brainbox said: Do you happen to have a test league where every team is completely equal? Or would it best easy to edit this one to do that. As I want to test things like different attribute changes compared to other teams and PPMs. Expand
All positions have the same attributes in all teams inside the league. If you mean every player to have equals attributes with any player of the league without consider the player’s position then no. I keep that logic on my league. You still have the opportunity to change things with the help of FMRTE tool.
Zebryn said: Where to find the weight from the game? and is this spreadsheet still valid? Expand Hello,
You don't have to find anything on your own. Just download my files and use them as I said in the first post. I think they are valid, but right now there are more effective ways to evaluate your players/staff.
I can't help you further at this time because I'm away from the game for a long time and I don't make changes/updates to my files anymore.
SalientSalmorejo said: Could someone please explain how to use the excel sheet? There are currently 11 human-controlled teams and 15 tables. Expand Hi @SalientSalmorejo,
After you finished with a run of the Test League you just copy GF, GA and PTS of your teams. Follow these steps at least for 3 times (1st table, 2nd table and then 3rd table - from left to right). Your results will be shown on the 4th table in the right side.
@Gerrard this should be a tactic that needs more testings. It produces some good results according @Gianaa9 HoF tactic too. If you can, experiment a little bit more on this
Hi @chanho, if you can, try the opposite of that and use these: • STCR -> PF - Su • AML -> ML (W - Su) • MR -> AMR (IF - At) • DMCR -> DM - Su • DL -> IWB - Su • DR -> FB - At
While I agree that we can't measure GKs for whether the "Tackle Harder" PI affects them, it doesn't seem to actually do anything. I wonder why SI added this PI to the GKs.
CBP87 said: Interesting, I wonder how 2 DLFs on support would fare. Good insight there pal Expand I think someone already tried it with 2 DLFs but it didn't work out and I think the reason is that DLFs are more creative players than PFs. Also CFs are more aggressive than PFs and I don't think that role will work either.
I personally categorize the attacking roles within the game like this:
Creative strikers - Deep Lying Forward - Trequartista - False Nine
Support strikers - Pressing Forward - Target Forward
This setup, featuring two PFs on support duty and two IFs on attack duty, seems effective. I've crafted a similar setup before, and it performed well. EF 424 IF P105 AC (Dzek Tweak 1)
Here are some insights from this year's FM with this specific arrangement: - The PFs drop back into the AM positions to play a more active role in the build up of attacks, drawing the opposing team's center-backs out of position. This movement creates opportunities for other players, particularly the IFs, to exploit spaces behind the defense. - The new "Positional Play" feature shows that if the wing players converge towards the centre with or without the ball and the central players shift to AM roles, the wing players become less effective due to the priority they give to central movements. This explains the discrepancy in scores with the previous VOL test and with this test.
Further analysis of this setup could yield interesting results.
All positions have the same attributes in all teams inside the league. If you mean every player to have equals attributes with any player of the league without consider the player’s position then no. I keep that logic on my league. You still have the opportunity to change things with the help of FMRTE tool.
Thanks 😉
Hello,
You don't have to find anything on your own. Just download my files and use them as I said in the first post. I think they are valid, but right now there are more effective ways to evaluate your players/staff.
I can't help you further at this time because I'm away from the game for a long time and I don't make changes/updates to my files anymore.
Hi @SalientSalmorejo,
After you finished with a run of the Test League you just copy GF, GA and PTS of your teams. Follow these steps at least for 3 times (1st table, 2nd table and then 3rd table - from left to right). Your results will be shown on the 4th table in the right side.
I mean if you have time to create more variations with different PIs on this formation maybe it gets more points than 63.
Not exactly. I suggested something different from this. Its not tested by anyone yet what I'm suggesting.
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/40188/
• STCR -> PF - Su
• AML -> ML (W - Su)
• MR -> AMR (IF - At)
• DMCR -> DM - Su
• DL -> IWB - Su
• DR -> FB - At
SK(De) to SK(Su)
PF(At) to PF(Su)
@mmigueis, you can find those tests here.
EDIT: In the meantime I have also looked at the 'Take More Risks' PI (with and without) and I have not found anything that should be announced.
I think someone already tried it with 2 DLFs but it didn't work out and I think the reason is that DLFs are more creative players than PFs. Also CFs are more aggressive than PFs and I don't think that role will work either.
I personally categorize the attacking roles within the game like this:
Creative strikers
- Deep Lying Forward
- Trequartista
- False Nine
Support strikers
- Pressing Forward
- Target Forward
Attacking strikers
- Complete Forward
- Advanced Forward
- Poacher
Here are some insights from this year's FM with this specific arrangement:
- The PFs drop back into the AM positions to play a more active role in the build up of attacks, drawing the opposing team's center-backs out of position. This movement creates opportunities for other players, particularly the IFs, to exploit spaces behind the defense.
- The new "Positional Play" feature shows that if the wing players converge towards the centre with or without the ball and the central players shift to AM roles, the wing players become less effective due to the priority they give to central movements. This explains the discrepancy in scores with the previous VOL test and with this test.
Further analysis of this setup could yield interesting results.
Hi brother,
I don’t play anymore FM24 because I don’t have time. Sorry
Did you try this tactic with “Wide” attacking width?