good job! We are from the same country and I would often browse the PGM forums, so I have seen your tactical posts. You may not have been checking ARENA's tactical posts often before, so I found that your previous tactics overlapped a lot with others (although there are others doing the same), but this tactic clearly has your personal elements, IFS+IFA, cleaner player personal instructions, congratulations on the top! Have time to play online leagues, you must know the famous online leagues.
dzek said: We've also seen the downside that some systems have stayed at 2400 matches and we don't know if they're going to progress, get worse or stay the same. I'm talking specifically about the tactics that are within the HoF.
EDIT: And as I've said many times it would be nice in the HoF section to have tactics that have equal or more than 1.51 PPG because all results are converted to regular season games and in a regular season if you don't have at least half the points then it's not considered as an overachieve.
The reason behind this is because we are aiming to overachieve with a team that has a CA average that is in the middle of the league. If we use the best or worst team then the RNG will be higher due to the skill of our players and so the score here will not fully represent the results we get in a regular season or over time. Expand
As we discussed before, the 4231 tactical combination of duties, the effect of various Settings are very good, not even the ARENA 4000 match test can draw accurate conclusions, still has 1~2 RNG. Many players don't know which commands are critical or useful, so there is a lot of overlapping tactics. In fact, they have succeeded, but 1200 games of RNG killed them, and the work really does not mean much. In fact, there are some other good tactics because of RNG was "mistakenly killed", this is actually no way, ARENA has done enough. Therefore, I think it is not necessary to continuously make some meaningful changes to the 4231 tactics for the current combination of responsibilities, after all, luck will always be the first. Do your own challenges like BLAU did.
A Smile said: As we discussed before, the 4231 tactical combination of duties, the effect of various Settings are very good, not even the ARENA 4000 match test can draw accurate conclusions, still has 1~2 RNG. Many players don't know which commands are critical or useful, so there is a lot of overlapping tactics. In fact, they have succeeded, but 1200 games of RNG killed them, and the work really does not mean much. In fact, there are some other good tactics because of RNG was "mistakenly killed", this is actually no way, ARENA has done enough. Therefore, I think it is not necessary to continuously make some meaningful changes to the 4231 tactics for the current combination of responsibilities, after all, luck will always be the first. Expand I agree but the point I was making was to test all HoF tactics up to 4000 matches, not all 4231 tactics.
A Smile said: Do your own challenges like BLAU did. Expand I have done several tests in my own environment and it seems that this year the 4231 - 424 - 442 shapes are outperforming. But how can you see the difference some PIs will have in some positions when you don't at least test the first tactics in each formation until 4000 matches to know what stays and what goes?
An example.. Here I have tried exactly the same tactic with 2 slight differences and have gotten the same score. 4231 - WITH Take More Risks on AM and AF. 4231 - WITHOUT Take More Risks on AM and AF.
A Smile said: good job! We are from the same country and I would often browse the PGM forums, so I have seen your tactical posts. You may not have been checking ARENA's tactical posts often before, so I found that your previous tactics overlapped a lot with others (although there are others doing the same), but this tactic clearly has your personal elements, IFS+IFA, cleaner player personal instructions, congratulations on the top! Have time to play online leagues, you must know the famous online leagues. Expand
Hi a smile, I heard about you a long time ago, thanks for the reply! I've been experimenting with duty pairings, but the current version of WBA duty is just a bit too strong for it to be a hundred percent. I have also played in an online league, but that was a couple years ago and I remember it being called ZQZ. I have been thinking about playing in a PGM league when I have time to look into it!
dzek said: I agree but the point I was making was to test all HoF tactics up to 4000 matches, not all 4231 tactics.
I have done several tests in my own environment and it seems that this year the 4231 - 424 - 442 shapes are outperforming. But how can you see the difference some PIs will have in some positions when you don't at least test the first tactics in each formation until 4000 matches to know what stays and what goes?
An example.. Here I have tried exactly the same tactic with 2 slight differences and have gotten the same score. 4231 - WITH Take More Risks on AM and AF. 4231 - WITHOUT Take More Risks on AM and AF. Expand
You are right that some seemingly insignificant details may indeed have an impact and should be tried to change. And I think Kane's purge of individual player directives has been very effective, Without taking More Risks seems really important.
CSTG KANE said: Hi a smile, I heard about you a long time ago, thanks for the reply! I've been experimenting with duty pairings, but the current version of WBA duty is just a bit too strong for it to be a hundred percent. I have also played in an online league, but that was a couple years ago and I remember it being called ZQZ. I have been thinking about playing in a PGM league when I have time to look into it! Expand
This tactic may have reached the ceiling of the current engine, and your simplification of individual player instructions, especially by removing taking More Risks, has really raised the ceiling of this tactic, which is a great innovation!
A Smile said: This tactic may have reached the ceiling of the current engine, and your simplification of individual player instructions, especially by removing taking More Risks, has really raised the ceiling of this tactic, which is a great innovation! Expand
Thanks！I was just thinking that with the current version, I should give more key passes to key people, so I only set up commands for the AM position, as the saying goes, "good steel is good for the blade".
A Smile said: This tactic may have reached the ceiling of the current engine, and your simplification of individual player instructions, especially by removing taking More Risks, has really raised the ceiling of this tactic, which is a great innovation! Expand
Are you sure it's all about PI making this tactic getting 63 points compared to your 62 points? I feel like a team instruction like passing into space is super important, and can make a difference. It can alone be those 3-4 more goals scored. Your deformation tactic has that instruction and scored 71 goals, while the hegemony 4-2-3-1 scored 63 goals. I do like the wingers play more narrow and wingbacks play more wide ingame. It makes up so much space for the wingbacks, while the box is crowded with attackers.
TurtleKing said: Are you sure it's all about PI making this tactic getting 63 points compared to your 62 points? I feel like a team instruction like passing into space is super important, and can make a difference. It can alone be those 3-4 more goals scored. Your deformation tactic has that instruction and scored 71 goals, while the hegemony 4-2-3-1 scored 63 goals. I do like the wingers play more narrow and wingbacks play more wide ingame. It makes up so much space for the wingbacks, while the box is crowded with attackers. Expand
The sit narrower and Stay wider PI are so small the effect few meters nothing more, for example i expect to have AF(a) to play like IF(A) in position with stay wider PI in ME nothing like it barely a difference if any, so the stay wider PI for WB maybe there is no difference, same for IF
Avenger22 said: The sit narrower and Stay wider PI are so small the effect few meters nothing more, for example i expect to have AF(a) to play like IF(A) in position with stay wider PI in ME nothing like it barely a difference if any, so the stay wider PI for WB maybe there is no difference, same for IF Expand
The way I see the situation is that each duty has its own tendencies and running characteristics, and once paired there is no need to specifically choose its width
Avenger22 said: The sit narrower and Stay wider PI are so small the effect few meters nothing more, for example i expect to have AF(a) to play like IF(A) in position with stay wider PI in ME nothing like it barely a difference if any, so the stay wider PI for WB maybe there is no difference, same for IF Expand
There is for sure a difference, I noticed it clearly playing all night. When the IF sit narrower they move into the middle earlier, and the flanks are always open to attack for the wingbacks. I play a mix with the team instructions from this tactic, and most player instructions from Smile's tactic, and I'm on a 19 games winstreak and 32 unbeaten-streak.
TurtleKing said: There is for sure a difference, I noticed it clearly playing all night. When the IF sit narrower they move into the middle earlier, and the flanks are always open to attack for the wingbacks. I play a mix with the team instructions from this tactic, and most player instructions from Smile's tactic, and I'm on a 19 games winstreak and 32 unbeaten-streak. Expand
Yeah but effective wise is the same i mean testing proves it, i have tens of stuff that i think work better when i tested my 352 here but testing showed otherwise, if(S) attack the middle alot always even without sit narrower maybe little bit earlier but won't make a big impact, for example playing with 3xBPD stay wider on outside defenders or not made very little impact both in game and in testing if zero, then it is subjective ofc. Also i have won in game trophies and broke record with some weak 352 which scored 37 and 45 here, any tactic 50+ is game breaking ME, unless you edit managers in pregame editor and make them more meta there is little challenge match wise in FM especially us who test here who know the meta.
TurtleKing said: Are you sure it's all about PI making this tactic getting 63 points compared to your 62 points? I feel like a team instruction like passing into space is super important, and can make a difference. It can alone be those 3-4 more goals scored. Your deformation tactic has that instruction and scored 71 goals, while the hegemony 4-2-3-1 scored 63 goals. I do like the wingers play more narrow and wingbacks play more wide ingame. It makes up so much space for the wingbacks, while the box is crowded with attackers. Expand
In order to understand the importance of "pass into space" you should test this tactic without any take more risk PI. If you check in others "trials" every roles had Take more risk etc. What we don't really know or we pretend to is :
- How this TI works? Which roles are "influeced" by it? - Same goes for Run at defence, but you can see that the tactic is still working for example without take more risk or dribble more on WBs and DMs pretty fine.
About width it has been proven even by EBFM that is basically a cosmetic mechanism.
What is suprising me is why is working fine with IF(A) on the right, so the the truth lie somewhere else.
Since the tactics are so pretty close each other, is hard to say, if is "RNG", "luck-run","statistical noise".
What you can literally understand is : you don't really need those PI to make your tactic works, you can safely add them? Yes. Usually you should start from a clean "build" and add little by little, if your goal is to find how literally things connects and interact each other.
Avenger22 said: Yeah but effective wise is the same i mean testing proves it, i have tens of stuff that i think work better when i tested my 352 here but testing showed otherwise, if(S) attack the middle alot always even without sit narrower maybe little bit earlier but won't make a big impact, for example playing with 3xBPD stay wider on outside defenders or not made very little impact both in game and in testing if zero, then it is subjective ofc. Also i have won in game trophies and broke record with some weak 352 which scored 37 and 45 here, any tactic 50+ is game breaking ME, unless you edit managers in pregame editor and make them more meta there is little challenge match wise in FM especially us who test here who know the meta. Expand
I'm not saying it is more effective than having them both on standard, I just say there's a difference while watching the play of it.
But as you say, we can take all top tactics on this site and perform with it. There's a lot more than just a tactic that influence the results. Morale, fitness, conditions, subs etc.
Shouts is very effective, and should be used every 15 minutes, and after every goal scored or conceded for maximum performance.
With such high intensity tactics it's important to do subs early. I usually sub both my wingers and wingbacks around the 60th minute mark, they tend to get the most tired.
I can say I play games every 3-4 days, and to have my players rested for every game I had to change the training intensity scheduling. I use "No pitch or gym work" for everything other than excellent condition, where I go with double intensity. This way I've my players rested, but I still rotate my players to keep them all happy. And they still develop very well, as they train with double intensity when they've excellent condition. It just means they rest after games to get their fitness back. Also I don't get many injuries at all.
TurtleKing said: Are you sure it's all about PI making this tactic getting 63 points compared to your 62 points? I feel like a team instruction like passing into space is super important, and can make a difference. It can alone be those 3-4 more goals scored. Your deformation tactic has that instruction and scored 71 goals, while the hegemony 4-2-3-1 scored 63 goals. I do like the wingers play more narrow and wingbacks play more wide ingame. It makes up so much space for the wingbacks, while the box is crowded with attackers. Expand
Yes, I think so. In fact, this current best duty combination of 4231 tactics, I have tested myself several times in version 24.1, and used in online matches. Including whether there is a "Pass Into Space" and whether the DMS has a forward press command. Although my personal test sample is certainly not enough, but based on the actual effect and the combination engine, I think the "Pass Into Space" command is really unnecessary in this tactic. It could be that I'm wrong, but at the moment I think so, and we'll need further tests to know for sure.
good job! We are from the same country and I would often browse the PGM forums, so I have seen your tactical posts. You may not have been checking ARENA's tactical posts often before, so I found that your previous tactics overlapped a lot with others (although there are others doing the same), but this tactic clearly has your personal elements, IFS+IFA, cleaner player personal instructions, congratulations on the top! Have time to play online leagues, you must know the famous online leagues.
dzek said: We've also seen the downside that some systems have stayed at 2400 matches and we don't know if they're going to progress, get worse or stay the same. I'm talking specifically about the tactics that are within the HoF.
EDIT: And as I've said many times it would be nice in the HoF section to have tactics that have equal or more than 1.51 PPG because all results are converted to regular season games and in a regular season if you don't have at least half the points then it's not considered as an overachieve.
The reason behind this is because we are aiming to overachieve with a team that has a CA average that is in the middle of the league. If we use the best or worst team then the RNG will be higher due to the skill of our players and so the score here will not fully represent the results we get in a regular season or over time.
As we discussed before, the 4231 tactical combination of duties, the effect of various Settings are very good, not even the ARENA 4000 match test can draw accurate conclusions, still has 1~2 RNG. Many players don't know which commands are critical or useful, so there is a lot of overlapping tactics. In fact, they have succeeded, but 1200 games of RNG killed them, and the work really does not mean much. In fact, there are some other good tactics because of RNG was "mistakenly killed", this is actually no way, ARENA has done enough. Therefore, I think it is not necessary to continuously make some meaningful changes to the 4231 tactics for the current combination of responsibilities, after all, luck will always be the first. Do your own challenges like BLAU did.
anyone else using this tactic and not getting good results?
((((
How do you test quick tactics? vacations?
A Smile said: As we discussed before, the 4231 tactical combination of duties, the effect of various Settings are very good, not even the ARENA 4000 match test can draw accurate conclusions, still has 1~2 RNG. Many players don't know which commands are critical or useful, so there is a lot of overlapping tactics. In fact, they have succeeded, but 1200 games of RNG killed them, and the work really does not mean much. In fact, there are some other good tactics because of RNG was "mistakenly killed", this is actually no way, ARENA has done enough. Therefore, I think it is not necessary to continuously make some meaningful changes to the 4231 tactics for the current combination of responsibilities, after all, luck will always be the first.
I agree but the point I was making was to test all HoF tactics up to 4000 matches, not all 4231 tactics.
A Smile said: Do your own challenges like BLAU did.
I have done several tests in my own environment and it seems that this year the 4231 - 424 - 442 shapes are outperforming. But how can you see the difference some PIs will have in some positions when you don't at least test the first tactics in each formation until 4000 matches to know what stays and what goes?
An example..
Here I have tried exactly the same tactic with 2 slight differences and have gotten the same score.
4231 - WITH Take More Risks on AM and AF.
4231 - WITHOUT Take More Risks on AM and AF.
What should I do with both inside forwards' Preferred foot?
left if = Right foot
right if = left foot??
yoyo9293 said: What should I do with both inside forwards' Preferred foot?
left if = Right foot
right if = left foot??
Yes, it applies to most situations
A Smile said: good job! We are from the same country and I would often browse the PGM forums, so I have seen your tactical posts. You may not have been checking ARENA's tactical posts often before, so I found that your previous tactics overlapped a lot with others (although there are others doing the same), but this tactic clearly has your personal elements, IFS+IFA, cleaner player personal instructions, congratulations on the top! Have time to play online leagues, you must know the famous online leagues.
Hi a smile, I heard about you a long time ago, thanks for the reply! I've been experimenting with duty pairings, but the current version of WBA duty is just a bit too strong for it to be a hundred percent. I have also played in an online league, but that was a couple years ago and I remember it being called ZQZ. I have been thinking about playing in a PGM league when I have time to look into it!
dzek said: I agree but the point I was making was to test all HoF tactics up to 4000 matches, not all 4231 tactics.
I have done several tests in my own environment and it seems that this year the 4231 - 424 - 442 shapes are outperforming. But how can you see the difference some PIs will have in some positions when you don't at least test the first tactics in each formation until 4000 matches to know what stays and what goes?
An example..
Here I have tried exactly the same tactic with 2 slight differences and have gotten the same score.
4231 - WITH Take More Risks on AM and AF.
4231 - WITHOUT Take More Risks on AM and AF.
You are right that some seemingly insignificant details may indeed have an impact and should be tried to change. And I think Kane's purge of individual player directives has been very effective, Without taking More Risks seems really important.
CSTG KANE said: Hi a smile, I heard about you a long time ago, thanks for the reply! I've been experimenting with duty pairings, but the current version of WBA duty is just a bit too strong for it to be a hundred percent. I have also played in an online league, but that was a couple years ago and I remember it being called ZQZ. I have been thinking about playing in a PGM league when I have time to look into it!
This tactic may have reached the ceiling of the current engine, and your simplification of individual player instructions, especially by removing taking More Risks, has really raised the ceiling of this tactic, which is a great innovation!
A Smile said: This tactic may have reached the ceiling of the current engine, and your simplification of individual player instructions, especially by removing taking More Risks, has really raised the ceiling of this tactic, which is a great innovation!
Thanks！I was just thinking that with the current version, I should give more key passes to key people, so I only set up commands for the AM position, as the saying goes, "good steel is good for the blade".
A Smile said: This tactic may have reached the ceiling of the current engine, and your simplification of individual player instructions, especially by removing taking More Risks, has really raised the ceiling of this tactic, which is a great innovation!
Are you sure it's all about PI making this tactic getting 63 points compared to your 62 points? I feel like a team instruction like passing into space is super important, and can make a difference. It can alone be those 3-4 more goals scored. Your deformation tactic has that instruction and scored 71 goals, while the hegemony 4-2-3-1 scored 63 goals. I do like the wingers play more narrow and wingbacks play more wide ingame. It makes up so much space for the wingbacks, while the box is crowded with attackers.
TurtleKing said: Are you sure it's all about PI making this tactic getting 63 points compared to your 62 points? I feel like a team instruction like passing into space is super important, and can make a difference. It can alone be those 3-4 more goals scored. Your deformation tactic has that instruction and scored 71 goals, while the hegemony 4-2-3-1 scored 63 goals. I do like the wingers play more narrow and wingbacks play more wide ingame. It makes up so much space for the wingbacks, while the box is crowded with attackers.
The sit narrower and Stay wider PI are so small the effect few meters nothing more, for example i expect to have AF(a) to play like IF(A) in position with stay wider PI in ME nothing like it barely a difference if any, so the stay wider PI for WB maybe there is no difference, same for IF
Avenger22 said: The sit narrower and Stay wider PI are so small the effect few meters nothing more, for example i expect to have AF(a) to play like IF(A) in position with stay wider PI in ME nothing like it barely a difference if any, so the stay wider PI for WB maybe there is no difference, same for IF
The way I see the situation is that each duty has its own tendencies and running characteristics, and once paired there is no need to specifically choose its width
Avenger22 said: The sit narrower and Stay wider PI are so small the effect few meters nothing more, for example i expect to have AF(a) to play like IF(A) in position with stay wider PI in ME nothing like it barely a difference if any, so the stay wider PI for WB maybe there is no difference, same for IF
There is for sure a difference, I noticed it clearly playing all night. When the IF sit narrower they move into the middle earlier, and the flanks are always open to attack for the wingbacks. I play a mix with the team instructions from this tactic, and most player instructions from Smile's tactic, and I'm on a 19 games winstreak and 32 unbeaten-streak.
TurtleKing said: There is for sure a difference, I noticed it clearly playing all night. When the IF sit narrower they move into the middle earlier, and the flanks are always open to attack for the wingbacks. I play a mix with the team instructions from this tactic, and most player instructions from Smile's tactic, and I'm on a 19 games winstreak and 32 unbeaten-streak.
Yeah but effective wise is the same i mean testing proves it, i have tens of stuff that i think work better when i tested my 352 here but testing showed otherwise, if(S) attack the middle alot always even without sit narrower maybe little bit earlier but won't make a big impact, for example playing with 3xBPD stay wider on outside defenders or not made very little impact both in game and in testing if zero, then it is subjective ofc.
Also i have won in game trophies and broke record with some weak 352 which scored 37 and 45 here, any tactic 50+ is game breaking ME, unless you edit managers in pregame editor and make them more meta there is little challenge match wise in FM especially us who test here who know the meta.
TurtleKing said: Are you sure it's all about PI making this tactic getting 63 points compared to your 62 points? I feel like a team instruction like passing into space is super important, and can make a difference. It can alone be those 3-4 more goals scored. Your deformation tactic has that instruction and scored 71 goals, while the hegemony 4-2-3-1 scored 63 goals. I do like the wingers play more narrow and wingbacks play more wide ingame. It makes up so much space for the wingbacks, while the box is crowded with attackers.
In order to understand the importance of "pass into space" you should test this tactic without any take more risk PI. If you check in others "trials" every roles had Take more risk etc. What we don't really know or we pretend to is :
- How this TI works? Which roles are "influeced" by it?
- Same goes for Run at defence, but you can see that the tactic is still working for example without take more risk or dribble more on WBs and DMs pretty fine.
About width it has been proven even by EBFM that is basically a cosmetic mechanism.
What is suprising me is why is working fine with IF(A) on the right, so the the truth lie somewhere else.
Since the tactics are so pretty close each other, is hard to say, if is "RNG", "luck-run","statistical noise".
What you can literally understand is : you don't really need those PI to make your tactic works, you can safely add them? Yes. Usually you should start from a clean "build" and add little by little, if your goal is to find how literally things connects and interact each other.
My 2 cookies
Avenger22 said: Yeah but effective wise is the same i mean testing proves it, i have tens of stuff that i think work better when i tested my 352 here but testing showed otherwise, if(S) attack the middle alot always even without sit narrower maybe little bit earlier but won't make a big impact, for example playing with 3xBPD stay wider on outside defenders or not made very little impact both in game and in testing if zero, then it is subjective ofc.
Also i have won in game trophies and broke record with some weak 352 which scored 37 and 45 here, any tactic 50+ is game breaking ME, unless you edit managers in pregame editor and make them more meta there is little challenge match wise in FM especially us who test here who know the meta.
I'm not saying it is more effective than having them both on standard, I just say there's a difference while watching the play of it.
But as you say, we can take all top tactics on this site and perform with it.
There's a lot more than just a tactic that influence the results. Morale, fitness, conditions, subs etc.
Shouts is very effective, and should be used every 15 minutes, and after every goal scored or conceded for maximum performance.
With such high intensity tactics it's important to do subs early. I usually sub both my wingers and wingbacks around the 60th minute mark, they tend to get the most tired.
I can say I play games every 3-4 days, and to have my players rested for every game I had to change the training intensity scheduling. I use "No pitch or gym work" for everything other than excellent condition, where I go with double intensity. This way I've my players rested, but I still rotate my players to keep them all happy. And they still develop very well, as they train with double intensity when they've excellent condition. It just means they rest after games to get their fitness back. Also I don't get many injuries at all.
TurtleKing said: Are you sure it's all about PI making this tactic getting 63 points compared to your 62 points? I feel like a team instruction like passing into space is super important, and can make a difference. It can alone be those 3-4 more goals scored. Your deformation tactic has that instruction and scored 71 goals, while the hegemony 4-2-3-1 scored 63 goals. I do like the wingers play more narrow and wingbacks play more wide ingame. It makes up so much space for the wingbacks, while the box is crowded with attackers.
Yes, I think so. In fact, this current best duty combination of 4231 tactics, I have tested myself several times in version 24.1, and used in online matches. Including whether there is a "Pass Into Space" and whether the DMS has a forward press command. Although my personal test sample is certainly not enough, but based on the actual effect and the combination engine, I think the "Pass Into Space" command is really unnecessary in this tactic. It could be that I'm wrong, but at the moment I think so, and we'll need further tests to know for sure.