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're some conclusions that we can draw from the result above:
- obviously, "meta" attributes is the real thing
- it doesn't seem there're minimal/optimal levels for other non-meta attributes that must be reached
- "non-meta" attributes still also matter because increasing 4 meta attributes to 20 gave less boost to the score than increased only 1 meta attribute but having other "non-meta" attributes at a much higher level - https://fm-arena.com/tactic/7528-5-points-to-pace-for-all-positions/. Yes, "non-meta" attributes also matter but their impact is much less than the impact of "meta" attributes.
Also, there's one important thing to understand when in our tactic testing league we set Acceleration attribute of a player to "20" then his Accelerating attribute will be 5-6 points higher than the Acceleration attribute any other player in the league.
But when you play the game in normal game and you try to outsmart the AI mangers by focusing on the meta attributes, you really shouldn't expect "miracle results", especially, when you play in the top leagues such as English Premier League and other because just look at the players in the top clubs of such leagues:
As you can see there's a lot of players in the top clubs that have the meta attributes at 17-20 level so when you play in the top leagues and even if you manage to bring in your club players that have the meta attributes at 17-18 level then still you won't be dominate the league because there're many clubs that also have a lot of player with maximized meta attributes.
letsgo9 said: @Zippo@Droid Would make any difference test all the Hall of Fame tactics till 4000 matches? Expand
Hi,
On average, the change in score between 2,400 matches and 4,000 matches is just -/+ 1 point.
Bear in mind, it would take quite a lot computing power to test every tactic that gets in HoF for 4,000 matches and what for? Just to correct its score by -/+ 1 point?
Taking into consideration, the quite low attention that HoF tactics get in general, I'd say the idea to spend a low of computing power on testing them for 4,000 matches to correct their score just -/+ 1 point isn't a good one.
The score change:
1,200 matches -> 2,400 matches = -/+ 1-3 points
2,400 matches -> 4,000 matches = -/+ 0-1 points
So if a tactic got "58" points after 2,400 matches then it almost has no chances to get higher than "59" if it gets tested up to 4,000 matches.
I just want to let you know that we've decided if after 1200 matches a tactic gets a score that is 2 points away from the top tactic then it'll get an additional testing up to 2400 matches.
At the moment there're about 12 tactics that scored at least 61 points(2 points away from the top) after 1200 matches in the queue to get tested up to 2400 matches.
pixar said: wow. Sharp decline after the storm. I think you'll need to change the amount of matches made in tests. A 5 point drop is a serious amount.
I think the amount of 4000 matches in each test may tire the system. I'm not too sure about that, but it can be considered to be at least 3000-2500 matches.
sponsorkindest said: Sorry if this has been already answered, I thought the decision was to do attribute testing after December release, did something change? Just curious question, I don't think we need a re-run given the results are in line with FM23 but just wanted to understand the reasoning Expand
Hi,
We thought we hadn't time to do the attribute testing that early but we managed to do that before the patch.
nios said: Do we have any news about when the attribute test is going to take place? Is it scheduled after the update that SI announced in early December? Expand
Yes, we're planning to do attribute testing after that update.
dzek said: I said that those instructions (Get Stuck In + Tackle Harder) which theoretically do the same thing MAY improve the score. Of course there is RNG on the results of each test. This is clear Expand
It's very important to understand that the RNG factor is always present and there're many tactical instructions that make such a small difference that can't even beat the RNG factor and the result might vary not because of those tactical changes but due to the RNG factor.
dzek said: @Zippo, I have noticed that you remove 442 formation for AI Managers and you insert another 443. Did you find that in this ME 442 is not powerful? Expand
Yup, 4-4-2 under AI isn't impressive at all at this moment if the situation changes with patches we'll bring it back.
dzek said: And “Team C” text on testing league table is not highlighted with blue color. Its still under control of you or you increase AI teams? Expand
It looks like a UI bug in the beta, multiple human managers not returning from Holiday simultaneously at the supposed time but as I said it's more a UI bug that doesn't have any impact on the result.
I think it'd be safe to say that this year in FM24 higher Mentalities ( for example, "Attacking" ) once more give a slight result boost to any shape and if you ask me it makes sense because back in FM23 higher Mentalities didn't give any boost to the result and that didn't make any sense to me because higher Mentalities increase intensity so they drain more Conditions of your players and if they don't give a boost to the result so there's no point in using them at all.
When it comes to the Intensity then there's one important difference between our tactic testing and normal gameplay - in our tactic testing every player gets 100% Conditions before every match but when you play the game in normal way then you have to manage the Conditions of your players if you want to achieve the best result with your team.
So when you play the game in normal way then using the Attacking mentality all the time might be not the best idea because it would burn the Conditions of your player at very fast rate. In order to get the best result from your team you have to wisely choose when to use Attacking mentality and when it would be more beneficial to use less intensive mentalities such as Caution, Balanced and other.
Let's imagine in some match your team already got a 2 goals lead and you play with a highly intensive tactic that uses Attacking Mentality so it would be a good idea to preserve the Conditions of your players by changing your tactic to something less intensive that implies "Time Wasting" and uses a less intensive mentality such as Caution, Balanced and other.
Or other example, let's there's an unimportant cup match ahead for your team so it would be a good idea to use a low intensity tactic to preserve the Conditions of your players for some other more important matches.
We decided not to do 4k tests for the beta, there's really no point in that at this stage.
But 4k tests still might happens for some tactics during the beta, the purpose of that is our need to tune the configuration of our testing server and test some other things such the game RNG and other stuff.
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.
Just wanted to wish you, your families and the team a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Thank you for all the hard work you've put in this year delivering outstanding testing
All the best
Chris
Thank you, @CBP87.
I wishing everyone hope, peace and lots of Christmas cookies this holiday season!
I'm sure many of you guys have seen the results of our Player Attributes Testing for FM24 - https://fm-arena.com/table/26-player-attributes-testing/
The results of the testing have raised many important questions and there're a few of them:
- Should you pay attention only to meta attributes such as Pace, Acceleration and some other?
- What about other attributes? Do they matter at all?
- Are there any "optimal" levels for non-meta attributes that must be reach before you can ignore them?
So we've done another testing in the hope that it can answers the questions above.
On the screenshots below you can find the default attributes of the players in our tactic testing league.
FORWARDS
MIDFIELDERS
CENTRAL DEFENDERS
FULL BACKS
Ok, now let's edit every player in the human controlled teams and set their non-meta attributes to "7" and their meta attributes to "20".
So the attributes of every player in the human controlled teams look like this:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The CA of every player has decreased by 40-50 points.
Now, let's test re-test "Red General 4231 v1.0" tactic with the adjusted players - https://fm-arena.com/thread/8026-red-general-4231-v1-0/
Here're some conclusions that we can draw from the result above:
- obviously, "meta" attributes is the real thing
- it doesn't seem there're minimal/optimal levels for other non-meta attributes that must be reached
- "non-meta" attributes still also matter because increasing 4 meta attributes to 20 gave less boost to the score than increased only 1 meta attribute but having other "non-meta" attributes at a much higher level - https://fm-arena.com/tactic/7528-5-points-to-pace-for-all-positions/. Yes, "non-meta" attributes also matter but their impact is much less than the impact of "meta" attributes.
Also, there's one important thing to understand when in our tactic testing league we set Acceleration attribute of a player to "20" then his Accelerating attribute will be 5-6 points higher than the Acceleration attribute any other player in the league.
But when you play the game in normal game and you try to outsmart the AI mangers by focusing on the meta attributes, you really shouldn't expect "miracle results", especially, when you play in the top leagues such as English Premier League and other because just look at the players in the top clubs of such leagues:
As you can see there's a lot of players in the top clubs that have the meta attributes at 17-20 level so when you play in the top leagues and even if you manage to bring in your club players that have the meta attributes at 17-18 level then still you won't be dominate the league because there're many clubs that also have a lot of player with maximized meta attributes.
Hi,
On average, the change in score between 2,400 matches and 4,000 matches is just -/+ 1 point.
Bear in mind, it would take quite a lot computing power to test every tactic that gets in HoF for 4,000 matches and what for? Just to correct its score by -/+ 1 point?
Taking into consideration, the quite low attention that HoF tactics get in general, I'd say the idea to spend a low of computing power on testing them for 4,000 matches to correct their score just -/+ 1 point isn't a good one.
The score change:
1,200 matches -> 2,400 matches = -/+ 1-3 points
2,400 matches -> 4,000 matches = -/+ 0-1 points
So if a tactic got "58" points after 2,400 matches then it almost has no chances to get higher than "59" if it gets tested up to 4,000 matches.
I just want to let you know that we've decided if after 1200 matches a tactic gets a score that is 2 points away from the top tactic then it'll get an additional testing up to 2400 matches.
At the moment there're about 12 tactics that scored at least 61 points(2 points away from the top) after 1200 matches in the queue to get tested up to 2400 matches.
Cheers.
Hi,
As you might noticed every tactic has a star rating: "Excellent", "Good", "Ok" and so on...
If some tactics have the same rating then it means that our tactic testing considers them to be equally good in real game.
So you can pick any tactic you like with "Excellent" rating and you really won't notice any difference in real game.
Also, tactics with "Good" rating can be almost as good as "Excellent" tactic.
I think the amount of 4000 matches in each test may tire the system. I'm not too sure about that, but it can be considered to be at least 3000-2500 matches.
@Zippo
Here's our testing algorithm for the current patch(24.2.0):
- the top tactic gets 4,000 matches
- all tactics in Hall Of Fame get 2,400 matches
- all other tactics get 1,200 matches
Would be nice just to understand the baseline everything else is working off of. Thanks
FORWARDS
MIDFIELDERS
CENTRAL DEFENDERS
FULL BACKS
Hi,
We thought we hadn't time to do the attribute testing that early but we managed to do that before the patch.
Cheers.
https://fm-arena.com/table/26-attribute-testing/?mark=7544
take a look
It's been fixed.
Thanks.
We took this tactic as the base tactic - https://fm-arena.com/thread/7174-cameron-4-2-3-1-bal/
Is it scheduled after the update that SI announced in early December?
Yes, we're planning to do attribute testing after that update.
Yes, but we're considering to start attribute testing after the next M.E. update, which should happen soon according to SI.
it's done - https://fm-arena.com/board/13-set-piece-sharing-section/
Cheers.
It's very important to understand that the RNG factor is always present and there're many tactical instructions that make such a small difference that can't even beat the RNG factor and the result might vary not because of those tactical changes but due to the RNG factor.
So don't be tricked by the RNG factor.
That's what I tried to say.
dzek said: It boosts “Get Stuck In” much more.
I's been said a thousand times already... ok, I'll say it once more.
The RNG of 1,200 tests is 1-3 points.
The RNG of 4,000 tests is 0.5-1.5 points.
At least that RNG numbers were true for FM23.
We haven't measured the RNG for FM24 yet. It might be higher or lower.
What does all that above mean?
It means that let's say if you test some tactic for 100,000 matches and you get 60 pts then you can call it "the true score" of this tactic.
But if you test only for 1,200 matches then you can get 57,58,59,60,61,62,63 pts.
So adding "Tackle Harder" PI might don't do anything and this time it just hit the highest RNG for this tactic.
In our tactic testing the set pieces are delegated to the assistant manager. He sets up them according to his set pieces preference.
It doesn't matter whether the assistant manager is good or not at set pieces because anyway it'll be the same for every tactic.
So you can say that the quality of set pieces are excluded from the testing, it's the same for every tactic.
Yup, 4-4-2 under AI isn't impressive at all at this moment if the situation changes with patches we'll bring it back.
dzek said: And “Team C” text on testing league table is not highlighted with blue color. Its still under control of you or you increase AI teams?
It looks like a UI bug in the beta, multiple human managers not returning from Holiday simultaneously at the supposed time but as I said it's more a UI bug that doesn't have any impact on the result.
I think it'd be safe to say that this year in FM24 higher Mentalities ( for example, "Attacking" ) once more give a slight result boost to any shape and if you ask me it makes sense because back in FM23 higher Mentalities didn't give any boost to the result and that didn't make any sense to me because higher Mentalities increase intensity so they drain more Conditions of your players and if they don't give a boost to the result so there's no point in using them at all.
When it comes to the Intensity then there's one important difference between our tactic testing and normal gameplay - in our tactic testing every player gets 100% Conditions before every match but when you play the game in normal way then you have to manage the Conditions of your players if you want to achieve the best result with your team.
So when you play the game in normal way then using the Attacking mentality all the time might be not the best idea because it would burn the Conditions of your player at very fast rate. In order to get the best result from your team you have to wisely choose when to use Attacking mentality and when it would be more beneficial to use less intensive mentalities such as Caution, Balanced and other.
Let's imagine in some match your team already got a 2 goals lead and you play with a highly intensive tactic that uses Attacking Mentality so it would be a good idea to preserve the Conditions of your players by changing your tactic to something less intensive that implies "Time Wasting" and uses a less intensive mentality such as Caution, Balanced and other.
Or other example, let's there's an unimportant cup match ahead for your team so it would be a good idea to use a low intensity tactic to preserve the Conditions of your players for some other more important matches.
Here's some useful read about the Intensity:
https://fm-arena.com/thread/3241-adjusting-the-intensity-of-your-tactic-during-matches/
Cheers.
Hey,
We decided not to do 4k tests for the beta, there's really no point in that at this stage.
But 4k tests still might happens for some tactics during the beta, the purpose of that is our need to tune the configuration of our testing server and test some other things such the game RNG and other stuff.