ZaZ said: Thank you for testing. Fire is just a new name for Blue in FM23. It is the same tactic, just converted to the new match engine.
For everyone else waiting, remember we are here just to have fun. I am checking some different instructions, and it's pretty hard to measure with precision when you don't have the editor to make testing more stable. One thing is to test instructions individually, another thing completely different is to test the synergy between two or more instructions. It takes time, even more when I can't make a special league to test yet.
Anyway, here is the best I came up to now. I am still trying to find some improvements before I start testing different formations and roles. Keep in mind that the difference is not very high, and might even be non-existent after I test with more precision, but right now, my tests say there is a difference statistically significant. Let me know how it works for you! Expand
CBP87 said: So you find someone saying "bad" as constructive?? Expand
Not just 'bad' he will also say if the tactic is 'very very very bad' with a test table showing how bad it is.
So yes I don't need an essay explaining why some tactic is bad, plenty of tactics out which look good on paper then we test them and then we find out the hard way how bad they are
CBP87 said: @Lampochka97 stop being a nob and offer constructive feedback on the tactics you are testing instead of just saying bad. I mean this tactic finished 2nd with Chelsea in what seems an elite testing league and yet you state there are better tactics. How about saying "nice going, did well in my test league" Expand
I find it constructive, straight to the point, no beating around the bush so we know not to touch the tactic.
Looks like a ZAZ influenced tactic, all the TI are the same as ZAZ and player roles minus the AM and one winger on attack by which should be credit made to zaz and called a tweak instead of pretending you came up with the tactic all by yourself.
First match with 0.3 (CL semi final)
For everyone else waiting, remember we are here just to have fun. I am checking some different instructions, and it's pretty hard to measure with precision when you don't have the editor to make testing more stable. One thing is to test instructions individually, another thing completely different is to test the synergy between two or more instructions. It takes time, even more when I can't make a special league to test yet.
Anyway, here is the best I came up to now. I am still trying to find some improvements before I start testing different formations and roles. Keep in mind that the difference is not very high, and might even be non-existent after I test with more precision, but right now, my tests say there is a difference statistically significant. Let me know how it works for you!
Good man
To be fair, he is unrealistically overpowered in reality too.
Look forward to it. Is it the same shape as zaz Fire?
When do you think you'll have it ready matey?
Not just 'bad' he will also say if the tactic is 'very very very bad' with a test table showing how bad it is.
So yes I don't need an essay explaining why some tactic is bad, plenty of tactics out which look good on paper then we test them and then we find out the hard way how bad they are
I find it constructive, straight to the point, no beating around the bush so we know not to touch the tactic.
Testers should be putting in the work, people making decent tactics and the majority have moved on
17 prem games 16 wins, 1 draw. Small sample size but the AI teams are going nuts...