Appreciate time / resource is always the limiting factor which explains why you couldn't (and shouldn't) put poorly performing tactics through the same number of tests as those that perform well but it's truly bonkers you don't test the elite tactics the same number of times. How can you say with any conviction #1 is better than #2 when they've been tested a different number of matches (given the only reason you test them thousands of times is because of the effect of RNG)?!?
Gianaa9 said: @Zippo will this one be tested for 14k also? Cause it would be great to see the true difference between this one and 424 Classic v28 but that scored 68.3 with 9.6k and 67.7 with 14k, so with just the 9k test on this one it’s difficult to compare them e.e Expand
Agreed, should be the same number of tests for all of the strong tactics
What's the rationale for testing this tactic over a larger number of matches than the others? Surely the sensible thing to do is to test all tactics in the same conditions over the same number of matches (the more the better)
I've played FM in one guise or another all the way back to the original Championship Manager in the early 90s and before giving my opinion just want to say that FM is by far the best football mangement sim on the market and always has been.
As a "hardcore" player I have to be honest when I say FM24 is no better or worse than 23, which was no better or worse than 22 etc. It's been an awfully long time since any new features came in that fundamentally changed the game for the better - you could argue they are a victim of their own success.
Don't get me wrong I will always buy a copy of the latest FM when released and if you do the maths on cost / hours played it's insane value for money.
Single player is way too easy and has been on every version of FM, but if they made it more realistic (i.e. much harder) then they would instantly lose the casual players so they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
For me they should spend their time and effort on the multiplayer side of things as that's when FM gets really good - a group of 5-10 hardcore players competing in an online game with Discord server for the banter etc.
Match engine is also so broken. When was the last time you set your tactic up with anything other than a sweeper keeper, or anything other than a ball playing defender, or any role other than advanced forward etc.
Are you sure? I checked save 1 against screenshot 1 and save 6 against screenshot 6 (and both matched) before downloading 12 (which also matched screenshot 12). The odds of 3 of 12 screenshots randomly matching 3 of 12 downloads are incredibly unlikely!
Save 12 final points from your download don't match the screenshots you've posted up so looks like you've made a mistake. No beef as we are all human and all make mistakes
Agreed, should be the same number of tests for all of the strong tactics
As a "hardcore" player I have to be honest when I say FM24 is no better or worse than 23, which was no better or worse than 22 etc. It's been an awfully long time since any new features came in that fundamentally changed the game for the better - you could argue they are a victim of their own success.
Don't get me wrong I will always buy a copy of the latest FM when released and if you do the maths on cost / hours played it's insane value for money.
Single player is way too easy and has been on every version of FM, but if they made it more realistic (i.e. much harder) then they would instantly lose the casual players so they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
For me they should spend their time and effort on the multiplayer side of things as that's when FM gets really good - a group of 5-10 hardcore players competing in an online game with Discord server for the banter etc.
Match engine is also so broken. When was the last time you set your tactic up with anything other than a sweeper keeper, or anything other than a ball playing defender, or any role other than advanced forward etc.