Mark said: I have tried match plans and it ended with players I wanted on the pitch being substituted in the first half. My testing of the options in the original post were terrible so I have given up on that.

I have settled on using the following:

First 15 minutes
Drop Tempo and Trigger Press by 1 notch
Defensive Shape back to Mid Block

At 75 minutes
Drop Tempo and Trigger Press by 1 notch
Defensive Shape back to Mid Block

At 85 minutes if winning
Drop Tempo and Trigger Press by another notch
Remove Prevent Short GK Distribution
Stay on Feet
Remove Counter-Press and Counter
Remove Distribute Quickly
Remove Pass Into Space and Run at Defence
Mentality to Cautious

These are the exceptions:

If they Score use the following for the next 10 minutes:
Attacking Mentality
Be More Expansive

If we Score use the following for the next 10 minutes:
Cautious Mentality
Drop Tempo and Trigger Press by 1 notch
Defensive Shape back to Mid Block

This is a much simpler approach than the one in the opening post and all seems to be working. Should also include Praise whole team when we score but only after the first 15 minutes.

Hope this helps

Thank you!
It would be interesting to test the current top tactic (Problem Solvin V24) with these instructions for 9600 matches and see if the score improves. Especially with the instructions in the last minutes of the game, when there is a risk of throwing away the victory.
Mark said: Back in FM19 I came across an approach to managing matches. I have used it ever since with loads of success.

Here is the article

And here is the rather complex flow chart for those interested.

Here is the simplified match mentality progression line for those not interested in the complexity of the flow chart. Although this misses a lot of important decisions, it does give a bit of a road map for playing the match.

I am currently playing with the two main plug and play tactics, 424 Problem Solver and 4231 One Shot. So I wondered how the CTRL and SUS versions of these would test in FM24. I will now go about testing these and maybe a slightly more attacking one of each when you are chasing goals.

Here is a summary of the changes I am looking at for each tactic for testing.

I doubt these versions of the tactic will challenge the original for points, but hoping they can be competitive and provide the results we are after, CTRL maybe a few points behind and more solid in defence, SUS limiting scoring from opponents and ATT slightly better goals for and probably weaker in defence. Time will tell.

Hopefully this helps someone.

Hi, I'm also trying to understand how to manage the advantage in the second half of the game, I hate conceding a goal in the 90th minute on a counterattack when we are winning 1-0.

I tried to set "waste time", "low pace", lower the defensive line, but I'm afraid of how the FM engine works, it could be instructions that don't work and make me lose the game.

Any news from the tests?

Thank you!
Tactical instructions of "Problem Solvin V24" by infxamus, in a 3 DC scheme.
Change from v1:
- DM(Su) > VOL(at)
Tactical instructions of "Problem Solvin V24" by infxamus, in a 3 DC scheme.
Change from v2:
- IF(At) > IF(Su)
Tactical instructions of "Problem Solvin V24" by infxamus, in a 3 DC scheme.
Change from v1:
- PF > AF
Tactical instructions of "Problem Solvin V24" by infxamus, in a 3 DC scheme.
CBP87 said: @Stuaret

Very kind of you, thank you! Maybe slightly more defensive but not worth it. Perhaps to defend a difficult result it is better to change the formation: remove AM and put DC, raise the full-backs:
343 Kippa Sym U
CBP87 said: Yes it didn't perform as well as this one. Think it got 60.1 or around that mark

I saw that you tried a "balanced" mentality but also modified several other things FM24.3 Katana 4231 96p v1.4:

Dribble More, Run wide with ball, take more risks and shoot less often removed from FB
Added cross from byline to FB
Removed take more risks from DM, AM and AF
Removed hold up ball and sit narrower from IF

I would be curious to see exactly this tactic with these settings, but with a "Balanced" mentality. All the top tactics use it.

Thank you!
Delicious said: Doing my save with de zerbi : none wanna join, so i do literally went for ... :

What can i say? Let's pray :angel:

How did your save go with those players? I would like to know the opinion of someone who has tried "only - meta attributes - players" in a real scenario.

Thank you very much!
Han106 said: On the topic of physical training, everything has to do with the my personal weights and how it effects the results I get. You can read how I made the weights for my experiments below or just read the TL;DR if you can trust the weights I've cooked :D.

How the Weights for my Training experiments were formed I made weights that are based on the Chinese Machine Learning FM Study.  It's probably the most quality test on attributes we might ever see for some time due to sample size and the process that is AI machine learning. You can find the weights from the experiment called ykykyk balanced here from @Mark's post on it.

Here is an example of the Full Backs for ykykyk balanced.

There was a problem with just copying these weights 1 for 1 for me.

I feel that Physicals were not weighted important enough. When I was playing FM using these weights a lot of players I was being recommended(as a lower league club) were over the hill and were really declining the league in the 2 most important attributes Pace and Acceleration, but had great Technical/Mental skill to "make up" for it.

Then I used the weights that @ZaZ created all ratings under 50 minus 25 weights which @Mark balanced here. These weights fixed this problem for me by decreasing weights on the less important attributes which coincidentally really fixed the importance for the Physical Attributes.

Here is an example of the Full Backs for all ratings under 50 minus 25.

However, the problem with these weights is that I'm using the top tactic in the Patch 24.2.0 (v2.0) - Tactic Testing Table. The Machine Learning Weights are based off of this tactic from FM22. The meta tactics for FM24 are different from 2 years ago with the biggest difference being the role of the Fullback. The IWB played more like a recycle the ball DM which shows in these weights. Now the Fullback has the responsibilities of a Winger, and needs more weights to represent this.

Here is an example of changes I made to my weights to attempt to accomplish this which you can find here

For example, I raised some weights in things like Passing, Crossing, and Technique to what I felt best emulated the role of a FB in that tactic.

I made tweaks like this to these weights to fit the top tactic for FM 24 for not just Fullback but the other roles as well(but should work other 4231 tactics).

TL;DR The weights are my attempt at mixing Chinese Machine Learning with prioritizing Physical Attributes to fit FM 24.

Because of that, almost all of the weights above 70 in my weights are trained with any sort of Physical training. I have screenshots here underlining these attributes in green.

Looking at these weights, Physical Attributes are weighted as importantly as the center of the universe. Because of that I try to maximize their growth as much as reasonably possible instead of being efficient with just 1 or 2 sessions.

If the results from physical training showed that more is better then I would do more, but it seems the maximum training sessions that grow Physical sessions in a week is 3. So that's why in the foundational 11 training schedule there are 3 physical sessions in it.

Congratulations for the work!
There's one thing I've never understood: why in Chinese Machine Learning FM Study on @ZaZ tactic, stamina is indicated as an important attribute for all roles, but in Player Attributes Testing Table it isn't?
DreadPirateRoberts said: Well I am pretty sure 2,400 matches equals a margin of error of max 1-2 points. The difference between adding and removing 5 pace is 10 points. Secondly, there have been tests done where someone put all the "unimportant" attributes to 1, which resulted in horrific results. (like losing 9-0 every game) but when they put all those stats to 5, suddenly they only lost something like 3 out of 20 games in the prem with luton, basically a huge difference. This indicates that the attribute threshold is somewhere in between 5 and 10, after which any subsequent increase does nothing!

Exact! We know that probably for "normal" attributes the threshold is between 5 and 10. Having said that, pace could also have its own threshold, and if it does, it is certainly above 10, but where?
Let's change our point of view then. If we start with pace -5 we score 29 points. If we increase pace by 5 (default value) we get 60 points, for a total of +31 points.
If we increase the pace by 5 again we get 81 points, for a total of +21 points. If we increased the pace by another 5, maybe this time we would "only" +15 points for example (I don't know how much the default value was). This is called diminishing return.

It's clear that pace is by far the most important attribute in the game, I'm not disputing that.

I would like to find out if there is diminishing return on attributes, because if that were the case, a player with pace 15, for example, would not be that much worse than one with pace 17. Where instead he could be significantly better than one with pace 13.
Interesting, by adding 5 pace points we gained 21 points, while by subtracting 5 pace points we lost 31 points. Does this mean that there is a diminishing return when increasing the value of an attribute? Have any studies ever been done on this?
Yes, I saw that test...maybe with 2 AF and 2 Mez(At) you are more dangerous using the center? And so you get worse results using "focus play to flanks"?

I expect that using this same tactic but with a balanced mentality, you will score the same points, but with 5 fewer goals conceded and 5 fewer goals scored. It would be useful to defend the result once you are ahead!
@Avenger22 congratulations for the result!
I really appreciate realistic tactics. Can you try all these tactical instructions again with a balanced mentality?
Testing 4-3-3 with most popular instructions
Testing 3-4-1-2 Stuaret XIII with "Much Higher Defensive Line" and "Step Up More"
Testing 3-4-2-1 Stuaret XVI with "Much Higher Defensive Line" and "Step Up More"
Testing 3-4-1-2 Stuaret XIII in Attacking mentality
Testing 3-4-2-1 Stuaret XII in balanced mentality