CSTG KANE said: Unlike the previous tilted version, this version has symmetrical duties and is therefore a more stable formation Expand So the only change is the right IF on support duty..
mertalaman said: When i tried open new post , ı got warning tactic is already exist or smth like that please delete this post or just try this tactic Expand Bro just edit your first post. Thats all!
A Smile said: 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. Expand I agree but the point I was making was to test all HoF tactics up to 4000 matches, not all 4231 tactics.
A Smile said: Do your own challenges like BLAU did. Expand 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.
CSTG KANE said: I'm referring to the results of Test #3, which looks a bit bad Expand I don't think it's something to worry about since the overall result is what speaks in the end but until we know the RNG range for this year then we don't really know which tactic is better than the other.
CSTG KANE said: Yes, I had some doubts and disappointments when I saw the results of test 3 Expand What do you mean the results of test 3? Test number 3 or 3rd run of tests?
pixar said: I think we saw the positive effect of more matches for the first time. The tactic, which received 62 points with 2400 matches, received 63 points with 4000. Interesting Expand 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 1.50 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.
Eddie said: The attacking power is clear, but I would like to know if there are advantages in using the balanced approach when your team is weaker and playing away from home or needs to hold the result against a big team at the end of games, especially away.
So the only change is the right IF on support duty..
Shorter Passing -> Standard Passing
IW -> W
DLP -> DM
WB on support
2 SS instead of 1 AM and 1 CM.
Shorter Passing -> Standard Passing
IW -> W
AM -> SS
Shorter Passing -> Standard Passing
Bro just edit your first post. Thats all!
I agree but the point I was making was to test all HoF tactics up to 4000 matches, not all 4231 tactics.
A Smile said: Do your own challenges like BLAU did.
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.
I don't think it's something to worry about since the overall result is what speaks in the end but until we know the RNG range for this year then we don't really know which tactic is better than the other.
What do you mean the results of test 3? Test number 3 or 3rd run of tests?
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 1.50 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.
Does it indicate continuing the attack or changing to balanced, positive or another suggestion?
Read here - https://fm-arena.com/thread/7458-is-it-worth-to-use-defensive-tactics-away-from-home/