Zippo
Delicious said: So what happen if i do stay on feet and tackle harder? it should over-drive it?
As I said, TIs override PIs.

Adding "Stay On Feet" TI would be similar to adding "Easy Off Tackles" PI to every position.

If the positions have "Tackle Harder" PI and you add "Stay On Feet" TI then the "Stay On Feet" TI takes a priority over the "Tackle Harder" PIs


Delicious said: But if with "stay on feet" i don't lose like 8-10 points it might be a valid option to give with the "main" tactic as well.
There are 3 levels of the tackles' aggression:

The highest level = "Tackle Harder" PI or "Get Stuck In" TI

The middle level = No "Tackle Harder" PI or No "Get Stuck In" TI

The lowest level =  "Easy Of Tackles" PI or "Stay on Feet" TI


The highest level gives the best result and it decreases with lowering the aggression level



Delicious said: Maybe SI tried to nerf gegenpress this way, but that thing about "getting too many cards" is a problem since the release of fm23.
No, they just don't want that the best options were free of cost.

With "Tackle Harder" PI or "Gut Stuck In" TI you get a better result than without them but it costs you an extra yellow cards and that makes sense.

Have a deep bench and adjust the aggression of tackles during matches and yellow cards won't be a problem for you.
Delicious said: Well, if that can help i did even a pacific version of allahm II , imho this should get tested to check "how much" points the tactic could lose, i mean soon or later i will test even those,but test stuck-in or tackle harder was already tested tons of time already.
I did on Will's test, and basically and it's quite rare you get even yellow cards or reds.
But what i didn't know that it over drive tackle harder, and so at the moment is just a cosmetic.


ZaZ said: Test the top tactic with the TI and with PI and show results, please. =)


We've internally tested "424 Alhamdulillah II" tactic without "Get Stuck In" TI for 1,920 matches and here's the result:

"424 Alhamdulillah II" tactic without "Get Stuck In" TI = 60.18645833333 points

"424 Alhamdulillah II" tactic =  59.75763888889 points



Please note, that we tested the version without "Get Stuck In" TI only for 1,920 matches so the RNG might be 3 points and if we tested it for 5,760 Matches as we did to the original tactic then the result might be worse up to 3 points.

Anyway, even if the version without "Get Stuck In" TI got 0.5 - 2.0 points less than the original tactic then I still would suggested playing a normal game without "Get Stuck In" TI because there are always at least 1-3 matches every season where some of your players gets a second yellow card that automatically turns into a red card and it might cost you 3 - 6 points every season but it can be prevented by removing 'Tackle Harder' PI off this player or even adding 'Ease Off Tackles' PI to him, of course, that would have an effect if there's no "Get Stuck In" TI, which overrides the PIs.

I don't urge everyone to imidialty get rid of "Get Stuck In" TI, especially, if your goal is getting the highest score in our tactic testing because "Get Stuck In" TI might also increase the "Pressing" by a tiny fraction (I'm not sure about it), which might improve the score by 0.5 point in our tactic testing but if you play a normal game then obviously, "Get Stuck In" TI is pure evil, it doesn't allow you making point adjustments to the aggression of the tackles, which might cost you 3 - 6 points every season.

Also, imagine you're playing in a final and some of your players got an early yellow card and you can do nothing to adjust the aggression level of his tackles.
Hi everyone,

If look at the top tactics from our tactic testing then you'll see that they all have the "Intensity" almost at the maximum.



In our tactic testing league the "Physical Conditions" isn't a problem because every player gets 100% "Physical Conditions" before every match.

But in a normal game a proper management of the "Physical Conditions" could be the key element to success.

You can look at our test of "Physical Conditions" and find out how "Physical Conditions" are important for the result - https://fm-arena.com/table/20-condition-morale-testing/



The "Physical Conditions" before a match ( Avg. = 10,000):



A very high "Intensity" tactic was used to play the match.
The "Physical Conditions" after the match ( Avg. = 6,818 ):




A low "Intensity" tactic was used to play the match.
The "Physical Conditions" after the match ( Avg. = 7,181 ):




As you can see the Intensity makes a significant difference when it comes to the "Physical Conditions".

So it could be a good idea when in a match your team is up 2-3 goals to lower the Intensity of your tactic to conserve the "Physical Conditions" of your players for the further matches.


Here's what you can do to lower the Intensity of your tactic:


- Lower the Mentality

- Lower the Tempo

- Lower the Pressing intensity

- Increase the Time Wasting

- Lower the Line Of Engagement

- Add the Stay On Feet TI

- Add the Easy Off Tackles PI

- Change "Attacking" duties to "Support" or "Defend" duties





BE AWARE: Lowering the Intensity saves the "Physical Conditions" but worsen the performance so be careful with that. I suggest lowering the Intensity only in not important matches like friendly matches or in a match when your team is 2-3 goals ahead of the opponent.


I hope this helps.

Cheers.
Hi everyone,

If look at the top tactics from our tactic testing then you'll see they all have 'Get Stuck In' TI and the positions have 'Tackle Harder' PI.



It seems mandatory to have these tactical instructions if you want to maximize the result.

But highly likely those tactical instructions do the same thing, they just set the aggression of the tackles at the highest possible level.

If you ask me then I find using "Tackle Harder" PI gives you much more flexibility than using "Get Stuck In" TI.

When you add "Get Stuck In" TI then you increase the aggression level of the tackles for every position in your tactic and when you remove "Get Stuck In" TI then you decrease the aggression level of the tackles for every position in your tactic, it doesn't allow you to make point adjustments but very often you need it.

How often do you see that during a match some of your players gets a second yellow card that automatically turns into a red card?



That can be easily prevented, it's just when during a match you see some of your players gets booked then remove 'Tackle Harder' PI off this player or even add 'Ease Off Tackles' PI to him.

BUT BE AWERE if "Get Stuck In" TI is present then the actions above won't have any effect because TIs override PIs.

As you can see having "Get Stuck In" TI is pure evil :) it doesn't allow you making point adjustments to the aggression level of the tackles.

So I discourage you from using "Get Stuck In" TI, you'd better use "Tackle Harder" PI, it gives the same effect as "Get Stuck In" TI, but also allows you making point adjustments to the aggression level of the tackles.

I hope this helps.

Cheers.
Delicious said: @Zippo can we have your magic statistic results,how much this one scored?

opq said: -0.42 pts from original with IFs
so more or less RNG


Yes, that's correct.

424 "Alhamdulillah II" tactic got "59,757638888889" points

and "424 Alhamdulillah II 0.2" tactic got "59,335416666667" points

so the difference is "0.422222222" points



Bear in mind, that "Alhamdulillah II" tactic has been tested for 6K matches and the RNG for such distance is only "1" point, which means it might go "up" or "down" only "1" point, so the lowest score might be 59 points and the highest score might be 61 points.

But "424 Alhamdulillah II 0.2" tactic has been tested for 2K matches and the RNG for such distance is "3" points, which means it might go "up" or "down" by 3 points, so the lowest score might be 56 points and the highest score might be 62 points.
Hi, guys.

I just want to let you know that we've changed the queue algorithm to "Round-Robin" so no more CCP.

Cheers.
pixar said: Why does this tactic appear in 2nd place when it has the same score as the first tactic but has a better average? @Zippo

"343 Extreme Suplex to the wind" tactic got 59.691666666667 points.

"424 Alhamdulillah II" tactic got 59.757638888889 points.

Bear in mind, even the tactics have been tested for 6К matches there still might be "1" point RNG.
Guys, our testing server has hung and it requires rebooting.

I've tried to reach our admins but they all were drinking and celebrating.

So I'm afraid we can only reboot the server at some point tomorrow when someone of our admins gets sober. :D

I'm wishing everyone a Happy New Year!

ZaZ said: I would like to suggest organizing the queue for testing tactics as a round robin

Actually, you know I've talked to our coders and I think we can change the queue system to 'Round-Robin' algorithm soon.

Guys, I'll let you know when it's done.
Delicious said: Sorry, so how do we wanna organize ourself or just explain me or we do need to wait zippo?
Because i want to try 2-3 tactics


Guys, it's a very busy time right now and I almost don't have free time so I'll be quick.

Unforutanlty, we can't change by one click how the queue system works because it's very complicated matter.

We started with a "first come, first served" approach , which means the tactics were sorted in the queue by their upload time and we did a really huge work to bring 'CCP' ( Consumed Computing Power ) to make it much more fair than the "first come, first served" - https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/17204/

Our new 'CCP' approach is a bit raw, it requires polishing and it doesn't always work as it should but anyway it's miles better and more fair than the old "first come, first served" approach.

Unforutanlty, any adjustments to the queue would require spending a lot hours on coding and developing and that isn't something we're considering at the moment.

'Round Robin' approach might be a good idea but that's really only for a distant future.

Cheers.
CBP87 said: The top 2 have been tested for 5760 matches, did the scores improve from the original score? Reason I ask is because if they did and another tactic scores higher than what they did originally but currently sits third in the table then that tactic won't get tested over 5760 matches will it?

Of course, after an addition testing the points can move both ways increasing or decreasing.

As I already said testing every tactic that have a potential to become the number 1 tactic for 6К matches isn't a feasible task at least for now because it would required testing about 100+ tactics for 6,000 matches and that would took ages.

At the moment we can afford testing 6K matches only the top tactic.

I'm sure you noticed we added RNG ranges around every score, it gives a clue about the potential of every tactic and it's the best what we can do at the moment.
Mark said: I do think that if you have made that decision then you also need to test any tactics that could get to number 1 through RNG. For instance, the top tactic could be as high as 59 through RNG but there are currently 8 tactics that could get to 60. I would have thought they should be also tested.

Yeah, I agree with that but unfortunately, it's is not a feasible task to do ( at least at this moment ) because it would required testing about 100+ tactics for 6,000 matches and that would took ages.

The 1st place is always spot on so wee need to be sure that the RNG is minimized.
First of all, I'm quite frustrated that in this busy time I have to spend my precious free time on investigating this case.

@Chocorelo19, I've looked at your 'Prometheus 2.4 Correct V' tactic and found that the only difference with Soft@Wet tactic is 3 player instructions for the right striker and 1 player instruction for the left inside forward and that's all.

Instead of telling it as it is and helping us, the guys who pick tactics for the testing, to evaluate the changes you made without difficulties and decide whether it's worth testing or not, you decided to make it as confusing as possible and not to mention that your tactic is based on the highest rated tactic, which might be based on other tactics but that's a different story. I guess, childish intentions to take as much of the credit as possible stand behind such actions BUT I want to make it clear for everyone that such behavior is the best way to end your presence on this site.

@Chocorelo19, I really hope that you'll learn from your mistakes and won't repeat them again.

Also, I want everyone to learn from this case.

Cheers.
Hi,

The 1st place is always spot on so we've decided to test tactics that reach the 1st place for 6,000 matches to be sure that the RNG is minimized to 1 point.

https://fm-arena.com/thread/2713-10-944-matches-tested-fm-rng-measured/

Cheers.
Mark said: @Zippo is there any chance you can share the screen shots of the other positions before and after.

Thanks


Unfortunately, the game save is no longer available.

But if you want you can reproduce it. Just follow this link and download the game save at the bottom of the post to get the attributes of other positions -  https://fm-arena.com/thread/2712-fm23-fm-arena-tactic-testing-league/

Then just increase the Acceleration and Pace attribute to 20 and decrease other attributes such as Composure, Decisions, Off The Ball, Teamwork, Positioning and Long Shots to bring the CA of the players at the save level as before the attribute changes.
I've merged the results of both tests into one.

My congratulations, this tactic has been officially tested for 3,840 matches.






crizeKOS said: @Zippo there is any metric you would suggest us to take a look when making our test in these holiday premier league tests? Coz i had low score tactics grabbing everything and I had good ones doing ok. U guys asks this how it was some kind of pattern but it gets more crearly that is not that worth it and doesnt proofs much. Mainly coz the reasons u r always mentioning...

If you value the result of our testing more than the result of your testing then you should based your idea on the result of our testing. I think it's simple as that.

There are about 1,000,000,000 different tactical combinations in the game so it would take ages to test them all.

So that's why we greatly value any tactician:

- who spends his time to analyze the result of our testing
- who finds the patters in the result of our testing to further improve the results
- who doesn't propose for the testing tactical approaches that have been already tested very well


Are you that kind of tactician? Then we need you!

Delicious said: can you delete one of them or reset one so i can put the right one ._.! Maybe i should've called it in another way...
Nah, I'd better leave both tactics so people will drive you mad with a question "WTF?! Why both tactics are the same"! I hope it'll teach you a lesson. :devil:

crizeKOS said: So, despite RNG, OVERLAPS gave 0.2774 more points then.
Both tested tactics had 'Underlaps'. As I sad, probably, he accidently uploaded the same tactic twice.

You can download both tactics and check the TIs yourself.
opq said: y, it's definitely the case, like I've made mistake with uploading already
and it's a cautious reminder for those who chase +1pts, that even on 1920 matches there's still RNG :)


To be precise:

"433 A Whisper in the Wind" tactic got '54.585416666667' points

"433 Whisper in the Wind" tactic got '54.308333333333' points

So the difference is only '0.2774' points

Out testing server rounds the points to a whole number so '54.585416666667' was rounded to '55' and '54.308333333333' was rounded to '54'.


BUT such a small difference like "0.2774" points can't be guaranteed for each test and the RNG can be as high as "3 Points" even when you test a tactic for 1920 matches. Yes, the probability of such high RNG might be quite low, for example, it might be 3%, 5% or 10% but it's still possible.

https://fm-arena.com/thread/2713-10-944-matches-tested-fm-rng-measured/
crizeKOS said: This one has underlaps or overlaps? Fix it please, coz is leading ppl to think that underlaps with focus play on flanks is better. The tactics name diference is just an "A" @Zippo @Droid

I think @Delicious accidently uploaded the same tactic twice or maybe there's some difference in the PIs, I don't know I haven't checked it.

https://fm-arena.com/tactic/3825-433-whisper-in-the-wind/