then you learn that the decision about whether to test a tactic or not is based on the tactic representation which must consist of a description and screenshots to backup your tactic.
When you put "." or "description" or "oohhh there's nothing to say" as the description then it looks quite disrespectful and in this case don't be surprised to see your tactics being ignored.
Of course, it's up to you to decide what to do... I'm just saying... Expand
Droid said: If follow your logic then there's also no point in testing a tactic until it offers something very different from whats already here.
If you don't believe your tactic brings anything new and you don't believe it's capable of moving the progress forward then what's the point in offering it for the testing? Expand
You are not following my logic. I'm writing about reasons for writing a description, you are writing about reasons for testing. The two are different obviously, as small changes can have an impact on the results. I respect the rules so I've added what I wrote earlier to the description as you requested. Having tactics tested is a great service so I don't mean to be disrespectful.
Droid said: Then please put that in the description.
Or if there's nothing special in your tactic then what is the point in testing it? Expand
Because tbf most of the tactics posted here are just the same tactic with a few tweaks so it just seems superfluous to write anything unless you create something very different from whats already here.
Rrred said: When we upload a strikerless tactic with DWs, IWBs and variations of 3x SS, 3x AM and everything in between (SS,AM,SS etc.) to be tested, which players are selected for the "front 3" roles? The faster (15) or the slower (13) suitable players? Expand
BulldozerJokic said: @TommyToxic Your tactic scored 55 points and +7 goal difference with just one player being 15/15 for pace/acceleration, I think it means something Expand
Thanks, it workes well for me when I test it on holiday, but I don't think tactics with multiple AMs are gonna skyrocket if their attributes change. It might have a slight positive impact. The DM/CM/AM is still a solid player even if it's more well rounded than AMs people use in normal saves.
kjordafen said: I agree with you that this is how it normally is, but many people can develop and find fast attaching midfields for example. Then, tactics involving attaching midfields may actually perform better than these 3 striker formations.
What are the pace and accelation for attaching midfields in these tests? If these are below 15 I think the test is somewhat unrealistic. In most fm-saves you could easily buy/find/use players with 15 pace and accelaration. If you are in any top 5 league you can find it straight away, and in most second tier leagues you will easily be capable of that in a season or two.
Could someone upload pics of the attributes? Expand This is what a Striker/winger, and DM/CM/AM look like in the save. There are two striker only players in the save teams also but they have the same attributes as the wingers.
Zippo said: The Match Engine don't use CA to calculate the result of matches so CA is irrelevant in that terms.
The Match Engine uses the actual attributes to calculate the result of matches.
For example,
The striker above has 140CA
140CA Player
But if we give him additional playing positions such as AMCL/AMCR/AMC/ML/MR/MC then his CA will increase from 140CA to 164CA
164CA Player
As you can see the player still has the same attributes but his CA has significantly increased from 140CA to 164CA but in matches his efficiency hasn't changed because his attributes haven't changed. In other word, he won't play better having 164CA instead of 140CA when the actual attributes haven't changed.
So only by looking at the CA you can't say that one player is better than other, also, the attributes have a different CA cost for different positions. For example, in general the attributes cost much less CA for central defenders than for any other positions so you can't compare players only by looking at their CA. In other words, in the actual game in general Central Defenders tend to have lower CA comparing to Striker but it doesn't make them less efficient in matches than Strikers. it's just that for a Central Defender the attributes are "cheaper" in terms of CA than for any other position.
Our tactic testing leagues is designed to represent the actual game and not some "fantasy" custom football world.
Here're some facts from the actual game:
- in the actual game Central Defenders tend to have a very low "Finishing" attribute, it isn't higher than "6-7" so if in your tactic testing league you set the Finishing attribute of your Central Defenders higher than that, for example, you give them "16" Finishing then your tactic testing league will be represent the actual game very poorly.
- in the actual game Central Defenders tend to have a very low "Dribbling" attribute, it isn't higher than "8-9" so if in your tactic testing league you set the Dribbling attribute of your Central Defenders higher than that, for example, you give them "16" Dribbling attribute then your tactic testing league will be represent the actual game very poorly.
- Winger/Inside Forward/Full Backs/Strikers tend to be faster than other positions in the actual game so that's why in our tactic testing league Winger/Inside Forward/Strikers are faster than other positions.
and so on...
I hope this helps.
Cheers. Expand
Well explained as always, brings a lot of clarity to the topic.
Do you think the CBs in the test save are suitable to play in a 3ATB system? I know CBs in general have low dribbling, but I think when FM players play 3ATB they prioritize attributes differently on wide CBs than in a traditional 4ATB tactic.
Wide center backs go more forward and also have to cover space out wide so having slightly higher dribbling and pace is normal, and maybe a bit less strength/jumping reach to compensate. Something like Ben White or Tomiyasu.
Is it sensible to include a second type of CB (wide CB) in the test save teams, or does that make testing more difficult without necessarily making it better for testing?
Same goes for AMs as they are very well rounded players in the test save, but in normal FM games they are usually much more attacking players similar to inside forwards or false nines.
Changes from previous submitted tactic with 55 rating: - WB now on stay narrow - Higher def line - Step up added, Drop off removed. - Volante from support to attack
Floppyaams said: how do people find suitable left and right midfielders for these formations? i think really good players in these positions are very rare.
Also curious but how much does corners contribute to these tactics. I remember corner being broken in fm 20 and 21 Expand
I think you can just use any good winger/inverted winger.
I like to play defensive or direct football in some of my saves, but I always get to a point were I can no longer progress up the table with such playstyles. You can inject some features of hoofball into your tactic, like aiming for a target forward, using more crosses, lofted crosses, early crossing on fullbacks etc, but keeping the rest of the tactic more META. I also like having short/standard passing team instructions, and give certain individual players more direct passing so that the team in general plays good short passing football, but certain players hoof it up as they see fit.
then you learn that the decision about whether to test a tactic or not is based on the tactic representation which must consist of a description and screenshots to backup your tactic.
When you put "." or "description" or "oohhh there's nothing to say" as the description then it looks quite disrespectful and in this case don't be surprised to see your tactics being ignored.
Of course, it's up to you to decide what to do... I'm just saying...
Point taken.
If you don't believe your tactic brings anything new and you don't believe it's capable of moving the progress forward then what's the point in offering it for the testing?
You are not following my logic. I'm writing about reasons for writing a description, you are writing about reasons for testing. The two are different obviously, as small changes can have an impact on the results. I respect the rules so I've added what I wrote earlier to the description as you requested. Having tactics tested is a great service so I don't mean to be disrespectful.
Or if there's nothing special in your tactic then what is the point in testing it?
Because tbf most of the tactics posted here are just the same tactic with a few tweaks so it just seems superfluous to write anything unless you create something very different from whats already here.
Not much to say, more or less the same instructions as everyone else has, just with attacking mentality double AP and WCB
Wide players (15), striker (15), AM (13)
Thanks, it workes well for me when I test it on holiday, but I don't think tactics with multiple AMs are gonna skyrocket if their attributes change. It might have a slight positive impact. The DM/CM/AM is still a solid player even if it's more well rounded than AMs people use in normal saves.
What are the pace and accelation for attaching midfields in these tests? If these are below 15 I think the test is somewhat unrealistic. In most fm-saves you could easily buy/find/use players with 15 pace and accelaration. If you are in any top 5 league you can find it straight away, and in most second tier leagues you will easily be capable of that in a season or two.
Could someone upload pics of the attributes?
This is what a Striker/winger, and DM/CM/AM look like in the save. There are two striker only players in the save teams also but they have the same attributes as the wingers.
The Match Engine uses the actual attributes to calculate the result of matches.
For example,
The striker above has 140CA
140CA Player
But if we give him additional playing positions such as AMCL/AMCR/AMC/ML/MR/MC then his CA will increase from 140CA to 164CA
164CA Player
As you can see the player still has the same attributes but his CA has significantly increased from 140CA to 164CA but in matches his efficiency hasn't changed because his attributes haven't changed. In other word, he won't play better having 164CA instead of 140CA when the actual attributes haven't changed.
So only by looking at the CA you can't say that one player is better than other, also, the attributes have a different CA cost for different positions. For example, in general the attributes cost much less CA for central defenders than for any other positions so you can't compare players only by looking at their CA. In other words, in the actual game in general Central Defenders tend to have lower CA comparing to Striker but it doesn't make them less efficient in matches than Strikers. it's just that for a Central Defender the attributes are "cheaper" in terms of CA than for any other position.
Our tactic testing leagues is designed to represent the actual game and not some "fantasy" custom football world.
Here're some facts from the actual game:
- in the actual game Central Defenders tend to have a very low "Finishing" attribute, it isn't higher than "6-7" so if in your tactic testing league you set the Finishing attribute of your Central Defenders higher than that, for example, you give them "16" Finishing then your tactic testing league will be represent the actual game very poorly.
- in the actual game Central Defenders tend to have a very low "Dribbling" attribute, it isn't higher than "8-9" so if in your tactic testing league you set the Dribbling attribute of your Central Defenders higher than that, for example, you give them "16" Dribbling attribute then your tactic testing league will be represent the actual game very poorly.
- Winger/Inside Forward/Full Backs/Strikers tend to be faster than other positions in the actual game so that's why in our tactic testing league Winger/Inside Forward/Strikers are faster than other positions.
and so on...
I hope this helps.
Cheers.
Well explained as always, brings a lot of clarity to the topic.
Do you think the CBs in the test save are suitable to play in a 3ATB system? I know CBs in general have low dribbling, but I think when FM players play 3ATB they prioritize attributes differently on wide CBs than in a traditional 4ATB tactic.
Wide center backs go more forward and also have to cover space out wide so having slightly higher dribbling and pace is normal, and maybe a bit less strength/jumping reach to compensate. Something like Ben White or Tomiyasu.
Is it sensible to include a second type of CB (wide CB) in the test save teams, or does that make testing more difficult without necessarily making it better for testing?
Same goes for AMs as they are very well rounded players in the test save, but in normal FM games they are usually much more attacking players similar to inside forwards or false nines.
- WB now on stay narrow
- Higher def line
- Step up added, Drop off removed.
- Volante from support to attack
Also curious but how much does corners contribute to these tactics. I remember corner being broken in fm 20 and 21
I think you can just use any good winger/inverted winger.
Doesn't matter what team you test it with. People just want to get it tested on this platform.