Middleweight165 said: What is the etiquette of testing tactics published by other authors on different sites? Of course referencing them as the author and not claiming the tactic as my own. I'm thinking of the well known names in the community who always publish successful tactics and it would be nice to compare them against the tactics here. Is it allowed? Expand
Ajax said: You should test on less strong teams to know if your tactics work correctly Expand
There’s no reason for it actually, since rng factor is too high on sole non-freezed holiday run. Testing with City, Brentford or WH doesn’t give any difference beside the fact that some formations don’t suit a team at all. Like testing 3stc formations with Chelsea (but they’re a great for strikerless )
P.S. and if a tactic doesn’t score too high, but don’t fail totally in conditioned testing league with what I like to see it’s more than OK from my point of view
this one is 433 with an inverted central trio
there's an option for this
and it looks like this: https://fm-arena.com/thread/4882-stephenhk-s-shaolin-4123-v5-1/
p.s. can't speak about etiquette, but it looks OK to me to put a tactic for testing, if some author doesn't post here
gotta stay with this
we have to w8 for changes in M.E. to recreate new Pep/Klopp
WB to IWb w/o run forward
dm on support
dribble more and shoot less for wb
BPDs on def + cover
no flanks and overs/unders
DMs on hold
MHD, overlaps
+ F9
There’s no reason for it actually, since rng factor is too high on sole non-freezed holiday run. Testing with City, Brentford or WH doesn’t give any difference beside the fact that some formations don’t suit a team at all. Like testing 3stc formations with Chelsea (but they’re a great for strikerless
P.S. and if a tactic doesn’t score too high, but don’t fail totally in conditioned testing league with what I like to see it’s more than OK from my point of view
one more try with BWM and classic narrow IFs