Ok, let's think whether "significantly worse" would be a correct definition in that case or not.
If we compare two of your tactics 4213 Striker Madness V5 and 4213 Striker Madness V6 then V6 scored "62.178" points and V5 scored "64.114" points so the difference between them is "1.936" points.
V6 was tested for 2,400 matches and in this case the RNG can be as high as "3" points.
V5 was tested for 4,000 matches and in this case the RNG can be as high as "2.5" points.
The above means that the 4,000 matches test of V5, where it scored "64.114", only revealed to us that the real score of the tactic is somewhere between "61.614" and "66.614" points, which means if we keep retesting V5 for 4,000 matches again and aging then in theory it might hit as low as "59.5" points and as high as "66.5", of course, "59.5" and "66.5" points for V5 would extreme values and the probability of their appearance would be no more than 5% and most of time we'll be getting "61", "62", "63" scores.
Please note, that in normal game when you play a standard season that consists of 38 matches the RNG can be as high as "20" points and that with using the same tactic!!! and now think whether "1.936" points difference can be defined as "significantly worse"?
Zippo said: Ok, let's think whether "significantly worse" would be a correct definition in that case or not.
If we compare two of your tactics 4213 Striker Madness V5 and 4213 Striker Madness V6 then V6 scored "62.178" points and V5 scored "64.114" points so the difference between them is "1.936" points.
V6 was tested for 2,400 matches and in this case the highest possible RNG is "3" points.
V5 was tested for 4,000 matches and in this case the highest possible RNG is "2.5" points.
The above means than the 4,000 matches test of V5, where it scored "64.114", only revealed to us that the real score of the tactic is somewhere between "61.614" and "66.614" points, which means if we keep retesting V5 for 4,000 matches again and aging then in theory it might hit as low as "59.5" points and as high as "66.5", of course, "59.5" and "66.5" points for V5 would extreme values and the probability of their appearance would be no more than 5% and most of time we'll be getting "61", "62", "63" scores.
Please note, that in normal game when you play a standard season that consist of 38 matches the RNG can be as high as "20" points and that with using the same tactic!!! and now think whether "1.936" points difference can be defined as "significantly worse"? Expand
You're right...significantly wasn't the right choice of use in this context ). I forgot that v6 was tested for 2400. Thanks for the clarification
alex said: Interesting. My striker madness v6 where I added dribble more to FBs, did significantly worse. Maybe RNG played a good part Expand
The tactic already has "Run At the Defense" Team Instruction, and the presence if this TI highly adds the same effect as adding "Dribble More" to every position.
Lapidus said: The tactic already has "Run At the Defense" Team Instruction, and the presence if this TI highly adds the same effect as adding "Dribble More" to every position. Expand
At the moment we're testing 'Run At Defense' vs 'Dribble More'.
It's early days but it's already obvious that 'Run At Defense' isn't the same as adding 'Dribble More' to every position.
Yes, it seems 'Run At Defense' TI adds 'Dribble More' PI to the positions in a tactic but it does that only for some positions, which positions get it, it's hard to tell but it's obvious that not every position gets it.
I hope by tomorrow evening we'll finish testing 'Run At Defense' TI adds 'Dribble More' PI and I'll share the result with you.
Hi there,
This time let's find out how "Dribble More" PIs impacts the result.
GENERIC BASE TACTIC:
PIs: "Dribble More", "Tackle Harder"
1) All positions have "Dribble More"
2) "Dribble More" has been removed from the Full Backs
3) "Dribble More" has been removed from all positions
Interesting. My striker madness v6 where I added dribble more to FBs, did significantly worse. Maybe RNG played a good part
alex said: did significantly worse
Ok, let's think whether "significantly worse" would be a correct definition in that case or not.
If we compare two of your tactics 4213 Striker Madness V5 and 4213 Striker Madness V6 then V6 scored "62.178" points and V5 scored "64.114" points so the difference between them is "1.936" points.
V6 was tested for 2,400 matches and in this case the RNG can be as high as "3" points.
V5 was tested for 4,000 matches and in this case the RNG can be as high as "2.5" points.
The above means that the 4,000 matches test of V5, where it scored "64.114", only revealed to us that the real score of the tactic is somewhere between "61.614" and "66.614" points, which means if we keep retesting V5 for 4,000 matches again and aging then in theory it might hit as low as "59.5" points and as high as "66.5", of course, "59.5" and "66.5" points for V5 would extreme values and the probability of their appearance would be no more than 5% and most of time we'll be getting "61", "62", "63" scores.
Please note, that in normal game when you play a standard season that consists of 38 matches the RNG can be as high as "20" points and that with using the same tactic!!! and now think whether "1.936" points difference can be defined as "significantly worse"?
Zippo said: Ok, let's think whether "significantly worse" would be a correct definition in that case or not.
). I forgot that v6 was tested for 2400. Thanks for the clarification 
If we compare two of your tactics 4213 Striker Madness V5 and 4213 Striker Madness V6 then V6 scored "62.178" points and V5 scored "64.114" points so the difference between them is "1.936" points.
V6 was tested for 2,400 matches and in this case the highest possible RNG is "3" points.
V5 was tested for 4,000 matches and in this case the highest possible RNG is "2.5" points.
The above means than the 4,000 matches test of V5, where it scored "64.114", only revealed to us that the real score of the tactic is somewhere between "61.614" and "66.614" points, which means if we keep retesting V5 for 4,000 matches again and aging then in theory it might hit as low as "59.5" points and as high as "66.5", of course, "59.5" and "66.5" points for V5 would extreme values and the probability of their appearance would be no more than 5% and most of time we'll be getting "61", "62", "63" scores.
Please note, that in normal game when you play a standard season that consist of 38 matches the RNG can be as high as "20" points and that with using the same tactic!!! and now think whether "1.936" points difference can be defined as "significantly worse"?
You're right...significantly wasn't the right choice of use in this context
alex said: Interesting. My striker madness v6 where I added dribble more to FBs, did significantly worse. Maybe RNG played a good part
The tactic already has "Run At the Defense" Team Instruction, and the presence if this TI highly adds the same effect as adding "Dribble More" to every position.
Lapidus said: The tactic already has "Run At the Defense" Team Instruction, and the presence if this TI highly adds the same effect as adding "Dribble More" to every position.
At the moment we're testing 'Run At Defense' vs 'Dribble More'.
It's early days but it's already obvious that 'Run At Defense' isn't the same as adding 'Dribble More' to every position.
Yes, it seems 'Run At Defense' TI adds 'Dribble More' PI to the positions in a tactic but it does that only for some positions, which positions get it, it's hard to tell but it's obvious that not every position gets it.
I hope by tomorrow evening we'll finish testing 'Run At Defense' TI adds 'Dribble More' PI and I'll share the result with you.
Are you going to test 'Take more risks' on every position?
Cherknam said: Are you going to test 'Take more risks' on every position?
Yes, it's on the list.
Do the DM’s also have the dribble more PI when all positions have dribble more in the test?
Glennson said: Do the DM’s also have the dribble more PI when all positions have dribble more in the test?
As Zippo said... yes, they had it.