Mark said: What do you think @Zippo?

I find that testing Set Pieces is a highly complicated thing to do. You can't just take one tactic set pieces and put them into some other tactic and expect to see it works the same in both tactics. I can tell you it doesn't work this way and if you try to do that then you'll end up with a complete mess because Set Pieces are tied to the formation/roles/duties so you have to tune them for every tactic and you must be good at doing that and understand what are you doing so it requires a lot of efforts and knowledge.
dudu said: what do you mean by "update the opening post"?

I just asked you to edit the 1st post of this thread and upload screenshots of the tactic.

I see you've done that. :thup:
@dudu Hi,

Please, update the opening post and add screenshots of the tactic.

Thank you.
@Mark, hi.

Please, update the opening post and add screenshots of the tactic and a link to the source of the tactic.

Thank you.
Cobo10 said: I hope this is better.

Please, could you update the opening post with proper screenshots.

Cobo10 said: @Zippo the difference between this 2 tactics can be found here:

Unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese so please, if you are really interested in seeing the tactic gets tested then spend some time and sum up the difference between the versions.

Thank you.
@Cobo10, Hi.

If you fix the screenshots and sum up the difference between v3.5 and v2.0 that has been tested then I'll take a look.

soydalesio said: Mate could you test this one please?

Seems very good!


Please, update the opening post and add screenshots of the tactic and some results with it.

Thank you.
Purity said: Hey just wondering if you could test this tactic please? It got great results with loads of goals!
This tactic is from Victorhugo4222 all credits goes to him. I just want it to be tested.


Please, add a link to the source of the tactic.

Thank you.
KOniGun said: Hi All !

Please this tactic By Gillard

Classic 532, based on nuno 532 at wolves but more attacking



Please, update the opening post and add a link to the source of the tactic and some result with the tactic.

Thank you.
FMPirate said: 4231 FROM MY CURRENT SAVE



Please, update the opening post and add screenshots of the tactic and some results with it.

Thank you.
salzby said: @Zippo could you please also test healmuth APDM mod I think deserves a test.


Changes CM-A to AP-A and DLP-S to DM-S have been tested already

CA-A and DLP-S setup got 6.9 rating -

AP-A and DM-S got 6.7 rating -

Regarding your tactic... the opening post looks messy, it's very hard to understand what tactic you tweaked and what changes you made, please, clean it a bit and I'll take a look once more.

Prutton said: @Zippo, can you test height, please? Like 5cm difference in all positions?

We might test that at some point but honestly, I don't consider that as the main priority because "Jumping Reach" attribute has been tested already and it has more impact than height when it comes air challenging for the ball.
Prutton said: Determination also affects attribute gain from training and other aspects, so I believe it's very important, as well as being free. I agree with Bravery not being so important, considering that tackling and marking didn't matter much either. However, Aggression might be relevant since it is another free attribute, which costs no point in CA.

In our testing the attributes can't change during the testing, they are frozen by FMRTE.

If you want to get a fast development rate then you should look for high Professional and Ambition attributes, they have more influence on the development rate than Determination attribute.

Determination comes on the stage when your team concedes a goal or starts losing, a high Determination attribute prevents the Morale from dropping.
Prutton said: @Zippo , will Bravery, Determination and Aggression be tested? I don't think they will change much, but two of them are free stats.

I don't think there's much point in testing Aggression and Bravery attributes but Determination might be tested at some point.
rego8 said: Food for thought on the testing by dropping a certain stat on the test to find how important that stat is. It maybe just important for that tactic maybe you will get a different result on a tactic that's not so reliant on pace and acceleration?

All tactics with "Dribble Less" TI get about 2.0 - 3.0 rating in the testing so "Dribble Less" is a very poor approach to play in FM21, check the tactics bellow:

Also, you can check the top tactics and you'll find that they all use "Dribble More" approach so, obviously, "Dribble More" approach is the most effective way to play in FM21.

I can add that we've tried decreasing Acceleration and Pace attributes for different tactics and the result was almost the same.
@cadoni stop acting like that and offend people, this is the last warning.
momu said: .


Please, update the opening post and add screenshots of the tactic and some results with it.

Thank you.
Prutton said: Are we testing for all attributes? That would be awesome.

We'll try to test as many attributes as possible, including such attributes as Morale, Condition and Consistency
Prutton said: I am not surprised since most goals from this formation happen from through balls.

I find super fast wingers are capable winning matches on thier own, just constantly penetrating inside the opposition box :)

Prutton said: I think it might not make much difference since this formation scores very little from crosses.

I don't think it's about better crossing I think it's about better penetration inside the box. It looks like wingers do that more easily than inverted wingers