My preferred training schedule remains 214 [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus]
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Quickness Focus] has the best absolute attribute gain Expand
Thanks, I’m going with 214 as the main schedule then.
One practical thing I’m still unsure about: where would you place the 2x Physical + 2x Attacking sessions during the week?
The issue I have is that in weeks with away games, Travel can automatically replace training slots, especially around the day before matches, so sometimes the intended 214 sessions disappear.
Would you place the four 214 sessions on specific days/slots to make the schedule as travel-proof as possible?
For example, if I usually have matches on Wednesday and Saturday, where would you ideally put:
Physical x2 Attacking x2
so that Travel interferes with them as little as possible?
I won't get into the details because it'll just be confusing, but the Sterling meta team vs. real Luton discrepancy should be fixed now, and you can discard the theory I came up with to try and explain the discrepancy (that roles do take attributes into account in some way).
But this leads me to new ideas.
We see that when position proficiency is equalized, a non-sensical assymetric tactic that I came up with performed equal to Knap's best tactic (5th vs 6th).
We also see that the random variation is subdued a lot with the meta team due it being composed of identical players. Consistent ~6th-7th with Knap tactic, compared to ~2nd-10th for real Luton. And it's unlikely to be mostly on account of injuries, morale, etc. because none of those are controlled with the meta team tests.
A theory I have is that when the assistant manager picks players to play at real Luton, he is choosing based on role rating. Roles are an average(?) of select highlighted attributes. Some of these roles are going to highlight more meta attributes than others.
Now let's take a look at some ST options:
trequartista ST - drib*, fin, ant, com*, vis*, acc*, agil, bal false nine ST - drib*, fin, ant, com*, vis*, acc*, agil*, bal advanced forward ST - drib*, fin*, ant, com*, work, acc*, agil, bal, pace, sta pressing forward ST - agg*, ant*, com, con, work*, acc*, agil, bal, pace*, sta*, str
* denotes its shown as a key attribute for the role.
I've highlighted attributes that contribute 25 or more weight, inferred from the real player testing I've done.
Guess which two of the four Knap's tactic employs.
Now if the assistant manager is selecting based on the role selected in your tactic, then we can suppose if I use AF STs, I will get ~2nd, but if I use False Nine STs maybe I will get ~16th. Not variations between 2nd and 10th. Consider however that because the assistant manager is effectively using a half-blinded assessment, a layer of inconsistency is being added. So for instance, your tactic has 2x AF ST, and your assistant picks 2xST that has very high acc & drib because they have the highest AF ST role score. However, you also have a False Nine ST that has very high det, con, vis, pace, work, and jump that your assistant overlooked, but may nonetheless get rotated in half the time as they are the close 2nd option.
I'll be doing some tests to see if this theory works at all or not.
Wail said: Can you do it automatically through the season ? or we have to do it week by week, its kinda boring copy pasting it. Expand You add it for every week straightaway, but I don't think there's a way around having to copy paste each week
bf3metro said: One practical thing I’m still unsure about: where would you place the 2x Physical + 2x Attacking sessions during the week?
The issue I have is that in weeks with away games, Travel can automatically replace training slots, especially around the day before matches, so sometimes the intended 214 sessions disappear. Expand I think there's an option in the settings to set matches to only be on 2 certain days? I don't use this though, so not sure.
I would do 2 days of [Physical][Attack]
I wish I could remember the details properly, but I can vaguely recall that where you place training doesn't matter like you would think it does. That you can put training straight after a match day, and it won't affect condition recovery rate or injury rate. And that it's actually calculated as a whole 2 week (not even 1 week) block of training.
Not 100% certain on the injury thing, because I would think that unrecovered condition would increase injury rate of training modules, but then again match sharpness (which decreases with time post-match) has a bigger influence on injury rate, so perhaps they cancel each other out.
bf3metro said: Thanks, I’m going with 214 as the main schedule then.
One practical thing I’m still unsure about: where would you place the 2x Physical + 2x Attacking sessions during the week?
The issue I have is that in weeks with away games, Travel can automatically replace training slots, especially around the day before matches, so sometimes the intended 214 sessions disappear.
Would you place the four 214 sessions on specific days/slots to make the schedule as travel-proof as possible?
For example, if I usually have matches on Wednesday and Saturday, where would you ideally put:
Physical x2 Attacking x2
so that Travel interferes with them as little as possible? Expand
Set matches to only Wednesday and Saturday then setting it up like this works fine
stefanopt said: Can you use FMST26 to load your current shortlist in game or something like that? If so, how? Expand
You can't, it's quite annoying and the biggest thing holding it back. That feature (plus saving and exporting shortlists into FM) is what sets Genie Scout apart from the other scouting tools. I really hope that gets added soon, either as an update or as part of a new FM27 version when that game releases.
What I do is setup a filter only showing players with a suitable score for my league, setup additional filters for age group and position, and then add any Transfer/Loan interested players into a shortlist in-game.
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed As part of your season-long experiments, would it be valuable to see at a glance all teams in a given league with the average rating of their players?
I'm thinking something like this:
| Man City | 84.75% | | Liverpool | 83.60% | | Arsenal | 82.13% | | Chelsea | 80.44% |
And so on.
I'm not sure what your tests look like but I assume you'd expect the final order of computer-controlled teams in your leagues to roughly correlate to the ratings of the players inside? or else it would mean a tweak is needed to the ratings? Right now it seems like you're testing tactics but this way you could test your weights with all the teams in the league, not just one.
LightningFlik said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed As part of your season-long experiments, would it be valuable to see at a glance all teams in a given league with the average rating of their players?
I'm thinking something like this:
| Man City | 84.75% | | Liverpool | 83.60% | | Arsenal | 82.13% | | Chelsea | 80.44% |
And so on.
I'm not sure what your tests look like but I assume you'd expect the final order of computer-controlled teams in your leagues to roughly correlate to the ratings of the players inside? or else it would mean a tweak is needed to the ratings? Right now it seems like you're testing tactics but this way you could test your weights with all the teams in the league, not just one. Expand Yes, I've been missing that feature a bit since every league became 'jupiler league' in Genie Scout.
I did a test before of the Premier League with 4 teams replaced with 80%, 78%, 76%, 74% players. I only did a few samples, but they all finished in the correct order at season's end.
( edited 1 day, 10 hours ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#735
Link to the post:
I would like to say I got 1st with Luton using my own tactic, but actually I used the Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC tactic (with 'Blue' set piece routines). However I did use it combination with team selection based on my FMSS weights and other little things that help such as having a lot of pre-season easy friendlies.
There were no transfers or anything like that, and everything was hands-off after day 1, so I consider this a default run, but obviously its different to a standard plug-and-play test.
The best result for a standard plug-and-play test, with Blue set pieces, has been 2nd with again Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC.
I haven't been able to replicate 1st since, so it's a bit of a fluke. I've come up with 2 strong variations of the Knap tactic of my own, I'll call them A1 and B1 here, and B1 was awfully close to achieving 1st:
I haven't been keeping the neatest data, but here's some of what I've got:
Luton A1 - 5th, 7th, 10th, 3rd, 7th, 6th, 7th, 10th = 6.875 position Sterling meta team fixed A1 - 6th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 13th, 12th = 8.666 position Man City A1 - 1st 107pts, 1st 99pts, 1st 86pts = 1st position
Luton Knap - 2nd, 7th, 7th, 4th, 8th, 5th, 4th = 5.286 position Sterling meta team fixed Knap = 6th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th = 6.375 position Man City Knap - Going by the tactic name, 101 pts? Luton Knap - (optimized team) - 1st, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd = 3.3 position (note: samples beyond first three had a role adjustment or two)
Luton B1 - 11th, 5th, 8th, 6th = 7.5 position Sterling meta team fixed B1 - 6th = 6th position Man City B1 - 1st 98pts, 1st 95pts = 1st position Luton B1 (optimized team) - 2nd, 4th, 4th, 6th, 8th, 2nd = 4.333 position
So as you see, I haven't yet been able to top Knap's tactic. Observe also how the result becomes a lot more consistent when the team is pre-selected. The 'randomness' factor seems to only account for ~1-2 positions difference in the vast majority of cases; most of what is considered 'random' seems to actually just be different player selection. And you can't bring up injuries or whatnot, because that 1-2 position difference is inclusive of injuries, morale, and so on.
Here are some results of other tactics (Luton default):
PERFECT STRANGERS 42112 WIWBA P107 EF - 12th, 5th, 4th, 11th = 8th position HIGHWAY STAR 4231 P107 FC - 4th, 10th, 8th = 7.333 position FM24.4HGF4231 V3X RM P107 ALL CUPS - 3rd, 6th = 4.5 position (1st 94pts for Man City) FM24.4KASHMIRKnap 4213 RPM RM P114 ECCC - 5th FM24.4EFKnap 4231 A MT MC P112 FA - 8th FM24.4OXFORDKnap 4141 RM P110ALLCUPS Luton - 9th FM24.4MADASAHATTERKnap 4132 PF2 RM P105FACC - 7th EF 424 MC P101 EC FA CC - 6th 424 Mountain King - 4th SPEARHEAD 4132 - 6th
I wouldn't ordinarily say you can take anything from a single sample, but I think what we can say at least is that it doesn't seem like there is an overlooked tactic out there that actually makes Luton miraculously finish 1st consistently.
HGF 4231 V3X RM P107 ALL CUPS is a promising candidate though that could do with more testing.
Some observations from my testing:
- A single adjustment to a top tactic, whether it's attacking > positive, or setting 'work ball into box', will most likely ruin it. Usually the effects aren't even intuitive. Don't do it lads. - Adjustments to roles can be more forgiving or even work, but most of the time you're going to botch it - High intensity/pressing seems strictly essential. There are some cases however where 'positive' instead of 'attacking' say, and not going hard in tackles for certain positions, is viable or is even best for that particular formation. For Knap's best tactic though, 'attacking' and hard tackling on all players is simply what works best. - Alternative formations, even ridiculous ones, can work surprisingly well. The main aspect to consider seems to be position proficiency - you should choose the formation which is inclusive of your best player's positions. Certain formations such as 424 do seem to have an inherent edge though aside from position proficiency. I have speculative theories on as to why, but I can surmise it as 'ideal angles of attack'. - It does seem to me that 'roles' are simply half-blinded judgements for your staff to use when assessing players. To me this is reinforced by the 'pick roles & duties' dropdown option under 'quick pick', which actually changes the roles & duties in your tactic to what your assistant thinks is best. Attributes have nothing to do with roles; every outfield player performs according to the exact same attribute formula regardless of position let alone role. Yet changing the role does have an impact on results. How to square this fact? The assistant is essentially choosing between jumbled up lists, and what is probably happening is that some lists (i.e. AF ST) are less jumbled up than others (i.e. False Nine ST). If you preselect the players, it reduces the result variation a lot. And also if you then change the role, it does not seem to change the result much. Yet this is not always the case. Possible explanation: Some roles disallow or enforce certain player instructions, and even those that don't, may in theory change the positioning of the player.
( edited 1 day, 10 hours ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#736
Link to the post:
When I was in the early stages of constructing my tactic, I found that things can get pretty wacky:
This isn't of much practical use to know, because the limits of tactics have been largely explored, but what it means is that you aren't really constrained by the quality of your players.. the tactic can make Luton score 4-6 goals week in, week out - even against Man City, and when losing overall.
And of course we see with the Knap tactic that it can make a bunch of duds win the Premier League, so it seems to me more like the tactic is pulling something out of a hat rather than squeezing the extra 10% out of your players.
In the opposite direction, a certain tactic results in Luton losing ~24-0 every match.
Edit: I guess one potential use is FM clownmaxxing?
Would be fun to play with 9-8 results and still end up finishing in the top half.
I use Knap Tactics, but I always turn Play for Set Pieces on as corners are so OP with the correct rotuines, but I'm not sure if that's secretly detrimental or not.
I put 2-5 player traits on each player in my meta team with Sterling that matched what the Knap tactic was trying to do.
Results: 8th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 7th = 5.8 position
Recall that default was ~6.3 I think it was, so I don't think the player traits are making any difference here.
iezzex said: Where i can find those trainings?
You just manually enter it in your training schedule
hello @GeorgeFloydOverdosed!
any news on trainings? which one came out on top?
bf3metro said: hello @GeorgeFloydOverdosed!
any news on trainings? which one came out on top?
My conclusion is here
My preferred training schedule remains 214 [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus]
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Quickness Focus] has the best absolute attribute gain
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: My conclusion is here
My preferred training schedule remains 214 [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus]
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Quickness Focus] has the best absolute attribute gain
Can you do it automatically through the season ? or we have to do it week by week, its kinda boring copy pasting it.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: My conclusion is here
My preferred training schedule remains 214 [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus]
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Quickness Focus] has the best absolute attribute gain
Thanks, I’m going with 214 as the main schedule then.
One practical thing I’m still unsure about: where would you place the 2x Physical + 2x Attacking sessions during the week?
The issue I have is that in weeks with away games, Travel can automatically replace training slots, especially around the day before matches, so sometimes the intended 214 sessions disappear.
Would you place the four 214 sessions on specific days/slots to make the schedule as travel-proof as possible?
For example, if I usually have matches on Wednesday and Saturday, where would you ideally put:
Physical x2
Attacking x2
so that Travel interferes with them as little as possible?
I won't get into the details because it'll just be confusing, but the Sterling meta team vs. real Luton discrepancy should be fixed now, and you can discard the theory I came up with to try and explain the discrepancy (that roles do take attributes into account in some way).
But this leads me to new ideas.
We see that when position proficiency is equalized, a non-sensical assymetric tactic that I came up with performed equal to Knap's best tactic (5th vs 6th).
We also see that the random variation is subdued a lot with the meta team due it being composed of identical players. Consistent ~6th-7th with Knap tactic, compared to ~2nd-10th for real Luton. And it's unlikely to be mostly on account of injuries, morale, etc. because none of those are controlled with the meta team tests.
A theory I have is that when the assistant manager picks players to play at real Luton, he is choosing based on role rating. Roles are an average(?) of select highlighted attributes. Some of these roles are going to highlight more meta attributes than others.
Now let's take a look at some ST options:
trequartista ST - drib*, fin, ant, com*, vis*, acc*, agil, bal
false nine ST - drib*, fin, ant, com*, vis*, acc*, agil*, bal
advanced forward ST - drib*, fin*, ant, com*, work, acc*, agil, bal, pace, sta
pressing forward ST - agg*, ant*, com, con, work*, acc*, agil, bal, pace*, sta*, str
* denotes its shown as a key attribute for the role.
I've highlighted attributes that contribute 25 or more weight, inferred from the real player testing I've done.
Guess which two of the four Knap's tactic employs.
Now if the assistant manager is selecting based on the role selected in your tactic, then we can suppose if I use AF STs, I will get ~2nd, but if I use False Nine STs maybe I will get ~16th. Not variations between 2nd and 10th. Consider however that because the assistant manager is effectively using a half-blinded assessment, a layer of inconsistency is being added. So for instance, your tactic has 2x AF ST, and your assistant picks 2xST that has very high acc & drib because they have the highest AF ST role score. However, you also have a False Nine ST that has very high det, con, vis, pace, work, and jump that your assistant overlooked, but may nonetheless get rotated in half the time as they are the close 2nd option.
I'll be doing some tests to see if this theory works at all or not.
Wail said: Can you do it automatically through the season ? or we have to do it week by week, its kinda boring copy pasting it.
You add it for every week straightaway, but I don't think there's a way around having to copy paste each week
bf3metro said: One practical thing I’m still unsure about: where would you place the 2x Physical + 2x Attacking sessions during the week?
The issue I have is that in weeks with away games, Travel can automatically replace training slots, especially around the day before matches, so sometimes the intended 214 sessions disappear.
I think there's an option in the settings to set matches to only be on 2 certain days? I don't use this though, so not sure.
I would do 2 days of [Physical][Attack]
I wish I could remember the details properly, but I can vaguely recall that where you place training doesn't matter like you would think it does. That you can put training straight after a match day, and it won't affect condition recovery rate or injury rate. And that it's actually calculated as a whole 2 week (not even 1 week) block of training.
Not 100% certain on the injury thing, because I would think that unrecovered condition would increase injury rate of training modules, but then again match sharpness (which decreases with time post-match) has a bigger influence on injury rate, so perhaps they cancel each other out.
1st as Luton (default team/game, holidayed with full detail for Premier league & cups)
bf3metro said: Thanks, I’m going with 214 as the main schedule then.
One practical thing I’m still unsure about: where would you place the 2x Physical + 2x Attacking sessions during the week?
The issue I have is that in weeks with away games, Travel can automatically replace training slots, especially around the day before matches, so sometimes the intended 214 sessions disappear.
Would you place the four 214 sessions on specific days/slots to make the schedule as travel-proof as possible?
For example, if I usually have matches on Wednesday and Saturday, where would you ideally put:
Physical x2
Attacking x2
so that Travel interferes with them as little as possible?
Set matches to only Wednesday and Saturday then setting it up like this works fine
Can you use FMST26 to load your current shortlist in game or something like that? If so, how?
stefanopt said: Can you use FMST26 to load your current shortlist in game or something like that? If so, how?
You can't, it's quite annoying and the biggest thing holding it back. That feature (plus saving and exporting shortlists into FM) is what sets Genie Scout apart from the other scouting tools. I really hope that gets added soon, either as an update or as part of a new FM27 version when that game releases.
What I do is setup a filter only showing players with a suitable score for my league, setup additional filters for age group and position, and then add any Transfer/Loan interested players into a shortlist in-game.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 1st as Luton (default team/game, holidayed with full detail for Premier league & cups)
Interesting
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed As part of your season-long experiments, would it be valuable to see at a glance all teams in a given league with the average rating of their players?
I'm thinking something like this:
| Man City | 84.75% |
| Liverpool | 83.60% |
| Arsenal | 82.13% |
| Chelsea | 80.44% |
And so on.
I'm not sure what your tests look like but I assume you'd expect the final order of computer-controlled teams in your leagues to roughly correlate to the ratings of the players inside? or else it would mean a tweak is needed to the ratings? Right now it seems like you're testing tactics but this way you could test your weights with all the teams in the league, not just one.
LightningFlik said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed As part of your season-long experiments, would it be valuable to see at a glance all teams in a given league with the average rating of their players?
I'm thinking something like this:
| Man City | 84.75% |
| Liverpool | 83.60% |
| Arsenal | 82.13% |
| Chelsea | 80.44% |
And so on.
I'm not sure what your tests look like but I assume you'd expect the final order of computer-controlled teams in your leagues to roughly correlate to the ratings of the players inside? or else it would mean a tweak is needed to the ratings? Right now it seems like you're testing tactics but this way you could test your weights with all the teams in the league, not just one.
Yes, I've been missing that feature a bit since every league became 'jupiler league' in Genie Scout.
I did a test before of the Premier League with 4 teams replaced with 80%, 78%, 76%, 74% players. I only did a few samples, but they all finished in the correct order at season's end.
I would like to say I got 1st with Luton using my own tactic, but actually I used the Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC tactic (with 'Blue' set piece routines). However I did use it combination with team selection based on my FMSS weights and other little things that help such as having a lot of pre-season easy friendlies.
There were no transfers or anything like that, and everything was hands-off after day 1, so I consider this a default run, but obviously its different to a standard plug-and-play test.
The best result for a standard plug-and-play test, with Blue set pieces, has been 2nd with again Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC.
I haven't been able to replicate 1st since, so it's a bit of a fluke. I've come up with 2 strong variations of the Knap tactic of my own, I'll call them A1 and B1 here, and B1 was awfully close to achieving 1st:
I haven't been keeping the neatest data, but here's some of what I've got:
Luton A1 - 5th, 7th, 10th, 3rd, 7th, 6th, 7th, 10th = 6.875 position
Sterling meta team fixed A1 - 6th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 13th, 12th = 8.666 position
Man City A1 - 1st 107pts, 1st 99pts, 1st 86pts = 1st position
Luton Knap - 2nd, 7th, 7th, 4th, 8th, 5th, 4th = 5.286 position
Sterling meta team fixed Knap = 6th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th = 6.375 position
Man City Knap - Going by the tactic name, 101 pts?
Luton Knap - (optimized team) - 1st, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd = 3.3 position (note: samples beyond first three had a role adjustment or two)
Luton B1 - 11th, 5th, 8th, 6th = 7.5 position
Sterling meta team fixed B1 - 6th = 6th position
Man City B1 - 1st 98pts, 1st 95pts = 1st position
Luton B1 (optimized team) - 2nd, 4th, 4th, 6th, 8th, 2nd = 4.333 position
So as you see, I haven't yet been able to top Knap's tactic. Observe also how the result becomes a lot more consistent when the team is pre-selected. The 'randomness' factor seems to only account for ~1-2 positions difference in the vast majority of cases; most of what is considered 'random' seems to actually just be different player selection. And you can't bring up injuries or whatnot, because that 1-2 position difference is inclusive of injuries, morale, and so on.
Here are some results of other tactics (Luton default):
PERFECT STRANGERS 42112 WIWBA P107 EF - 12th, 5th, 4th, 11th = 8th position
HIGHWAY STAR 4231 P107 FC - 4th, 10th, 8th = 7.333 position
FM24.4HGF4231 V3X RM P107 ALL CUPS - 3rd, 6th = 4.5 position (1st 94pts for Man City)
FM24.4KASHMIRKnap 4213 RPM RM P114 ECCC - 5th
FM24.4EFKnap 4231 A MT MC P112 FA - 8th
FM24.4OXFORDKnap 4141 RM P110ALLCUPS Luton - 9th
FM24.4MADASAHATTERKnap 4132 PF2 RM P105FACC - 7th
EF 424 MC P101 EC FA CC - 6th
424 Mountain King - 4th
SPEARHEAD 4132 - 6th
I wouldn't ordinarily say you can take anything from a single sample, but I think what we can say at least is that it doesn't seem like there is an overlooked tactic out there that actually makes Luton miraculously finish 1st consistently.
HGF 4231 V3X RM P107 ALL CUPS is a promising candidate though that could do with more testing.
Some observations from my testing:
- A single adjustment to a top tactic, whether it's attacking > positive, or setting 'work ball into box', will most likely ruin it. Usually the effects aren't even intuitive. Don't do it lads.
- Adjustments to roles can be more forgiving or even work, but most of the time you're going to botch it
- High intensity/pressing seems strictly essential. There are some cases however where 'positive' instead of 'attacking' say, and not going hard in tackles for certain positions, is viable or is even best for that particular formation. For Knap's best tactic though, 'attacking' and hard tackling on all players is simply what works best.
- Alternative formations, even ridiculous ones, can work surprisingly well. The main aspect to consider seems to be position proficiency - you should choose the formation which is inclusive of your best player's positions. Certain formations such as 424 do seem to have an inherent edge though aside from position proficiency. I have speculative theories on as to why, but I can surmise it as 'ideal angles of attack'.
- It does seem to me that 'roles' are simply half-blinded judgements for your staff to use when assessing players. To me this is reinforced by the 'pick roles & duties' dropdown option under 'quick pick', which actually changes the roles & duties in your tactic to what your assistant thinks is best. Attributes have nothing to do with roles; every outfield player performs according to the exact same attribute formula regardless of position let alone role. Yet changing the role does have an impact on results. How to square this fact? The assistant is essentially choosing between jumbled up lists, and what is probably happening is that some lists (i.e. AF ST) are less jumbled up than others (i.e. False Nine ST). If you preselect the players, it reduces the result variation a lot. And also if you then change the role, it does not seem to change the result much. Yet this is not always the case. Possible explanation: Some roles disallow or enforce certain player instructions, and even those that don't, may in theory change the positioning of the player.
When I was in the early stages of constructing my tactic, I found that things can get pretty wacky:
This isn't of much practical use to know, because the limits of tactics have been largely explored, but what it means is that you aren't really constrained by the quality of your players.. the tactic can make Luton score 4-6 goals week in, week out - even against Man City, and when losing overall.
And of course we see with the Knap tactic that it can make a bunch of duds win the Premier League, so it seems to me more like the tactic is pulling something out of a hat rather than squeezing the extra 10% out of your players.
In the opposite direction, a certain tactic results in Luton losing ~24-0 every match.
Edit: I guess one potential use is FM clownmaxxing?
Would be fun to play with 9-8 results and still end up finishing in the top half.
I use Knap Tactics, but I always turn Play for Set Pieces on as corners are so OP with the correct rotuines, but I'm not sure if that's secretly detrimental or not.