This combination of responsibilities is not in line with the characteristics of the engine, I try my best to do the best, but with the mainstream configuration is still a big gap, look at the result.
Chris said: What advice can you give me if I want to put the CF to AM? Should I change the Ap's? I'm struggling trying to get good tests with 4-3-1-2 without flanks Expand
I think this tactic relies too much on the parallel position of the three forwards, and it may collapse with a high probability to become 4312.
CSTG KANE said: One paradox I have, and this is my personal understanding, is that regarding the role of tactical settings, I personally believe that tactical board commands work ≥ character default commands > character optional commands, but of course this may have to do with tactical flexibility Expand
That's true. The current setup of this tactic has been almost developed to the extreme, more detailed, your difference is actually clean player personal instructions, so you this change is crucial, through the ceiling. As for the "Pass into space" command, based on the results of many people's tests, including my own, it should not be too important.
I have a question, is this tactical score increase from "Pass Into Space" or clean individual player instructions? I think it's the latter, but your other tactical post someone brought it up because of the former? What do you think?
TurtleKing said: Are you sure it's all about PI making this tactic getting 63 points compared to your 62 points? I feel like a team instruction like passing into space is super important, and can make a difference. It can alone be those 3-4 more goals scored. Your deformation tactic has that instruction and scored 71 goals, while the hegemony 4-2-3-1 scored 63 goals. I do like the wingers play more narrow and wingbacks play more wide ingame. It makes up so much space for the wingbacks, while the box is crowded with attackers. Expand
Yes, I think so. In fact, this current best duty combination of 4231 tactics, I have tested myself several times in version 24.1, and used in online matches. Including whether there is a "Pass Into Space" and whether the DMS has a forward press command. Although my personal test sample is certainly not enough, but based on the actual effect and the combination engine, I think the "Pass Into Space" command is really unnecessary in this tactic. It could be that I'm wrong, but at the moment I think so, and we'll need further tests to know for sure.
CSTG KANE said: Hi a smile, I heard about you a long time ago, thanks for the reply! I've been experimenting with duty pairings, but the current version of WBA duty is just a bit too strong for it to be a hundred percent. I have also played in an online league, but that was a couple years ago and I remember it being called ZQZ. I have been thinking about playing in a PGM league when I have time to look into it! Expand
This tactic may have reached the ceiling of the current engine, and your simplification of individual player instructions, especially by removing taking More Risks, has really raised the ceiling of this tactic, which is a great innovation!
dzek said: I agree but the point I was making was to test all HoF tactics up to 4000 matches, not all 4231 tactics.
I have done several tests in my own environment and it seems that this year the 4231 - 424 - 442 shapes are outperforming. But how can you see the difference some PIs will have in some positions when you don't at least test the first tactics in each formation until 4000 matches to know what stays and what goes?
An example.. Here I have tried exactly the same tactic with 2 slight differences and have gotten the same score. 4231 - WITH Take More Risks on AM and AF. 4231 - WITHOUT Take More Risks on AM and AF. Expand
You are right that some seemingly insignificant details may indeed have an impact and should be tried to change. And I think Kane's purge of individual player directives has been very effective, Without taking More Risks seems really important.
4231 How strong is this portfolio of responsibilities? Take a look at KNAP's answer. very attacking+ Balanced rhythm +more diect passing can also get the highest score.
dzek said: We've also seen the downside that some systems have stayed at 2400 matches and we don't know if they're going to progress, get worse or stay the same. I'm talking specifically about the tactics that are within the HoF.
EDIT: And as I've said many times it would be nice in the HoF section to have tactics that have equal or more than 1.51 PPG because all results are converted to regular season games and in a regular season if you don't have at least half the points then it's not considered as an overachieve.
The reason behind this is because we are aiming to overachieve with a team that has a CA average that is in the middle of the league. If we use the best or worst team then the RNG will be higher due to the skill of our players and so the score here will not fully represent the results we get in a regular season or over time. Expand
As we discussed before, the 4231 tactical combination of duties, the effect of various Settings are very good, not even the ARENA 4000 match test can draw accurate conclusions, still has 1~2 RNG. Many players don't know which commands are critical or useful, so there is a lot of overlapping tactics. In fact, they have succeeded, but 1200 games of RNG killed them, and the work really does not mean much. In fact, there are some other good tactics because of RNG was "mistakenly killed", this is actually no way, ARENA has done enough. Therefore, I think it is not necessary to continuously make some meaningful changes to the 4231 tactics for the current combination of responsibilities, after all, luck will always be the first. Do your own challenges like BLAU did.
good job! We are from the same country and I would often browse the PGM forums, so I have seen your tactical posts. You may not have been checking ARENA's tactical posts often before, so I found that your previous tactics overlapped a lot with others (although there are others doing the same), but this tactic clearly has your personal elements, IFS+IFA, cleaner player personal instructions, congratulations on the top! Have time to play online leagues, you must know the famous online leagues.
DMS Add "Get Further Forward"
It doesn't seem satisfactory. Let's make a comparison.
I think this tactic relies too much on the parallel position of the three forwards, and it may collapse with a high probability to become 4312.
is the CF most likely to score or the AFs?
In this structure, I think all three are similar. AF needs to pull the side to attack, CFS will also fight for the center of the attack.
That's true. The current setup of this tactic has been almost developed to the extreme, more detailed, your difference is actually clean player personal instructions, so you this change is crucial, through the ceiling. As for the "Pass into space" command, based on the results of many people's tests, including my own, it should not be too important.
Yes, I think so. In fact, this current best duty combination of 4231 tactics, I have tested myself several times in version 24.1, and used in online matches. Including whether there is a "Pass Into Space" and whether the DMS has a forward press command. Although my personal test sample is certainly not enough, but based on the actual effect and the combination engine, I think the "Pass Into Space" command is really unnecessary in this tactic. It could be that I'm wrong, but at the moment I think so, and we'll need further tests to know for sure.
This tactic may have reached the ceiling of the current engine, and your simplification of individual player instructions, especially by removing taking More Risks, has really raised the ceiling of this tactic, which is a great innovation!
I have done several tests in my own environment and it seems that this year the 4231 - 424 - 442 shapes are outperforming. But how can you see the difference some PIs will have in some positions when you don't at least test the first tactics in each formation until 4000 matches to know what stays and what goes?
An example..
Here I have tried exactly the same tactic with 2 slight differences and have gotten the same score.
4231 - WITH Take More Risks on AM and AF.
4231 - WITHOUT Take More Risks on AM and AF.
You are right that some seemingly insignificant details may indeed have an impact and should be tried to change. And I think Kane's purge of individual player directives has been very effective, Without taking More Risks seems really important.
EDIT: And as I've said many times it would be nice in the HoF section to have tactics that have equal or more than 1.51 PPG because all results are converted to regular season games and in a regular season if you don't have at least half the points then it's not considered as an overachieve.
The reason behind this is because we are aiming to overachieve with a team that has a CA average that is in the middle of the league. If we use the best or worst team then the RNG will be higher due to the skill of our players and so the score here will not fully represent the results we get in a regular season or over time.
As we discussed before, the 4231 tactical combination of duties, the effect of various Settings are very good, not even the ARENA 4000 match test can draw accurate conclusions, still has 1~2 RNG. Many players don't know which commands are critical or useful, so there is a lot of overlapping tactics. In fact, they have succeeded, but 1200 games of RNG killed them, and the work really does not mean much. In fact, there are some other good tactics because of RNG was "mistakenly killed", this is actually no way, ARENA has done enough. Therefore, I think it is not necessary to continuously make some meaningful changes to the 4231 tactics for the current combination of responsibilities, after all, luck will always be the first. Do your own challenges like BLAU did.
Sure, but I don't think it will improve, the overall tactical fix will limit WB's behavior. And shouldn't WB's cut-in shot be more of a threat?