20 man roster that helps a lot
Solaris said: Hi,
How to create such tactic? Any details?
It's quite easy.
Just lower the Mentality, Pressing Intensity, Tempo and Passing Directness.
Also, it makes sense increasing the Time Wasting.
healmuth said: Or you need a large roster
I keep a 20 man roster that helps a lot
No doubts. A large roaster helps a lot.
I usually just lower the mentality to cautious when winning by two goals or more, as it reduces 1/3 of the likelihood to concede goals as well as reducing intensity. I save a tactic on cautious so it trains the mentality and get tactical familiarity. I've tried other stuff like wasting time, lower tempo, lower pressing intensity and such, but all of them make the tactic way worse, putting the result at risk.
For resting, I would rather rotate the squad, give one or two days of resting from training, or just do lighter training sessions during a tight schedule (like just team bonding, recovery and some match preparation, like attacking/defending movement).
Usually, when my team leads by 2 goals or more in a match then I go for a very defensive tactic that implies very low tempo and time wasting to save the conditions of my players and I'm sure if you don't do something like that then you'll burn the conditions of your players very fast.
Eric said: Usually, when my team leads by 2 goals or more in a match then I go for a very defensive tactic that implies very low tempo and time wasting to save the conditions of my players and I'm sure if you don't do something like that then you'll burn the conditions of your players very fast.
I don't like to do that because I hate when my real team does that, putting the result at risk. But it's probably not a bad choice in game.
All top tactics in the table have almost maximized "Intensity".
Of course, you need an alternative tactic to slow down things or you'll end up with a team full of tired players already somewhere in the middle of the season.
I agree, a proper management of your players physical conditions is the key to successes. My results have greatly improved since I started doing that.
I am testing different things to lower the intensity and concede less goals for ZaZ 2.0, without losing much performance. The plan is to use that when winning to rest players and hold the result, but without risking too much. I suppose the same instructions can also be applied to Phoenix. Right now, I can say changing mentality to cautious and asking goalkeeper to slow pace down are effective measures to reduce intensity and concede less while keeping similar chance to win the match. Lower tempo, lower pressing intensity and deeper pressing line all reduce your chance to win, increasing the likelihood to concede goals. I am currently testing waste time often.
Also, it makes sense adding "Stay On Feet" TI if you want to reduce the amount of fouls your players produce and yellow/red cards they receive.
Grimlock said: Also, it makes sense adding "Stay On Feet" TI if you want to reduce the amount of fouls your players produce and yellow/red cards they receive.
It makes sense. I am running tests for that right now.
My way of testing is like this: I set the tactics for both teams (Manchester City and Fulham) and go in holiday for the season. Repeat it three times and consider the worst result. If the worst result is too different, then I run two more times and pick the second worst. That is to make sure my tactic is consistent.
For theses experiments with lower intensity, I am trying to get a tactic with lower intensity and results as close as possible to Blue 2.0. That would mean the tactic won't increase my chances of losing too much for pulling back.
Right now, the best option is cautious mentality with slow pace down. With that, my worst result had Manchester City with 100 points winning the Champions League. The results make me wonder if Light Blue 2.0 (name I chose for this tactic) is actually as good as Blue 2.0. I wonder if @Zippo would allow one test for this lower intensity tactic, when I figure the best shape for it.
Anyway, waste time often is good when you have a comfortable lead. It will make you concede as much as without the instruction at the cost of scoring less goals. However, scoring less golas can make you lose a match that you normally wouldn't, making it less effective than without wasting time. If you know you won't lose, then it's worth it to keep your players in shape.
I will bring more info when I get the results for stay on feet.
ZaZ said: when I figure the best shape for it.
Why do you need using a different shape? Use the same shape as Blue 2.0 because it's the best shape at the moment, just bring the intensity level into the "green" zone.
Grimlock said: Why do you need using a different shape? Use the same shape as Blue 2.0 because it's the best shape at the moment, just bring the intensity level into the "green" zone.
I said shape meaning team instructions. I plan to keep the same formation and roles than Blue 2.0. However, I don't think I will be able to bring it to green while achieving close to 100 points in the league with Manchester City, as well as good result with Fulham.
P.S.: Stay on feet also performed worse. However, I will keep one tactic with stay on feet and waste time often to use when the match is already decided.
ZaZ said: I said shape meaning team instructions. I plan to keep the same formation and roles than Blue 2.0. However, I don't think I will be able to bring it to green while achieving close to 100 points in the league with Manchester City, as well as good result with Fulham.
but it should not be as effective as Blue 2.0, you need this tactic when you already have a solid lead in a match and you just want to save the Physical Conditions of your players and "kill" the game.
ZaZ said: P.S.: Stay on feet also performed worse. However, I will keep one tactic with stay on feet and waste time often to use when the match is already decided.
That isn't surprising, obviously, "Hard Tackling" is more effective but when you already have a solid lead you don't need it.
Grimlock said: but it should not be as effective as Blue 2.0, you need this tactic when you already have a solid lead in a match and you just want to save the Physical Conditions of your players and "kill" the game.
I want one that I can use when winning 2-0 with 15 min of match, so I can safely change without fear of losing. I can still have another with everything on for when I know I can't lose anymore. I am just trying to find a park the bus and rest with points per match similar to Blue 2.0.
ZaZ said: I said shape meaning team instructions. I plan to keep the same formation and roles than Blue 2.0. However, I don't think I will be able to bring it to green while achieving close to 100 points in the league with Manchester City, as well as good result with Fulham.
P.S.: Stay on feet also performed worse. However, I will keep one tactic with stay on feet and waste time often to use when the match is already decided.
As people say "you can't sit in two chairs with one butt".
You have to choose between two modes: "conditions saving mode" and "extreme effectivity mode"
Sometimes you need the first and sometimes you need the second
Rince said: As people say "you can't sit in two chairs with one butt".
You have to choose between two modes: "conditions saving mode" and "extreme effectivity mode"
Sometimes you need the first and sometimes you need the second
Like I said, I am thinking of 3 tactics. Blue 2.0, high performance rest and training mode. Training mode is the one you are talking about, when you have no chance of losing. I am trying to figure out the best tradeoff in the middle ground.
I am actually getting some good results with some variant now, using both stay on feet and waste time often, but keeping high tempo.
P.S.: I often play in lower divisions, with little money to get a large squad, then need to play two matches with one day to rest. I am talking here about the lowest divisions, with semi-professional teams. In that case, you need a balance between performance and resting your players.
ZaZ said: I am actually getting some good results with some variant now, using both stay on feet and waste time often, but keeping high tempo.
I would say something like that is a half-measure.
I think having more than two tactics would make things too complicated for many people.
I'm sure you need to keep things as simple as possible.
Everyone just need some defensive tactic with a very low intensity to use when they achieve desirable score in the match and want to kill the game and save the players conditions.
Rince said: I would say something like that is a half-measure.
I think having more than two tactics would make things too complicated for many people.
I'm sure you need to keep things as simple as possible.
Everyone just need some defensive tactic with a very low intensity to use when they achieve desirable score in the match and want to kill the game and save the players conditions.
You are comparing apples and oranges. For resting, you can just turn off anything that increases intensity and turn on what decreases it. That's not my goal. I am trying to find the most effective tactic which concedes less goals than Blue 2.0 and has significantly lower intensity. I plan to use it to park the bus and rest players. My goal is not to just rest players, as that is trivial to do and don't need much testing at all.
ZaZ said: @Zippo would allow one test for this lower intensity tactic, when I figure the best shape for it.
if there are enough changes to make any meaningful difference then why not?
After lots of trials and errors, this is my "low intensity", less conceding, less fouls.
ZaZ said: After lots of trials and errors, this is my "low intensity", less conceding, less fouls.
That isn't a low intensity tactic, the intensity bar is red and it isn't even blue or green.
When the intensity bar is red then the tactic still takes a ton of the players conditions.
Low intensity tactic is when the intensity bar is green, and average intensity is when the intensity bar is blue and high intensity is when the intensity bar is red
Markizio said: That isn't a low intensity tactic, the intensity bar is red and it isn't even blue or green.
When the intensity bar is red then the tactic still takes a ton of the players conditions.
Low intensity tactic is when the intensity bar is green, and average intensity is when the intensity bar is blue
Low intensity compared to Blue 2.0. My main goal was to concede less goals and keep a similar win ratio, while having as low intensity as possible. That is the most I can go without sacrificing too much in performance. For even lower intensity, you can use the one from Magician.
ZaZ said: Low intensity compared to Blue 2.0. My main goal was to concede less goals and keep a similar win ratio, while having as low intensity as possible. That is the most I can go without sacrificing too much in performance. For even lower intensity, you can use the one from Magician.
I think the point of this thread was having a tactic that offers the most effective "conditions" saving mode and something like that is only possible when the intensity bar is in the green zone.
If you need a defensive tactic then it's a different story because a defensive tactic might not be a low intensity tactic.
You can't tag a tactic with the intensity bar in the red zone as a low intensity tactic.
You can't have all at once.
Milakus said: I think the point of this thread was having a tactic that offers the most effective "conditions" saving mode and something like that is only possible when the intensity bar is in the green zone.
If you need a defensive tactic then it's a different story because a defensive tactic might not be a low intensity tactic.
You can't tag a tactic with the intensity bar in the red zone as a low intensity tactic.
You can't have all at once.
Fair point. Maybe I shouldn't have posted here. I just posted because I was already developing a tactic like that to use when the team has a comfortable lead. I thought "lower intensity than normal" would be enough to make it useful for resting players, for thos interested.
Here's a slight improved version of my conditions saving tactic to use with Phoenix v3.0 tactic
