Nice idea, good luck. I just know if it was fm22, you could use a lone RPM and change the 2xAM(s) to 2xSS(a). But probably won’t get away with that now. Might even need the DM to be on defend duty
ZaZ said: I'm not saying brute testing doesn't work, there are some well known people that release ten tactics per day changing just some minor instruction, until one of them gives good results. All I am suggesting is to make the queue more fair for those that test things thoroughly before uploading here, using some very simple scheduling system like round robin. This system will not hurt much people that do brute testing, but will greatly benefit those that try to understand their tactics before posting. Expand
Yes, exactly. I prefer to test over and over in my own database before sharing here.
Brute force here will work, but it’s not a very efficient use of @Zippo’s resource
ZaZ said: This version has higher chance to succeed dribbling when compared to FM22, with more dribbles completed per match, and less accuracy on passes, with way more interceptions. Playing through the middle favors passing, while playing through the flanks favors dribbling. The results from top of table confirm that. Expand
Great insight, cheers. Also suggests what kind of transfers to pursue, dribblers over passers (and pace over all )
Delicious said: Everything was already tested. Even the counter-press. The only thing i don't quite know and how many points is giving underlaps or not. Expand
This testing is only conclusive if we view each instruction as being worth ‘x’ points, in total isolation of the rest of the tactic. I don’t agree it works like this.
You’ve tested the impact of overlaps… in that exact shape/roles/instructions. For a different tactic it doesn’t necessarily translate across 1:1
CBP87 said: You tried underlaps with focus play through middle? Expand
I haven’t, that’s a good idea!
ZaZ said: I will do one last test in this patch, switching IWB for WB, and W for IF, to see if that improves the tactic. If it doesn't, then I will wait for next patch before testing more. Expand
Gotcha, is another match engine update expected soon? I can’t remember when 22.3 came last year
My most recent submission is also double VOL with IWB and I like the way it played but I was quite confused by the IWB positioning. Far fewer runs up the middle than I saw in fm22, which is why I selected overlaps instead of underlaps. Did you notice this too? I wonder if VOL position interferes and they prefer to go wider
CBP87 said: I don't think there is a tier system as such and as obvious as this may sound, I think roles are impacted by the style you play, playing a DLF in a gegenpress isn't going to be as effective as playing a pressing forward.
But it is a good point, I often use the presets to understand which roles suit each style Expand
I agree with this. Different roles combine with different tactics...differently. I'm sure you could make a tactic where a Target Man is most successful in the middle, and changing it to any other role including AF, gives worse result.
On the other hand, overall a tactic is usually better with AF than other roles, but this is not really possible to test. Its also why I think you have to take the "tactical instruction testing" with a pinch of salt. If an entirely different tactical shape was used for the base, the results would be entirely different for many instructions. Overall, its still a nice indicator
Top 4 all finished within 1 point surprisingly.
Cheers, hadn't seen this
- Left DM --> VOL(A)
- Right DM --> added PI 'take more risks'
- Right FB --> WB(A)
Holiday'd a season in Premier League.
Yes, exactly. I prefer to test over and over in my own database before sharing here.
Brute force here will work, but it’s not a very efficient use of @Zippo’s resource
Great insight, cheers. Also suggests what kind of transfers to pursue, dribblers over passers (and pace over all
This testing is only conclusive if we view each instruction as being worth ‘x’ points, in total isolation of the rest of the tactic. I don’t agree it works like this.
You’ve tested the impact of overlaps… in that exact shape/roles/instructions. For a different tactic it doesn’t necessarily translate across 1:1
Edit: Tested with Leeds + Palace
I haven’t, that’s a good idea!
ZaZ said: I will do one last test in this patch, switching IWB for WB, and W for IF, to see if that improves the tactic. If it doesn't, then I will wait for next patch before testing more.
Gotcha, is another match engine update expected soon? I can’t remember when 22.3 came last year
But it is a good point, I often use the presets to understand which roles suit each style
I agree with this. Different roles combine with different tactics...differently. I'm sure you could make a tactic where a Target Man is most successful in the middle, and changing it to any other role including AF, gives worse result.
On the other hand, overall a tactic is usually better with AF than other roles, but this is not really possible to test. Its also why I think you have to take the "tactical instruction testing" with a pinch of salt. If an entirely different tactical shape was used for the base, the results would be entirely different for many instructions. Overall, its still a nice indicator