I've been experimenting with different tactics and noticed that player roles seem to have a significant impact on FM-Arena's tactic testing results. Sometimes a tactic that performs exceptionally well in one test doesn't translate the same success in actual gameplay. Could this be due to specific player roles affecting the overall tactic performance differently during simulations?
For example, do certain roles like deep-lying playmakers / inverted wing-backs influence the way the AI evaluates a tactic? Would adjusting these roles within the same tactical framework lead to a significant difference in results? It would be interesting to hear from others who have analyzed the impact of player roles in FM-Arena testing and how they optimize their setups accordingly.
Any insights or experiences from those who have conducted similar tests would be greatly appreciated. Also, if there are specific tweaks that improve a tactic’s effectiveness in both simulated and real matches; I’d love to discuss those!
TommyToxic said: This isn't something you can just say without backing it up with something. Expand
First of all: This.
Something to think about though: if you're a bigger/smaller team, does the AI approach you differently? How do the AI coaches in the test db view the teams being tested? Is your personal situation similar or different?
An example in case that's not completely clear: I recently took over everton early into season 2. They were in like 19th, no wins, absolute whipping boy. Rolled out a very meta 424 and ended the season in a champions league spot.
Start the next season with the same tactic. Not so hot. Doing sorta-ok in europe and bouncing around 6th or 7th in the league. Now, why is this? Could be a lot of reasons, but could one of them be this: last season no one took me seriously, and this season they are taking me very seriously, and the 424 is too open in midfield and I'm getting countered through like city irl rn because opponents are playing less aggressively against me? Are they simply keeping more men behind the ball? Would I have been better served to have switched to a tactic like a 433 that is less top-heavy, even if according to the FMArena table it's marginally "worse"?
Hello
I've been experimenting with different tactics and noticed that player roles seem to have a significant impact on FM-Arena's tactic testing results. Sometimes a tactic that performs exceptionally well in one test doesn't translate the same success in actual gameplay. Could this be due to specific player roles affecting the overall tactic performance differently during simulations?
For example, do certain roles like deep-lying playmakers / inverted wing-backs influence the way the AI evaluates a tactic? Would adjusting these roles within the same tactical framework lead to a significant difference in results? It would be interesting to hear from others who have analyzed the impact of player roles in FM-Arena testing and how they optimize their setups accordingly.
Any insights or experiences from those who have conducted similar tests would be greatly appreciated. Also, if there are specific tweaks that improve a tactic’s effectiveness in both simulated and real matches; I’d love to discuss those!
Thank you !
Also would like to know about it.
catherinebennett said: Sometimes a tactic that performs exceptionally well in one test doesn't translate the same success in actual gameplay.
This isn't something you can just say without backing it up with something.
TommyToxic said: This isn't something you can just say without backing it up with something.
First of all: This.
Something to think about though: if you're a bigger/smaller team, does the AI approach you differently? How do the AI coaches in the test db view the teams being tested? Is your personal situation similar or different?
An example in case that's not completely clear: I recently took over everton early into season 2. They were in like 19th, no wins, absolute whipping boy. Rolled out a very meta 424 and ended the season in a champions league spot.
Start the next season with the same tactic. Not so hot. Doing sorta-ok in europe and bouncing around 6th or 7th in the league. Now, why is this? Could be a lot of reasons, but could one of them be this: last season no one took me seriously, and this season they are taking me very seriously, and the 424 is too open in midfield and I'm getting countered through like city irl rn because opponents are playing less aggressively against me? Are they simply keeping more men behind the ball? Would I have been better served to have switched to a tactic like a 433 that is less top-heavy, even if according to the FMArena table it's marginally "worse"?