Zippo said: Ok, let's think whether "significantly worse" would be a correct definition in that case or not.
If we compare two of your tactics 4213 Striker Madness V5 and 4213 Striker Madness V6 then V6 scored "62.178" points and V5 scored "64.114" points so the difference between them is "1.936" points.
V6 was tested for 2,400 matches and in this case the highest possible RNG is "3" points.
V5 was tested for 4,000 matches and in this case the highest possible RNG is "2.5" points.
The above means than the 4,000 matches test of V5, where it scored "64.114", only revealed to us that the real score of the tactic is somewhere between "61.614" and "66.614" points, which means if we keep retesting V5 for 4,000 matches again and aging then in theory it might hit as low as "59.5" points and as high as "66.5", of course, "59.5" and "66.5" points for V5 would extreme values and the probability of their appearance would be no more than 5% and most of time we'll be getting "61", "62", "63" scores.
Please note, that in normal game when you play a standard season that consist of 38 matches the RNG can be as high as "20" points and that with using the same tactic!!! and now think whether "1.936" points difference can be defined as "significantly worse"? Expand
You're right...significantly wasn't the right choice of use in this context ). I forgot that v6 was tested for 2400. Thanks for the clarification
Tweaks from this: https://fm-arena.com/thread/9489-4213-striker-madness/ - changed the striker partnership to a PF+AF+PF - changed left FB to WB attack - changed the midfield duo to a double DM on support - removed asymmetry
Trying this tactic out. It's a 42112 double dm's, one center mid, one attacking mid and 2 strikers in an asymmetric formation. It's done really well in my test and also in my career
If we compare two of your tactics 4213 Striker Madness V5 and 4213 Striker Madness V6 then V6 scored "62.178" points and V5 scored "64.114" points so the difference between them is "1.936" points.
V6 was tested for 2,400 matches and in this case the highest possible RNG is "3" points.
V5 was tested for 4,000 matches and in this case the highest possible RNG is "2.5" points.
The above means than the 4,000 matches test of V5, where it scored "64.114", only revealed to us that the real score of the tactic is somewhere between "61.614" and "66.614" points, which means if we keep retesting V5 for 4,000 matches again and aging then in theory it might hit as low as "59.5" points and as high as "66.5", of course, "59.5" and "66.5" points for V5 would extreme values and the probability of their appearance would be no more than 5% and most of time we'll be getting "61", "62", "63" scores.
Please note, that in normal game when you play a standard season that consist of 38 matches the RNG can be as high as "20" points and that with using the same tactic!!! and now think whether "1.936" points difference can be defined as "significantly worse"?
You're right...significantly wasn't the right choice of use in this context
Glad it worked for you buddy
- added take more risks to FBs
- changed PF's to CF support
- added dribble more to FBs
I know...but cm's are so nerfed in this edition
I'm curious how it will do with dribble more on FB's. Now the FB's have only tackle harder as pi
- changed WBs to FBs
- changed the striker partnership to a PF+AF+PF
- changed left FB to WB attack
- changed the midfield duo to a double DM on support
- removed asymmetry
- changed AM to support and moved it to the left
- changed the dm's duo to a BWM defend + Volante attack combo with both moved to the right
- changed center AF to CF support
- changed left AM to attack
- removed overlaps
- changed Mezzala to CM attack
- removed overlaps
- moved AM support to IF support