So first of all with any base engine meta tactic I turn down the mentality to positive or balanced, drop the line from very high to high, and turn off step up and invite crosses. the fmtweak engine feels like it made these settings appropriately more risky and not worth it in most moments.
Next, as a personal thing I make some small tweaks to PIs. I add shoot less to dmc and fb, sometimes to mc. Don't know if it helps, as they still take 35 yard row z potshots but hey at least it feels like I'm trying I'll take off the duplicate instructions--if the team is already dribbling more, I don't think anybody needs it specifically except maybe DCs. Not sure it's doing anything but dribbly-boi DCs are so good at breaking lines I don't want to mess with it. I'll also remove PIs that I can't add after the TIs are set (like close down more on attackers that are already maxxed out on closing down; I don't think it does anything). I also don't think most FBs are good enough at passing to take more risks, so that comes off.
Finally, there's a layer of tactical-matchup tweaking. If the other side has an amc like against a 4231, I will drop my dm(s) to a dm(d) and OI always close down and tight mark the amc. Finally, sometimes I will drop my FB(a)s to FB(s) if either the other team is better than me, they have amazing wingers, one of my FBs is slow, or I'm trying to see out a win. I'm more inclined to do this against a formation that really relies on amr/l for scoring, like a 433 or 343.
I've been playing with a modified version of this tactic on the fmtweak engine and I gotta say, first, it's terrific, and second it's the best one-dm tactic I've tried or put together at defending a 4231.
Orion said: So basically B Teams that are in non-playable league and play no official matches can be effectively use for player's growth if we just set assistant to 'Arrange a fixture if there is no match in the week'.
As always thank you very much for providing crucial evidence! Expand
this would be true if they actually did that. My experience in france is that they aren't consistent about it.
TommyToxic said: This isn't something you can just say without backing it up with something. Expand
First of all: This.
Something to think about though: if you're a bigger/smaller team, does the AI approach you differently? How do the AI coaches in the test db view the teams being tested? Is your personal situation similar or different?
An example in case that's not completely clear: I recently took over everton early into season 2. They were in like 19th, no wins, absolute whipping boy. Rolled out a very meta 424 and ended the season in a champions league spot.
Start the next season with the same tactic. Not so hot. Doing sorta-ok in europe and bouncing around 6th or 7th in the league. Now, why is this? Could be a lot of reasons, but could one of them be this: last season no one took me seriously, and this season they are taking me very seriously, and the 424 is too open in midfield and I'm getting countered through like city irl rn because opponents are playing less aggressively against me? Are they simply keeping more men behind the ball? Would I have been better served to have switched to a tactic like a 433 that is less top-heavy, even if according to the FMArena table it's marginally "worse"?
johnconnerson said: I play with hidden attributes On so I can see a player's Adaptability when I'm searching. I haven't worked out what the game looks at to determine how well a player "settles" into a new area. Does it look at player nationality? Language spoken? Does having a favored personnel also on the squad help? One time I got it so wrong a player wanted to leave 4 months after transferring to me, so I'd like to avoid that in the future.
Does anyone have any info on this? Expand
the answers as I recall are yes, yes, and yes. Having a player "welcome" them when they arrive also helps.
So, I've been having fun with a similar system, but I couldn't quite get a grip on the front 3. I haven't run any tests but I feel like I have more success with this setup: AM(a)--creative type: take more risks, roam (tackle harder obvs ) SS--just tackle harder striker--still working on this, but I'm thinking I like best an attacking role that drops in and holds up: cf(a), dlp(a). Dlp(s) wasn't quite aggressive enough. Recently made an ingame tweak to AF, but he and the SS weren't working well together and so I went to two AM(a)s which seemed alright.
I guess it's how you want to manipulate the space. CF(a) dropping in sometimes gets you that amorim-esque pentagon with the vols pushing up and lots of runners attacking the back line. An AF is going to do more pushing the line back and creating space between defense and midfield.
2-1 seems to use the space better either way than a 1-2 setup. My feeling is that the dropping striker in a 2 and a dead-center AM are simply in each other's way sometimes. You could center one of the strikers and move the AM to one side, I suppose.
Anyway, keep trying. We need someone to crack the wingerless code
so I feel a little dirty bringing up youtube, but stinger over there did a whole raft of videos trying to succeed with weird tactics. One of the things he was actually able to make work was a sort of anti-meta out of possession system: much less often, mid/standard lines, turn off all the other buttons--and regroup. Otherwise it was a pretty standard 4231.
I've been using it in conjunction with lower tempo/waste time/set pieces/no counter set of instructions to see out games to preserve legs and it's working pretty well!
intrigued by the vol->mez, but maybe mez(s) or cm(s)? vol(a)->mez(a) feels like too big a step up in terms of aggression, as evidenced by the fact that the goals against went up.
magiyij155 said: I'm puzzled by the fullbacks personal instructions.
<snip>
Personally I got rid of "Take more risks" and "Cut inside" from my fullbacks and saw no meaningful change in play or results. Expand
here's what happens sometimes on the leaderboard. Some tactic achieves a nice score. Everyone comes in and makes small tweaks, and eventually through skill or RNG, someone gets a score that is .2 higher or whatever. The whole thing starts over, and people start making small tweaks to the new leader.
It's kind of like evolution. Mutations accumulate over time, and not all of them are actually helping. Sometimes a neutral mutation just gets swept along for the ride. Eventually, maybe someone does some kind of a/b test to see if a certain instruction is actually making a difference, but it's hard to tease out the effects when there's multiple moving parts, and it's hard to get a big enough sample to be totally confident in the findings.
I also tend to run fewer instructions than some of the creators here. The only test that really matters is if it's working in your save for you.
p.s. I will say that I think the cut inside on the FBs is doing something--I've tried adding it here and there, and my very subjective and not at all data-supported feeling is that they're cutting inside with the ball more than before mostly in the second phase of buildup, around midfield.
FinsFootyManager said: Im trying this tactic out, got tactical familiarity as full, working really well when the opposition is close or worse than me, scoring heaps of goals and not conceding, but when im a clear underdog i have no chances and get battered. Are there some tweaks for if I'm playing a considerably stronger team than me? Expand
I do these things sometimes: -mentality to balanced -if the other side has one amc, I will change one of my dms to a defensive duty -if the other side has amr/l (esp. if it's a 433) fb(a) -> fb(s) -against 342(narrow)1: both dms to defensive, fbs to wb(a), take off underlap -underlap off against any tactic that wants to defend narrow, really. -against pep the other day with his ifb-libero-ifb setup I took off underlap, told the ifs to stay wide and went anchor-vol(a). I still lost, but I got most of the highlights after the changes
i know it's not meta and probably wouldn't score nearly as well, but I'd love to see a test of a mid-block 442 with pfs. I know it's great to close out a win.
Zippo said: It has been tested and proven many times that Acceleration and Pace attributes are much more valuable than Strength and Jumping Reach for any striker role.
Speaking other words, if you have TF role in your tactic then with a fast and short striker for that role your result always will be much better than if you had a strong, tall but slow striker. Expand
I've just had a lightbulb moment. The reason small, speedy "target" forwards outrank more traditional target forwards has absolutely nothing at all to do with target forwards. It's because (being quick and fast) they're better at pressing.
Pressing is king. The reason speed and acc kill everything else in the attribute tests is because they're the #1 best way to improve your pressing effectiveness. Not only does the ball presser arrive sooner, but all his teammates will rotate quicker behind him.
That quicker forward gets to his man quicker, but he also is quicker to break into space if the press wins the ball elsewhere on the field.
If the meta wasn't so gegenpress-dominated, I think there'd be more room for big, slow target forwards. Currently, for a slow forward to pull their weight they need to bring something else to the party, whether that's playmaking or set pieces or something.
Sincere apologies if everyone else realized this ages ago and I'm just a little slow to pick up on it
what are the PIs on the bbm? I assume the usual things elsewhere?
wharcal said: What did you modify?
So first of all with any base engine meta tactic I turn down the mentality to positive or balanced, drop the line from very high to high, and turn off step up and invite crosses. the fmtweak engine feels like it made these settings appropriately more risky and not worth it in most moments.
Next, as a personal thing I make some small tweaks to PIs. I add shoot less to dmc and fb, sometimes to mc. Don't know if it helps, as they still take 35 yard row z potshots but hey at least it feels like I'm trying
Finally, there's a layer of tactical-matchup tweaking. If the other side has an amc like against a 4231, I will drop my dm(s) to a dm(d) and OI always close down and tight mark the amc. Finally, sometimes I will drop my FB(a)s to FB(s) if either the other team is better than me, they have amazing wingers, one of my FBs is slow, or I'm trying to see out a win. I'm more inclined to do this against a formation that really relies on amr/l for scoring, like a 433 or 343.
As always thank you very much for providing crucial evidence!
this would be true if they actually did that. My experience in france is that they aren't consistent about it.
First of all: This.
Something to think about though: if you're a bigger/smaller team, does the AI approach you differently? How do the AI coaches in the test db view the teams being tested? Is your personal situation similar or different?
An example in case that's not completely clear: I recently took over everton early into season 2. They were in like 19th, no wins, absolute whipping boy. Rolled out a very meta 424 and ended the season in a champions league spot.
Start the next season with the same tactic. Not so hot. Doing sorta-ok in europe and bouncing around 6th or 7th in the league. Now, why is this? Could be a lot of reasons, but could one of them be this: last season no one took me seriously, and this season they are taking me very seriously, and the 424 is too open in midfield and I'm getting countered through like city irl rn because opponents are playing less aggressively against me? Are they simply keeping more men behind the ball? Would I have been better served to have switched to a tactic like a 433 that is less top-heavy, even if according to the FMArena table it's marginally "worse"?
Does anyone have any info on this?
the answers as I recall are yes, yes, and yes. Having a player "welcome" them when they arrive also helps.
no effect on injuries?
AM(a)--creative type: take more risks, roam (tackle harder obvs
SS--just tackle harder
striker--still working on this, but I'm thinking I like best an attacking role that drops in and holds up: cf(a), dlp(a). Dlp(s) wasn't quite aggressive enough. Recently made an ingame tweak to AF, but he and the SS weren't working well together and so I went to two AM(a)s which seemed alright.
I guess it's how you want to manipulate the space. CF(a) dropping in sometimes gets you that amorim-esque pentagon with the vols pushing up and lots of runners attacking the back line. An AF is going to do more pushing the line back and creating space between defense and midfield.
2-1 seems to use the space better either way than a 1-2 setup. My feeling is that the dropping striker in a 2 and a dead-center AM are simply in each other's way sometimes. You could center one of the strikers and move the AM to one side, I suppose.
Anyway, keep trying. We need someone to crack the wingerless code
I've been using it in conjunction with lower tempo/waste time/set pieces/no counter set of instructions to see out games to preserve legs and it's working pretty well!
you love to see it
apparently it's 0.3
<snip>
Personally I got rid of "Take more risks" and "Cut inside" from my fullbacks and saw no meaningful change in play or results.
here's what happens sometimes on the leaderboard. Some tactic achieves a nice score. Everyone comes in and makes small tweaks, and eventually through skill or RNG, someone gets a score that is .2 higher or whatever. The whole thing starts over, and people start making small tweaks to the new leader.
It's kind of like evolution. Mutations accumulate over time, and not all of them are actually helping. Sometimes a neutral mutation just gets swept along for the ride. Eventually, maybe someone does some kind of a/b test to see if a certain instruction is actually making a difference, but it's hard to tease out the effects when there's multiple moving parts, and it's hard to get a big enough sample to be totally confident in the findings.
I also tend to run fewer instructions than some of the creators here. The only test that really matters is if it's working in your save for you.
p.s. I will say that I think the cut inside on the FBs is doing something--I've tried adding it here and there, and my very subjective and not at all data-supported feeling is that they're cutting inside with the ball more than before mostly in the second phase of buildup, around midfield.
I do these things sometimes:
-mentality to balanced
-if the other side has one amc, I will change one of my dms to a defensive duty
-if the other side has amr/l (esp. if it's a 433) fb(a) -> fb(s)
-against 342(narrow)1: both dms to defensive, fbs to wb(a), take off underlap
-underlap off against any tactic that wants to defend narrow, really.
-against pep the other day with his ifb-libero-ifb setup I took off underlap, told the ifs to stay wide and went anchor-vol(a). I still lost, but I got most of the highlights after the changes
Speaking other words, if you have TF role in your tactic then with a fast and short striker for that role your result always will be much better than if you had a strong, tall but slow striker.
I've just had a lightbulb moment. The reason small, speedy "target" forwards outrank more traditional target forwards has absolutely nothing at all to do with target forwards. It's because (being quick and fast) they're better at pressing.
Pressing is king. The reason speed and acc kill everything else in the attribute tests is because they're the #1 best way to improve your pressing effectiveness. Not only does the ball presser arrive sooner, but all his teammates will rotate quicker behind him.
That quicker forward gets to his man quicker, but he also is quicker to break into space if the press wins the ball elsewhere on the field.
If the meta wasn't so gegenpress-dominated, I think there'd be more room for big, slow target forwards. Currently, for a slow forward to pull their weight they need to bring something else to the party, whether that's playmaking or set pieces or something.
Sincere apologies if everyone else realized this ages ago and I'm just a little slow to pick up on it