Germaniac said: The biggest problem in my opinion, is sorting the table by GD will be inaccurate. For example: Expand First of all, we always can sort tactics in the tables on "raw" values(not rounded), probably, that happens right now but I'm not 100% sure about that. Anyway, it's really isn't a big deal taking into consideration the RNG.
Germaniac said: For example, 64.4-47.6 will be rounded (to nearest integer) to 64-48=16, but if you calculate 64.4-47.6=16.8 first it'll be rounded to 17. Expand
We had the tables the way you say before but it was quite confusing. For example, people were looking at a table and seeing that GF = 64 and GA = 48 so сertainly the GD should be equal to "16" in this case because 64-48=16 but somehow it was "17" in the table so they were reporting to us about a "wrong" calculation and so on. So after some consideration we decided that the current approach is better.
Germaniac said: Not sure if this should go here, but it seems that GD on the table is calculated from the GF-GA after each of them are rounded? If it's true then it can be less accurate than rounding the GD after you calculate GF-GA first. For example, 64.9-48.1 will be rounded (to nearest integer) to 64-48=16, but if you calculate 64.9-48.1=16.8 first it'll be rounded to 17. Expand
Hi,
We are aware of such rounding might happen but still we think that adding decimal numbers to G.F., G.A. and G.D. would be "overkill" because when in the testing the minimal RNG is +/- 1-2 points when it comes to Pts and +/- 2-3 G.D. when it comes to G.D. then having decimal numbers for G.D. doesn't make sense. Yes, we added decimal numbers for Pts but still we aren't 100% sure they are needed even for Pts.
Guys, I just want to let you know that the switching to the new DB 3.0 didn't go smoothly and few small bugs managed to lurk in but don't worry, we already have found and fixed them.
It's just don't be surprised to see some tactics that already have been tested under the new DB 3.0 get retested once more, we retest them because we want to be sure the result aren't affected by the small bugs that I mentioned.
Gianaa9 said: Hi, don't need to rush obviously, just thought it because having uploaded both at same time i believed that they would have been tested together, but if it isn't the case it isn't absolutely a problem, i'm not hurry at all ahah Expand
Unfortunately, we not always have time to carefully inspect every tactic posted but I agree with you, we should apply some "restrictions" to those people who systematically ignore the requirements.
@Cherknam, you're "in the crosshair", pal. I suggest you to revisit your previously posted tactics and make sure they meet the requirements.
Gianaa9 said: It simply means that a tactic usually wins like 4-0/5-0 but wins less matches, instead the other one winning more matches with 2-1/2-0 results, we just have to find the compromise with Katana's attack and COSMOS' defence Expand
alex said: Yup, you're right. Interesting with that SK on support Expand
Once more, even 4,000 matches tests have 0.5 - 1.5 RNG when it comes to the pts and -/+ 3 G.D. when it comes to the G.D.,
The above means that for example, if we take Katana tactic which scored "64" pts and "+17" G.D. and re-test it again for 4,000 matches then it might score as low as "63" pts and "+14" G.D., of course, if it hits a very unlucky RNG wave.
alex said: It's curios how this tactic with better defence got number 2 Expand
It's been explained many times. By default, the tactics are sorted by "points" but the tables shows you the "rounded" numbers when the actual numbers are "64.3625" and "64.239".
Bear in mind, that even 4,000 matches tests still have 0.5-1.5 pts RNG.
Is there any chance this can be tested for the 4000 matches please? I know you don't normally do it for a 62 pointer but would it be interesting to see how it performed considering it got a 65 on the first run and then dropped 3 points on the 2nd run
I can say that so far for FM24 we've simulated about 2,000,000 matches.
The gathered data tells us that the score usually changes in the following manager:
1,200 -> 2,400 | most of time the score changes by -/+ 1-2 points (3 points happens but very rarely)
2,400 -> 4000 | most of time the score changes by -/+ 0-1 points (2 points happens but very rarely)
This tactic was tested for 2,400 matches and got 62 points according our statistic if we test it further up to 4,000 matches then the score won't change at all or the change will be not more than 1 point, so at the best its score can increase to 63 points, which would be nothing special.
I'm sure you understand that it doesn't make sense spending computing power to test any tactic further if there's a very high probability that it won't produce any "special".
The below you can find the details about our testing algorithm:
- all tactics by default get tested for 1,200 matches.
- the top tactic gets an additional testing up to 4,000 matches.
- if a tactic gets into HoF after 1,200 matches then it gets an additional testing up 2,400 matches.
- if a tactic gets a score that is 2 points less than the top tactic after 1,200 matches then it gets an additional testing up to 2,400 matches
- if a tactics after 2,400 matches get a score that is 1 points less than the top tactic then it gets an additional testing up 4,000 matches
First of all, we always can sort tactics in the tables on "raw" values(not rounded), probably, that happens right now but I'm not 100% sure about that. Anyway, it's really isn't a big deal taking into consideration the RNG.
Germaniac said: just round GD after calculating GF-GA.
Germaniac said: For example, 64.4-47.6 will be rounded (to nearest integer) to 64-48=16, but if you calculate 64.4-47.6=16.8 first it'll be rounded to 17.
We had the tables the way you say before but it was quite confusing. For example, people were looking at a table and seeing that GF = 64 and GA = 48 so сertainly the GD should be equal to "16" in this case because 64-48=16 but somehow it was "17" in the table so they were reporting to us about a "wrong" calculation and so on. So after some consideration we decided that the current approach is better.
Hi,
We are aware of such rounding might happen but still we think that adding decimal numbers to G.F., G.A. and G.D. would be "overkill" because when in the testing the minimal RNG is +/- 1-2 points when it comes to Pts and +/- 2-3 G.D. when it comes to G.D. then having decimal numbers for G.D. doesn't make sense. Yes, we added decimal numbers for Pts but still we aren't 100% sure they are needed even for Pts.
I uploaded the wrong tactic. Can I re-upload the right one and get a new test?
Sorry guys.
Hi, @dzek. Our system doesn't have such functionality, sorry, we can't do that.
Hi, @A Smile.
Can you try to add it for retesting again?
If you still have an issue then let us know.
Thanks.
Only the person who posted a tactic can make a request to retest it.
So it's up to @Jae whether he want to see this tactic retested or not.
It's just don't be surprised to see some tactics that already have been tested under the new DB 3.0 get retested once more, we retest them because we want to be sure the result aren't affected by the small bugs that I mentioned.
I can only edit post w/o the tactic and its name
Hi,
I've "unlocked" it, you can edit the name.
Hi,
I've moved it into FM24 section for you, no need to reupload it.
It seems that you accidently uploaded the same tactic again.
Please, compare this tactic and your other tactic - https://fm-arena.com/thread/10498-ton-v9-424-th-p100/
Let's me know if I miss something here.
Thanks.
Hi,
Only English language is allowed here. Please, edit your post or it'll be removed.
Thanks.
The queue is based on "Round-Robin" algorithm you can read more about it here - https://fm-arena.com/thread/3198-test-order/
Hi,
What does make you think that it was skipped?
Only English language is allowed.
Please, translate your post or it'll be removed.
Thanks.
Thanks and apologies again
Hi,
I really tried to figure out what happened here and what you say but it's too complicated so I failed.
I can say only one thing every thread must have correct screenshots and if there's something wrong just fix it and it's the end of the story.
GL.
I wonder why don't you say exactly what PIs you added/removed.
@Zippo @Droid according to this - https://fm-arena.com/thread/2733-how-to-get-your-tactic-tested/ people must write up the changes they make but I've been noticing some people ignore that requirement. I think there must be some kind of "punishments" for that.
Hi,
Unfortunately, we not always have time to carefully inspect every tactic posted but I agree with you, we should apply some "restrictions" to those people who systematically ignore the requirements.
@Cherknam, you're "in the crosshair", pal.
Nope, we don't capture that information.
But if you're really intrigued that much
It only requires to calculate PPM(Points Per Match) from the first 3 tests and then multiply by 38 and you'll get the score after 1,200 matches.
alex said: Yup, you're right. Interesting with that SK on support
Once more, even 4,000 matches tests have 0.5 - 1.5 RNG when it comes to the pts and -/+ 3 G.D. when it comes to the G.D.,
The above means that for example, if we take Katana tactic which scored "64" pts and "+17" G.D. and re-test it again for 4,000 matches then it might score as low as "63" pts and "+14" G.D., of course, if it hits a very unlucky RNG wave.
It's been explained many times. By default, the tactics are sorted by "points" but the tables shows you the "rounded" numbers when the actual numbers are "64.3625" and "64.239".
Bear in mind, that even 4,000 matches tests still have 0.5-1.5 pts RNG.
In general, if tactics have the same "Rating" then there won't be any noticeable difference between them in a normal save, which means in a normal save a tactic 64pts(EXCELLENT) rating would work for you as good as a tactic 59pts(EXCELLENT). More info - https://fm-arena.com/thread/8922-understanding-the-results-of-fm-arena-tactic-testing/
Is there any chance this can be tested for the 4000 matches please? I know you don't normally do it for a 62 pointer but would it be interesting to see how it performed considering it got a 65 on the first run and then dropped 3 points on the 2nd run
Thanks
Hey, @CBP87.
I can say that so far for FM24 we've simulated about 2,000,000 matches.
The gathered data tells us that the score usually changes in the following manager:
1,200 -> 2,400 | most of time the score changes by -/+ 1-2 points (3 points happens but very rarely)
2,400 -> 4000 | most of time the score changes by -/+ 0-1 points (2 points happens but very rarely)
This tactic was tested for 2,400 matches and got 62 points according our statistic if we test it further up to 4,000 matches then the score won't change at all or the change will be not more than 1 point, so at the best its score can increase to 63 points, which would be nothing special.
I'm sure you understand that it doesn't make sense spending computing power to test any tactic further if there's a very high probability that it won't produce any "special".
The below you can find the details about our testing algorithm:
- all tactics by default get tested for 1,200 matches.
- the top tactic gets an additional testing up to 4,000 matches.
- if a tactic gets into HoF after 1,200 matches then it gets an additional testing up 2,400 matches.
- if a tactic gets a score that is 2 points less than the top tactic after 1,200 matches then it gets an additional testing up to 2,400 matches
- if a tactics after 2,400 matches get a score that is 1 points less than the top tactic then it gets an additional testing up 4,000 matches
Hi,
We accept only 1-2 re-test request. You're above the limit already.