dzek said: I understand what you're saying and I agree. My honest opinion is:
1. Reduce the tactics in the Hall of Fame - increase the range of scores that get in there. 2. All tactics in the Hall of Fame should be tested in 4000 games and if a tactic falls below the second best in the same formation, the second best tactic should be tested in 4000 games, etc. until a "winner" is found. 3. 2400 matches for a tactic to be done in some cases - when the creator wants it (and the admins agree of course) to see the difference in some changes he made to his tactics. Expand
Yeah not a bad shout that. For me, I think spliting the results based on matches played in the tables page would be useful too especially when comparing, so you'd have all the results for 1200 matches, then a separate page for 2400 matches and again for 4000 matches. That way then the results will stick for matches played
dzek said: I'll try to answer briefly but surely the admins can answer it better.
Tactics from a certain point onwards, for example say score 57, are all good in general.
Now regarding tactics that score 62 in 2400 games and others that score 62 again in 1200 games I think a decision should be made on how many games all tactics will be tested. But actually that is not the real problem. The problem is that most authors make zero to minimal changes to every tactic they bring up and that causes this mess on the table. Expand
Aye I get that, I wanted to use deformation as my example but I couldn't remember what it scored after 1200 matches, think it 65 but couldn't remember. But my point is that tactic although it has been tested for 4000 matches, its potentially dropped 3 points and now probably doesn't get the attention it should due to other tactics around it scoring similar but over less matches.
If we put the 1200 matches into perspective then we are potentially looking at 17 seasons (if we were looking at a 70 game season) and by the point people have hopefully built an OP team so the swing in RNG should be reduced but I just feel the more and more matches tactics are tested for then the OP tactics are sort of lost within the tactics that haven't been tested as much.
@Zippo@Droid would it possible to be add a filter to the tables for 1200 game, 2400 games and 4000 games please? I'm only asking because I feel that tactics which have been tested for more games are somewhat penalised in a way.
I know it might sound petty but I think it will give a better idea of which tactic is better over 1200 matches, I mean even this tactic which is a belter dropped 1 point when tested for 2400 matches and is now showing as being on par with others when in fact over 1200 it scored higher.
Sorry if I haven't explained it properly but in summary would it possibly to see results in the table for 1200, 2400 and 4000 matches please
rfsm said: Thank you, so i can do it both ways, just have to select the new file on the RT File (on the newgan software), and then do the xml config thing. Is that it? Expand
Yeah mate, either way will work, probably best doing a new file and deleting the old one. Starting a fresh file will be easier
Ok...
I do love a GIF haha
https://fm-arena.com/thread/2733-how-fm-arena-picks-tactics-for-the-testing/
Changes -
Increased tempo
Removed distribute quickly
Changes -
Overlap removed
Focus down flanks added
So admittedly I messed up with the previous upload as I was meant to upload the overlap version not the underlap
Changes -
Underlap to Overlap
Changes -
IFs to IFa
Overlap to Underlap
Changes -
WBa to IWBa
Overlap removed
Underlap added
I've also left hold position on DM roles to encourage the IWB to be the "underlap"
Its a mash up of Katana 4231 106p and Best Of Both Worlds v3.3
Well played @Blau Love the fact you've managed to implement the IFB role too.
1. Reduce the tactics in the Hall of Fame - increase the range of scores that get in there.
2. All tactics in the Hall of Fame should be tested in 4000 games and if a tactic falls below the second best in the same formation, the second best tactic should be tested in 4000 games, etc. until a "winner" is found.
3. 2400 matches for a tactic to be done in some cases - when the creator wants it (and the admins agree of course) to see the difference in some changes he made to his tactics.
Yeah not a bad shout that. For me, I think spliting the results based on matches played in the tables page would be useful too especially when comparing, so you'd have all the results for 1200 matches, then a separate page for 2400 matches and again for 4000 matches. That way then the results will stick for matches played
Tactics from a certain point onwards, for example say score 57, are all good in general.
Now regarding tactics that score 62 in 2400 games and others that score 62 again in 1200 games I think a decision should be made on how many games all tactics will be tested. But actually that is not the real problem. The problem is that most authors make zero to minimal changes to every tactic they bring up and that causes this mess on the table.
Aye I get that, I wanted to use deformation as my example but I couldn't remember what it scored after 1200 matches, think it 65 but couldn't remember. But my point is that tactic although it has been tested for 4000 matches, its potentially dropped 3 points and now probably doesn't get the attention it should due to other tactics around it scoring similar but over less matches.
If we put the 1200 matches into perspective then we are potentially looking at 17 seasons (if we were looking at a 70 game season) and by the point people have hopefully built an OP team so the swing in RNG should be reduced but I just feel the more and more matches tactics are tested for then the OP tactics are sort of lost within the tactics that haven't been tested as much.
e.g This tactic https://fm-arena.com/thread/7622-katana-4231-106pts/ achieved 63 points over 1200 matches, but dropped 2 points after 2400 matches, however this tactic https://fm-arena.com/thread/7723-4231-hegemony-through-dzek-tweak-v2/ has scored 62 over 1200 and is placed higher in the table.
I know it might sound petty but I think it will give a better idea of which tactic is better over 1200 matches, I mean even this tactic which is a belter dropped 1 point when tested for 2400 matches and is now showing as being on par with others when in fact over 1200 it scored higher.
Sorry if I haven't explained it properly but in summary would it possibly to see results in the table for 1200, 2400 and 4000 matches please
Changes -
Increased tempo to higher
Nothing
Changes -
Removed overlaps
Removed get stuck in
Removed set up more
Removed focus play down flanks
Removed pass into space
Removed run at defence
Yeah mate, either way will work, probably best doing a new file and deleting the old one. Starting a fresh file will be easier