Would you be able to share the editor files in that case? I would really like to take a look and at least make those changes for myself or if there's interest upload them here.
To keep it as similar as the original arena testing league, I would opt for just duplicating the five AI teams and formations instead of introducing other preset formations so I can double the amount of games in one test run. Expand Unfortunately, I cannot share the editor file. Sorry about that.
myheroine said: Great work @dzek! Really curious to test out some things that I always wondered about
Not sure if this has been mentioned before but does it make sense to add more human and AI teams to the save file so we can have more matches in one run? I don't know if there's a limit to human managers per game but if not, I was thinking of increasing the league to 20 teams? 10 human and 10 AI, so either duplicating the existing 5 AI formation teams or testing against other formations. If this does not have extreme performance impact, then I guess it should speed up the testing process.
Also, I intend to test in the following way but I'm not sure if this is fine or has some impact on RNG:
1. Load save file 2. Freeze with FMRTE 3. Load tactics for all managers 4. Go on holiday with all managers except last one (the two boxes are ticked) 5. Create new save file 6. Go on holiday with last manager
So every time I do a test run, I would only have to "manually" go on holiday for one manager which speeds up things a bit more - especially if it was possible to increase the amount of teams Expand Hi myheroine,
First of all, thank you for your kind words.
That's a good question that I've had in the past and it definitely increases the outcome for any tactic you test because you save time with a simple run of the season with much more games played. Having the other 8 preset tactics from the opponents also I think will give a better insight into your tactics(and it was also something I also suggested here on FM-Arena) but as was said then the three tactics now used in my test league are the most prevalent in the game.
I would love to upgrade this test league and I had intended to do so at the time I released it, but due to circumstances and some attitudes within the forum I decided to withdraw. Maybe in the future I'll get back into it and build something like this.
Gianaa9 said: Thank you mate, if it holds, it will be realized your prediction of few months ago about reaching almost 70 ahah Expand I'm following you... keep it up and I'm sure 70+
Few months ago, we made tweaks to our tactic testing league and from that time there's been an equal number of AI teams that IWB on the left side and on the right side, the same applies to Wingers and IF, also, from that point there're been AI teams without IWB at all.
So even if what you say works then it can't be applied to our testing league, because it has an equal numbers of AI teams that have IWB on the left side and on the right side. Expand Hi Zippo,
What I said above is about the regular game and not your test league. I forgot to mention that.
EDIT: I have screenshots of all AI Teams from Patch 24.2.0 (v1.0) - Tactic Testing, for 10 tests and they all seem to have WB on the left and IWB on the right. I share them here.
dakka said: 1st, 2nd, 3rd HoF Tactic Patch 24.3.0 have IF (R) and no IF (L) does IF (R) have more impact than IF (L) i'm curious Expand Hi dakka,
If your opponent is using IWB on one side or even both sides, you don't need to have wingers. The reason behind this, is because with the feature they advertised this year called "Positional Play", IWBs tend to move to the DM positions and thus the opponent "plays" with a player on the sides.
For example: If the opponent is playing with two IWBs and two Ws, then they have one person on each side. Then you will get the impression and say "then why not play FB/WB/CWB and W to have an advantage in those positions?" And I'll answer you right back. You will have superiority on the sides of the field however you will be vulnerable in the middle of the field. Then, that's where you have to consider which positions are more efficient, and as it turns out, AMRL positions don't play much of a role, besides you can see it from many others who play the game complaining about the superiority of DRL positions inside the MATCH ENGINE.
So my opinion is that playing ONLY FB/WB/CWB on the side where the opponent has IWB is the maximum you can get.
Important: You are free to try/play the game as you wish and what I say above cannot be considered as a rule of the game. It is my personal opinion and if you want you can test it and share your results with us.
Moved AMRL positions to MRL.
Moved AMCRL positions to STCRL.
Would you be able to share the editor files in that case? I would really like to take a look and at least make those changes for myself or if there's interest upload them here.
To keep it as similar as the original arena testing league, I would opt for just duplicating the five AI teams and formations instead of introducing other preset formations so I can double the amount of games in one test run.
Unfortunately, I cannot share the editor file. Sorry about that.
Not sure if this has been mentioned before but does it make sense to add more human and AI teams to the save file so we can have more matches in one run? I don't know if there's a limit to human managers per game but if not, I was thinking of increasing the league to 20 teams? 10 human and 10 AI, so either duplicating the existing 5 AI formation teams or testing against other formations. If this does not have extreme performance impact, then I guess it should speed up the testing process.
Also, I intend to test in the following way but I'm not sure if this is fine or has some impact on RNG:
1. Load save file
2. Freeze with FMRTE
3. Load tactics for all managers
4. Go on holiday with all managers except last one (the two boxes are ticked)
5. Create new save file
6. Go on holiday with last manager
So every time I do a test run, I would only have to "manually" go on holiday for one manager which speeds up things a bit more - especially if it was possible to increase the amount of teams
Hi myheroine,
First of all, thank you for your kind words.
That's a good question that I've had in the past and it definitely increases the outcome for any tactic you test because you save time with a simple run of the season with much more games played. Having the other 8 preset tactics from the opponents also I think will give a better insight into your tactics(and it was also something I also suggested here on FM-Arena) but as was said then the three tactics now used in my test league are the most prevalent in the game.
I would love to upgrade this test league and I had intended to do so at the time I released it, but due to circumstances and some attitudes within the forum I decided to withdraw. Maybe in the future I'll get back into it and build something like this.
Thanks a lot for your interest
I'm following you... keep it up and I'm sure 70+
Few months ago, we made tweaks to our tactic testing league and from that time there's been an equal number of AI teams that IWB on the left side and on the right side, the same applies to Wingers and IF, also, from that point there're been AI teams without IWB at all.
So even if what you say works then it can't be applied to our testing league, because it has an equal numbers of AI teams that have IWB on the left side and on the right side.
Hi Zippo,
What I said above is about the regular game and not your test league. I forgot to mention that.
EDIT: I have screenshots of all AI Teams from Patch 24.2.0 (v1.0) - Tactic Testing, for 10 tests and they all seem to have WB on the left and IWB on the right. I share them here.
does IF (R) have more impact than IF (L)
i'm curious
Hi dakka,
If your opponent is using IWB on one side or even both sides, you don't need to have wingers. The reason behind this, is because with the feature they advertised this year called "Positional Play", IWBs tend to move to the DM positions and thus the opponent "plays" with a player on the sides.
For example:
If the opponent is playing with two IWBs and two Ws, then they have one person on each side. Then you will get the impression and say "then why not play FB/WB/CWB and W to have an advantage in those positions?" And I'll answer you right back. You will have superiority on the sides of the field however you will be vulnerable in the middle of the field. Then, that's where you have to consider which positions are more efficient, and as it turns out, AMRL positions don't play much of a role, besides you can see it from many others who play the game complaining about the superiority of DRL positions inside the MATCH ENGINE.
So my opinion is that playing ONLY FB/WB/CWB on the side where the opponent has IWB is the maximum you can get.
Important: You are free to try/play the game as you wish and what I say above cannot be considered as a rule of the game. It is my personal opinion and if you want you can test it and share your results with us.
Changes:
AF to SS
Changes:
Positive mentality
removed Run At Defence, Focus Play, Overlaps, Distribute Quickly, Step Up More, Get Stuck In
added Invite Crosses
PF to AF
Changes:
removed 'Fairly Wide'
FBs to WBs
tweaks on PIs
Changes:
removed 'Wide'
added 'Fairly Wide'
Changes:
removed 'Narrow'
added 'Fairly Narrow'
Changes:
removed 'Narrow'
added 'Wide'
Changes:
removed 'Focus Play Down Both Flanks'
added 'Narrow'
Changes:
removed 'Focus Play Down Both Flanks'
Changes:
added 'Step Up More'