I have had a quick look at the top FM Arena HOF tactics against the 3 formations FM Arena are testing against, 433, 4231 and 523.
I have only looked at standard type tactics with only one asymmetric tactic being the most successful, Deformation II. Because the testing uses 2 of each of 433 and 4231, and only one 523, I have averaged the scores for all tactics to make the 523 comparable. I also only looked at the first 6 tests (ie 2400 matches) for each HOF tactic to ensure they were also all comparable.
The selected tactics were:
4231 RedGeneral v1.0 424 CF Cabuloso 424 BBW v4 424 Deformation II 4222 Jigen Box I 41212 Ol Reliable 343 Italian KO 433 Tsukyomi I 433 Inverted Samba Shield X3 442 BOBW x Scunny v1
I have listed the average points per season and then the ranking against each AI formation.
I have no idea if this will help anyone but I have just started using it.
Please let me know your thoughts and any results if you use it
I think this is a good test and so we will know which formation performs better against the 3 formations used by the FM-Arena tactic testing league. This would be even better if we tested it on the other formations that the game has too.
dzek said: I think this is a good test and so we will know which formation performs better against the 3 formations used by the FM-Arena tactic testing league. This would be even better if we tested it on the other formations that the game has too.
For the AI formations that haven't been tested by FM Arena I am using the reverse approach eg if I play against a 442 diamond I look at the worst result for the only HOF 442 diamond and go for the worst performance against it by the AI formation. In this case either 523 or 433. So I will play with the 433 Tsukyomi I as my squad is better suited to this formation than a 523.
If I was playing against a 4222 or 424 I would use a 4231.
I hope this makes sense.
What would be more interesting would be a home and away split.
So here are my results from the first 3 games of the new season. We are expected to be mid table.
Genie Scout Team Ratings and Odds for the season.
Game 1 we are playing against a 433 side who are slight favourites. I think this formation is slightly weaker in defence so I went with Deformation as it is most attacking of the formations that work against 433. We led 2 Nil and hit the woodwork 3 times so we probably should have won by more.
Game 2 up against a 442, with us slight favourites. Tossed up between 424 and 4231. Ended up with the 424 CF Cabuloso because of its defensive advantage. We went down a goal but had a huge win.
Game 3 against 442 Diamond, with us again very slight favourites. I went with the 433 Tsukyomi I. We totally outplayed them but led 2 to 1 when they scored against the run of play. Scored another 2 quick goals to lead 4 to 1 and then swapped to 424 to shut the game down and scored twice late to smash them.
Does this approach work. Still too early to say but seems promising.
Because I've checked our DB and here's what I got:
Red General 4231 v1.0
424 CF Cabuloso
433 Tsukyomi I
According to your table, "Red General 4231 v1.0" tactic is ranked "8th" and "424 CF Cabuloso" tactic is ranked "1st" when it come to 4-3-3 formation but according to our numbers the difference is about 1.5 points which could be just "statistical noise".
If you ask me then I think it makes sense to "rank" tactics only when there's a meaningful difference between them, I'd say it should be at least 10-15 points difference but when the difference is just 1-2 points then it can be easily "statistical noise".
Also, according to your table "433 Tsukyomi I" tactic is ranked "1st" when it comes to 5-3-2 formation but that's not true.
So when the overall difference between tactics is just 1-2 points then when it comes to a specific formation then the difference is also 1-2 points and such small difference is just "statistical noise".
Because I've checked our DB and here's what I got:
Red General 4231 v1.0
424 CF Cabuloso
433 Tsukyomi I
According to your table, "Red General 4231 v1.0" tactic is ranked "8th" and "424 CF Cabuloso" tactic is ranked "1st" when it come to 4-3-3 formation but according to our numbers the difference is about 1.5 points which could be just "statistical noise".
If you ask me then I think it makes sense to "rank" tactics only when there's a meaningful difference between them, I'd say it should be at least 10-15 points difference but when the difference is just 1-2 points then it can be easily "statistical noise".
Also, according to your table "433 Tsukyomi I" tactic is ranked "1st" when it comes to 5-3-2 formation but that's not true. Expand
hi zippo， i think your statistics are right and thats pts per 38games based on 4000games
If we had a H2H tactic testing league with all the existing formations that the game has for AI managers then we would have a more accurate answer I believe on this case.
dzek said: If we had a H2H tactic testing league with all the existing formations that the game has for AI managers then we would have a more accurate answer I believe on this case. Expand
Hi,
If you take the best 200 AI managers in the game then:
- 35% of them have 4-3-3 Preferred Formation - 35% of them have 4-2-3-1 Preferred Formation - 20% of them have "different variations of 5 at the back formation" Preferred Formation - 10% of them have 4-4-2 Preferred Formation
So 70% of 200 best AI managers in the game play with 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1
Also, look at the performance of AI's 5-2-3, it's significantly worse than AI's 4-2-3-1 or AI's 4-2-3-1.
We tested the rest of AI formations and they did even worse than AI's 5-2-3 so what's the point in having in the testing league?
According to our data If one tactic does better than other tactic vs AI's 4-2-3-1 or AI's 4-2-3-1 then it also will do better against other AI formations which are even weaker.
If you take the best 200 AI managers in the game then:
- 35% of them have 4-3-3 Preferred Formation - 35% of them have 4-2-3-1 Preferred Formation - 20% of them have "different variations of 5 at the back formation" Preferred Formation - 10% of them have 4-4-2 Preferred Formation
So 70% of 200 best AI managers in the game play with 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1
Also, look at the performance of AI's 5-2-3, it's significantly worse than AI's 4-2-3-1 or AI's 4-2-3-1.
We tested the rest of AI formations and they did even worse than AI's 5-2-3 so what's the point in having in the testing league?
According to our data If one tactic does better than other tactic vs AI's 4-2-3-1 or AI's 4-2-3-1 then it also will do better against other AI formations which are even weaker. Expand How did you test all the formations? AI against AI?
Because I've checked our DB and here's what I got:
Red General 4231 v1.0
424 CF Cabuloso
433 Tsukyomi I
According to your table, "Red General 4231 v1.0" tactic is ranked "8th" and "424 CF Cabuloso" tactic is ranked "1st" when it come to 4-3-3 formation but according to our numbers the difference is about 1.5 points which could be just "statistical noise".
If you ask me then I think it makes sense to "rank" tactics only when there's a meaningful difference between them, I'd say it should be at least 10-15 points difference but when the difference is just 1-2 points then it can be easily "statistical noise".
Also, according to your table "433 Tsukyomi I" tactic is ranked "1st" when it comes to 5-3-2 formation but that's not true. Expand
Thanks for you feedback, as always I appreciate it. I accept some of your commentary. There was a minor error in my calculation Which I have now fixed. I have also moved the scale back to the 38 games that you guys use. I have checked the calculation and I still calculate Tsukyomi as ranked first. As I said, I only used the first 6 tests, so is your data showing the average from all tests where you have tested 4000 matches or only the first 2400 matches?
I accept the statistical noise for less than 2 points. I was just trying to look at how I can use a combination of tactics through the season to my advantage.
Mark said: As I said, I only used the first 6 tests, so is your data showing the average from all tests where you have tested 4000 matches or only the first 2400 matches? Expand
The thing is, the order in which the result screenshots are displayed isn't the order in which the tests happened. The result screenshot are randomly shuffled.
Mark said: I also only looked at the first 6 tests (ie 2400 matches) for each HOF tactic to ensure they were also all comparable. Expand
As you can see we've got 1,200 matches, 2,400 matches and 4,000 matches in our test result tables and we compare all them just fine.
You just need to calculate P.P.M.(Points Per Match) and then translate it for 38 matches.
Total Points / Total Matches Played = P.P.M.(Points Per Match)
P.P.M.(Points Per Match) x 38 = expected points after 38 matches
Mark said: I accept the statistical noise for less than 2 points. I was just trying to look at how I can use a combination of tactics through the season to my advantage. Expand
One important thing to note, we are talking about 1-3 points RNG when there's 1,200 matches and we are talking about 0.5 - 1.5 points RNG when there's 4,000 matches.
But if we take 2,400 matches then in this case a tactic is tested against a specific formation only for 480 matches.... could you imagine the level of the RNG at such small distance.
For example, look at your result for "424 deformation II" tactic vs "5-2-3" AI formation, it's "42.5" points after 6 runs, but after 10 runs it drops to "36" points so the RNG of 6 runs is about "6.5" points.
As I said when the RNG could be as high as "6.5" points, an attempt to rank tactics in 0.5-2.5 points range doesn't make sense.
dzek said: How did you test all the formations? AI against AI? Expand
@Mark this is so interesting, i started using your table with tactics yesterday, and i must say its working pretty good. Munchen 1860 no transfers. Winning every match. Im using analyst report to see what formations work against the opponent if their tactic is not 433/4321/532. But would love to have a better table against more formations
NandaldiaN said: @Mark this is so interesting, i started using your table with tactics yesterday, and i must say its working pretty good. Munchen 1860 no transfers. Winning every match. Im using analyst report to see what formations work against the opponent if their tactic is not 433/4321/532. But would love to have a better table against more formations Expand
I have been working on ways of doing this. It might take a bit of time though
Because I've checked our DB and here's what I got:
Red General 4231 v1.0
424 CF Cabuloso
433 Tsukyomi I
According to your table, "Red General 4231 v1.0" tactic is ranked "8th" and "424 CF Cabuloso" tactic is ranked "1st" when it come to 4-3-3 formation but according to our numbers the difference is about 1.5 points which could be just "statistical noise".
If you ask me then I think it makes sense to "rank" tactics only when there's a meaningful difference between them, I'd say it should be at least 10-15 points difference but when the difference is just 1-2 points then it can be easily "statistical noise".
Also, according to your table "433 Tsukyomi I" tactic is ranked "1st" when it comes to 5-3-2 formation but that's not true. Expand
Did I understand correctly. that is, against 4-2-3-1 with the best TI, 4-3-3 with the best TI is most effective? And am I right if I say that the 5-2-3 formation with the best TI is the most successful against all your tested ones from the forum?
My purpose is to understand which formation is most effective to play against 4-2-3-1 red general.
Updated data getting more than 6000 matches for the AI 433 and 4231 tactics and more than 3000 matches for the 523.
I used 8 base formations. The data comes from FM Arena Patch 24.2 V1.0.
There are 2 or 3 formations that stand out against each AI formation
For the AI 433 I couldn't split 4231 and the 4222 def (deformation/levante) formation, just in front of 4222.
For AI 4231 the 4222 def was just in front of 4231 and 424.
For AI 523 the clear winner was 424 from a grouping of 3, 4231, 343 and 4222 def.
I know with the amount of matches and using data across tactics with different TIs and PIs and tactical styles that this is not perfect. However I do think it is usable if you wanted to try such an approach.
If you come up against any other formations, using the reverse approach ie which AI did better could possibly work, and in all cases it appears the AI 4231 outscores the other AI tactics. So for say 442 you should probably go with 4231.
It is working for me but it could be just the team I have put together and using the top tactics from the formations that is working. I still enjoy using this approach as it uses the different formations rather than set and forget.
Enjoy, and let me know your thoughts and if it works or doesn't for you.
I have had a quick look at the top FM Arena HOF tactics against the 3 formations FM Arena are testing against, 433, 4231 and 523.
I have only looked at standard type tactics with only one asymmetric tactic being the most successful, Deformation II. Because the testing uses 2 of each of 433 and 4231, and only one 523, I have averaged the scores for all tactics to make the 523 comparable. I also only looked at the first 6 tests (ie 2400 matches) for each HOF tactic to ensure they were also all comparable.
The selected tactics were:
4231 RedGeneral v1.0
424 CF Cabuloso
424 BBW v4
424 Deformation II
4222 Jigen Box I
41212 Ol Reliable
343 Italian KO
433 Tsukyomi I
433 Inverted Samba Shield X3
442 BOBW x Scunny v1
I have listed the average points per season and then the ranking against each AI formation.
I have no idea if this will help anyone but I have just started using it.
Please let me know your thoughts and any results if you use it
im confused，the points against per season means per 80games or what？
hziz1 said: im confused，the points against per season means per 80games or what？
That is correct
I think this is a good test and so we will know which formation performs better against the 3 formations used by the FM-Arena tactic testing league. This would be even better if we tested it on the other formations that the game has too.
Good idea @Mark!
dzek said: I think this is a good test and so we will know which formation performs better against the 3 formations used by the FM-Arena tactic testing league. This would be even better if we tested it on the other formations that the game has too.
Good idea @Mark!
For the AI formations that haven't been tested by FM Arena I am using the reverse approach eg if I play against a 442 diamond I look at the worst result for the only HOF 442 diamond and go for the worst performance against it by the AI formation. In this case either 523 or 433. So I will play with the 433 Tsukyomi I as my squad is better suited to this formation than a 523.
If I was playing against a 4222 or 424 I would use a 4231.
I hope this makes sense.
What would be more interesting would be a home and away split.
So here are my results from the first 3 games of the new season. We are expected to be mid table.
Genie Scout Team Ratings and Odds for the season.
Game 1 we are playing against a 433 side who are slight favourites. I think this formation is slightly weaker in defence so I went with Deformation as it is most attacking of the formations that work against 433. We led 2 Nil and hit the woodwork 3 times so we probably should have won by more.
Game 2 up against a 442, with us slight favourites. Tossed up between 424 and 4231. Ended up with the 424 CF Cabuloso because of its defensive advantage. We went down a goal but had a huge win.
Game 3 against 442 Diamond, with us again very slight favourites. I went with the 433 Tsukyomi I. We totally outplayed them but led 2 to 1 when they scored against the run of play. Scored another 2 quick goals to lead 4 to 1 and then swapped to 424 to shut the game down and scored twice late to smash them.
Does this approach work. Still too early to say but seems promising.
@Mark, hey.
Are you sure your numbers are correct?
Because I've checked our DB and here's what I got:
Red General 4231 v1.0
424 CF Cabuloso
433 Tsukyomi I
According to your table, "Red General 4231 v1.0" tactic is ranked "8th" and "424 CF Cabuloso" tactic is ranked "1st" when it come to 4-3-3 formation but according to our numbers the difference is about 1.5 points which could be just "statistical noise".
If you ask me then I think it makes sense to "rank" tactics only when there's a meaningful difference between them, I'd say it should be at least 10-15 points difference but when the difference is just 1-2 points then it can be easily "statistical noise".
Also, according to your table "433 Tsukyomi I" tactic is ranked "1st" when it comes to 5-3-2 formation but that's not true.
Here's data for few more tactics
Best Of Both Worlds v4
424 deformation II
So when the overall difference between tactics is just 1-2 points then when it comes to a specific formation then the difference is also 1-2 points and such small difference is just "statistical noise".
Zippo said: @Mark, hey.
Are you sure your numbers are correct?
Because I've checked our DB and here's what I got:
Red General 4231 v1.0
424 CF Cabuloso
433 Tsukyomi I
According to your table, "Red General 4231 v1.0" tactic is ranked "8th" and "424 CF Cabuloso" tactic is ranked "1st" when it come to 4-3-3 formation but according to our numbers the difference is about 1.5 points which could be just "statistical noise".
If you ask me then I think it makes sense to "rank" tactics only when there's a meaningful difference between them, I'd say it should be at least 10-15 points difference but when the difference is just 1-2 points then it can be easily "statistical noise".
Also, according to your table "433 Tsukyomi I" tactic is ranked "1st" when it comes to 5-3-2 formation but that's not true.
hi zippo， i think your statistics are right and thats pts per 38games based on 4000games
What make me confused is the points from mark
If we had a H2H tactic testing league with all the existing formations that the game has for AI managers then we would have a more accurate answer I believe on this case.
dzek said: If we had a H2H tactic testing league with all the existing formations that the game has for AI managers then we would have a more accurate answer I believe on this case.
Hi,
If you take the best 200 AI managers in the game then:
- 35% of them have 4-3-3 Preferred Formation
- 35% of them have 4-2-3-1 Preferred Formation
- 20% of them have "different variations of 5 at the back formation" Preferred Formation
- 10% of them have 4-4-2 Preferred Formation
So 70% of 200 best AI managers in the game play with 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1
Also, look at the performance of AI's 5-2-3, it's significantly worse than AI's 4-2-3-1 or AI's 4-2-3-1.
We tested the rest of AI formations and they did even worse than AI's 5-2-3 so what's the point in having in the testing league?
According to our data If one tactic does better than other tactic vs AI's 4-2-3-1 or AI's 4-2-3-1 then it also will do better against other AI formations which are even weaker.
Zippo said: Hi,
If you take the best 200 AI managers in the game then:
- 35% of them have 4-3-3 Preferred Formation
- 35% of them have 4-2-3-1 Preferred Formation
- 20% of them have "different variations of 5 at the back formation" Preferred Formation
- 10% of them have 4-4-2 Preferred Formation
So 70% of 200 best AI managers in the game play with 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1
Also, look at the performance of AI's 5-2-3, it's significantly worse than AI's 4-2-3-1 or AI's 4-2-3-1.
We tested the rest of AI formations and they did even worse than AI's 5-2-3 so what's the point in having in the testing league?
According to our data If one tactic does better than other tactic vs AI's 4-2-3-1 or AI's 4-2-3-1 then it also will do better against other AI formations which are even weaker.
How did you test all the formations?
AI against AI?
Zippo said: @Mark, hey.
Are you sure your numbers are correct?
Because I've checked our DB and here's what I got:
Red General 4231 v1.0
424 CF Cabuloso
433 Tsukyomi I
According to your table, "Red General 4231 v1.0" tactic is ranked "8th" and "424 CF Cabuloso" tactic is ranked "1st" when it come to 4-3-3 formation but according to our numbers the difference is about 1.5 points which could be just "statistical noise".
If you ask me then I think it makes sense to "rank" tactics only when there's a meaningful difference between them, I'd say it should be at least 10-15 points difference but when the difference is just 1-2 points then it can be easily "statistical noise".
Also, according to your table "433 Tsukyomi I" tactic is ranked "1st" when it comes to 5-3-2 formation but that's not true.
Thanks for you feedback, as always I appreciate it. I accept some of your commentary. There was a minor error in my calculation Which I have now fixed. I have also moved the scale back to the 38 games that you guys use. I have checked the calculation and I still calculate Tsukyomi as ranked first. As I said, I only used the first 6 tests, so is your data showing the average from all tests where you have tested 4000 matches or only the first 2400 matches?
I accept the statistical noise for less than 2 points. I was just trying to look at how I can use a combination of tactics through the season to my advantage.
Mark said: As I said, I only used the first 6 tests, so is your data showing the average from all tests where you have tested 4000 matches or only the first 2400 matches?
The thing is, the order in which the result screenshots are displayed isn't the order in which the tests happened. The result screenshot are randomly shuffled.
Mark said: I also only looked at the first 6 tests (ie 2400 matches) for each HOF tactic to ensure they were also all comparable.
As you can see we've got 1,200 matches, 2,400 matches and 4,000 matches in our test result tables and we compare all them just fine.
You just need to calculate P.P.M.(Points Per Match) and then translate it for 38 matches.
Total Points / Total Matches Played = P.P.M.(Points Per Match)
P.P.M.(Points Per Match) x 38 = expected points after 38 matches
Mark said: I accept the statistical noise for less than 2 points. I was just trying to look at how I can use a combination of tactics through the season to my advantage.
One important thing to note, we are talking about 1-3 points RNG when there's 1,200 matches and we are talking about 0.5 - 1.5 points RNG when there's 4,000 matches.
But if we take 2,400 matches then in this case a tactic is tested against a specific formation only for 480 matches.... could you imagine the level of the RNG at such small distance.
For example, look at your result for "424 deformation II" tactic vs "5-2-3" AI formation, it's "42.5" points after 6 runs, but after 10 runs it drops to "36" points so the RNG of 6 runs is about "6.5" points.
As I said when the RNG could be as high as "6.5" points, an attempt to rank tactics in 0.5-2.5 points range doesn't make sense.
dzek said: How did you test all the formations?
AI against AI?
We use a much more sophisticate method for that.
@Mark this is so interesting, i started using your table with tactics yesterday, and i must say its working pretty good. Munchen 1860 no transfers. Winning every match. Im using analyst report to see what formations work against the opponent if their tactic is not 433/4321/532. But would love to have a better table against more formations
NandaldiaN said: @Mark this is so interesting, i started using your table with tactics yesterday, and i must say its working pretty good. Munchen 1860 no transfers. Winning every match. Im using analyst report to see what formations work against the opponent if their tactic is not 433/4321/532. But would love to have a better table against more formations
I have been working on ways of doing this. It might take a bit of time though
Zippo said: @Mark, hey.
Are you sure your numbers are correct?
Because I've checked our DB and here's what I got:
Red General 4231 v1.0
424 CF Cabuloso
433 Tsukyomi I
According to your table, "Red General 4231 v1.0" tactic is ranked "8th" and "424 CF Cabuloso" tactic is ranked "1st" when it come to 4-3-3 formation but according to our numbers the difference is about 1.5 points which could be just "statistical noise".
If you ask me then I think it makes sense to "rank" tactics only when there's a meaningful difference between them, I'd say it should be at least 10-15 points difference but when the difference is just 1-2 points then it can be easily "statistical noise".
Also, according to your table "433 Tsukyomi I" tactic is ranked "1st" when it comes to 5-3-2 formation but that's not true.
Hello @Zippo , great work!
Did I understand correctly. that is, against 4-2-3-1 with the best TI, 4-3-3 with the best TI is most effective? And am I right if I say that the 5-2-3 formation with the best TI is the most successful against all your tested ones from the forum?
My purpose is to understand which formation is most effective to play against 4-2-3-1 red general.
Updated data getting more than 6000 matches for the AI 433 and 4231 tactics and more than 3000 matches for the 523.
I used 8 base formations. The data comes from FM Arena Patch 24.2 V1.0.
There are 2 or 3 formations that stand out against each AI formation
For the AI 433 I couldn't split 4231 and the 4222 def (deformation/levante) formation, just in front of 4222.
For AI 4231 the 4222 def was just in front of 4231 and 424.
For AI 523 the clear winner was 424 from a grouping of 3, 4231, 343 and 4222 def.
I know with the amount of matches and using data across tactics with different TIs and PIs and tactical styles that this is not perfect. However I do think it is usable if you wanted to try such an approach.
If you come up against any other formations, using the reverse approach ie which AI did better could possibly work, and in all cases it appears the AI 4231 outscores the other AI tactics. So for say 442 you should probably go with 4231.
It is working for me but it could be just the team I have put together and using the top tactics from the formations that is working. I still enjoy using this approach as it uses the different formations rather than set and forget.
Enjoy, and let me know your thoughts and if it works or doesn't for you.