ta2199 said: As @ZaZ suggested, I would love to see how assymetric Blue would do with an playmaker help connect CM and SS together. And as you can see both CM and SS score a lots. Test Result:
Changes: 1 SS(A) → AP(A) (with PIs added) Formation change to assysmetric Expand
SS(A) -> AP(A) has been tested like a million times in many different tactics and it never made any significant difference, it was like 0.1% difference and most of time it was a negative difference.
Check other tested tactics and you see that many people have tried already AP instead of SS/AM in their tactics and it never did any good.
Also, people have tried already many other changes like:
CM(A) -> BBM/DM/BWM
IWB -> WB/FB/CWB
DW -> W
BPD -> CD
W(S) -> W(A)
and so on...
I suggest to learn from other people experience because a lot things have been tested very well in FM21.
goatmas said: Are you guys learning players traits? For example run into space on shadow strikers, get forward on central midfielder. And have you found any success/must have traits? Expand
Here's what @ZaZ said about traits in other thread
ZaZ said: In short, you only want traits that enforce what the tactic asks the player to do. Anything else has potential to disrupt the flow of the tactics.
For example, if a position has the instruction "hold back", then add "stay back at all times", but never "get further forward", since that would be opposite of what the tactic asks him to do. Expand
ZaZ said: I just tested here in the editor. First, I picked Messi and made him have 20 in one position and 0 in each other. As a DC, his RCA is 130, while as AMC his RCA is 192. When I make him have 20 in two different positions, he gets the RCA from the highest, no matter which position I add. There are a few exceptions in which RCA is higher than both positions, like ST + DC or ST + DL/R. When I add any third or fourth position, the RCA always increases. I did the same with Piqué and results were similar. Expand
As I answered @Xavinwonderland at the begging of the thread everything is quite simple and you don't need to know all those geeky formulas and it's enough knowing the following simple facts:
1) It's extremely hard or almost impossible for a player to forget his "natural" position, he might not play on it or not train it but he won't forget it, it stays "natural" during his career or for very long time even he doesn't "use" it.
2) You can't turn a pure defender into a pure striker. I mean you can't make a defender to forget how to play a defender and teach him how to play a striker BUT it doesn't mean that you can't teach a defender to play a striker. Yes, you can do that so he'll be capable of playing both positions a defender and a striker the same time but such ability will cost him a price so his attributes will be lower and that's how it works, any additional playing position always cost something.
Xavinwonderland said: OK interesting but when is that recalculation happening and on what basis? Because the guy is still considered by the game to be a defender so the cost cannot be the same as am for a striker. So average of the 2? Only for future points or even for already allocated points? Expand
I'll try to put it in a very simple way.
When a player can only play a striker then he pays only for the ability to play a striker so it's cheap.
When a player can play a striker and a midfielder then he pays more for both abilities so it's more expensive.
When a player can play a striker and a midfielder and a defender then he pays even more so it becomes very expensive.
When a player learns a new playing position then re-calculation happens and his attributes randomly decrease to fit the new price for the attributes.
Xavinwonderland said: OK I take from that that the player natural position is hard coded and will never change. If that is the case this is ever better for what I want to do. As the weight of the attribute cost will be completely de correlated from the position familiarity Expand
You get it wrong.
You think that if you take a defender, Acceleration attribute costs cheaper for a defender than it cost for a striker and train him to play a striker then you'll get Acceleration attribute cheaply but that's not how it works when he learns playing a striker then a recalculation of CA will happen and Acceleration attribute will start costing as he were a striker and that's how it works.
Xavinwonderland said: I think it depends. Physical attributes are pretty much the only thing that matters for the match engine so if I have anybody with strong physical attributes I can retrain him to play anything basically as ultimately I don't care if my defender ends up with 10 tackling or my striker ends up with 5 finishing.
I agree that it would take time but for someone coming out from the youth intake you basically have 3 years which is quite a lot of time to get them in a decent junior role. Of course they have to get the right starting physical attributes. I will run some tests when I'm home and post them here. I had hoped that someone had gone through the process already. Expand
I see where your confusion comes from. You suppose that it's easy for a player to forget his "natural" playing position but that's not true. A player might not play on his natural position or not train it for very long time but he won't "forget" it. As I said I don't remember that a player drops his natural playing position.
Xavinwonderland said: Thanks but this is not what I meant. My point would be let's assume that I have a young striker coming out of my youth intake. Let's assume his CA will be 90 and his PA 160. He has a lot of room to grow. I now start training him as a defender. Is the cost of all the future points attributed using the weight for striker or defender? Because that would lead to a massive difference in potential points. Bonus question what is the exact trigger? (I have read that it could be position familiarity that would decide if the game considers you to be a striker or a defender) but if the player only trains as a defender but rarely plays it will take ages to achieve familiarity as a defender (which would be good as we could load up more cheap attributes points onto him) Expand
You're complicating things and talking about unrealistic scenarios and things that don't make sense.
I've already told you already it works quite simple.
If you got a pure striker from your youth intake and you want him to be as efficient as possible at the STC position then don't train him any other positions. If you want him to cover some other positions then you can train him to play there but he won't be the same efficient at the STC position as if it was the only his playing position.
P.S. I don't think it's possible for a player "to forget" his "natural" playing position, at least I don't remember I've seen it.
Xavinwonderland said: I have been searching the forums for a clear answer on this but couldn't not find anything clear.
When a player gains attribute points the CA cost will depend on its position so increasing tackling for instance will be very expensive for a defender but pretty much free for a striker.
What happens if I have a striker that I retrain as a defender? Is the cost increase based on being a striker? A defender? An average of the 2?
Is it possible to min/max by keeping it natural as a striker and only accomplished as a defender so that the tackling cost is using the striker weight rather than the defender weights? Expand
The position training works really simple. If you train a player an additional position then it inevitably leads to decreasing of his attributes, of course, if his CA stays the same and doesn't increase because if it works differently and additional position doesn't cost anything then everyone would want to train their players as many positions as possible which would be imbalanced.
kireby said: What do you train guys usually? E.g. I have a forward retrained to SS with pace and acc 17. What should i train? Only attributes from that table or something else? Expand
Focusing the training on the most influencing attributes from the fm-arena table would be a good choice.
ZaZ said: In my opinion, the best part of this tactic is to have two DMs instead of one DM and one CM, meaning you have an easier time building a balanced squad. Expand
I think when it come to the difficulty of building a team for a tactic then Void tactic is the winner because for it you need having only 5 different positions instead of having 7-8 different positions as other tactics require. Also, it uses AMs, CMs, DMs and there're many players who can cover multiple positions at the same time like CM and DM or AM and CM so it makes building your team even more easier.
karaholic said: hi i loved this tactic and my strikers scored like crazy but this has stopped for a full season one of my top striker failed to score goals but the results werent bad. why is my striker failing to score goals like he did for me previous seasons?? Expand
The game is very complicated, there're hundred different factors that affect the result so it's very hard to say something, it cold be just luck/unluck
Gaksital said: When using the Long throw-ins, I frequently found that our throw-ins intercepted by the opposing defender and immediately exposed to the risk of counterattacks.
In additon, I found out that tactics without throw-in set pieces were also highly rated at the table as those with it.
Is there any experiment on the Long throw-ins effect, conducted in 21.4.0 patch? Expand
Hi,
Look at these:
https://fm-arena.com/thread/1076-my-tactic-doesn-t-work-help-me-please/
https://fm-arena.com/thread/1074-mythbusters-the-ai-learns-your-tactic-tactics-only-work-for-one-season/
Test Result:
Changes:
1 SS(A) → AP(A) (with PIs added)
Formation change to assysmetric
SS(A) -> AP(A) has been tested like a million times in many different tactics and it never made any significant difference, it was like 0.1% difference and most of time it was a negative difference.
Check other tested tactics and you see that many people have tried already AP instead of SS/AM in their tactics and it never did any good.
Also, people have tried already many other changes like:
CM(A) -> BBM/DM/BWM
IWB -> WB/FB/CWB
DW -> W
BPD -> CD
W(S) -> W(A)
and so on...
I suggest to learn from other people experience because a lot things have been tested very well in FM21.
Yup, that's correct.
Here's what @ZaZ said about traits in other thread
ZaZ said: In short, you only want traits that enforce what the tactic asks the player to do. Anything else has potential to disrupt the flow of the tactics.
For example, if a position has the instruction "hold back", then add "stay back at all times", but never "get further forward", since that would be opposite of what the tactic asks him to do.
As I answered @Xavinwonderland at the begging of the thread everything is quite simple and you don't need to know all those geeky formulas and it's enough knowing the following simple facts:
1) It's extremely hard or almost impossible for a player to forget his "natural" position, he might not play on it or not train it but he won't forget it, it stays "natural" during his career or for very long time even he doesn't "use" it.
2) You can't turn a pure defender into a pure striker. I mean you can't make a defender to forget how to play a defender and teach him how to play a striker BUT it doesn't mean that you can't teach a defender to play a striker. Yes, you can do that so he'll be capable of playing both positions a defender and a striker the same time but such ability will cost him a price so his attributes will be lower and that's how it works, any additional playing position always cost something.
Because the guy is still considered by the game to be a defender so the cost cannot be the same as am for a striker. So average of the 2? Only for future points or even for already allocated points?
I'll try to put it in a very simple way.
When a player can only play a striker then he pays only for the ability to play a striker so it's cheap.
When a player can play a striker and a midfielder then he pays more for both abilities so it's more expensive.
When a player can play a striker and a midfielder and a defender then he pays even more so it becomes very expensive.
When a player learns a new playing position then re-calculation happens and his attributes randomly decrease to fit the new price for the attributes.
You get it wrong.
You think that if you take a defender, Acceleration attribute costs cheaper for a defender than it cost for a striker and train him to play a striker then you'll get Acceleration attribute cheaply but that's not how it works when he learns playing a striker then a recalculation of CA will happen and Acceleration attribute will start costing as he were a striker and that's how it works.
I agree that it would take time but for someone coming out from the youth intake you basically have 3 years which is quite a lot of time to get them in a decent junior role. Of course they have to get the right starting physical attributes. I will run some tests when I'm home and post them here. I had hoped that someone had gone through the process already.
I see where your confusion comes from. You suppose that it's easy for a player to forget his "natural" playing position but that's not true. A player might not play on his natural position or not train it for very long time but he won't "forget" it. As I said I don't remember that a player drops his natural playing position.
My point would be let's assume that I have a young striker coming out of my youth intake. Let's assume his CA will be 90 and his PA 160. He has a lot of room to grow. I now start training him as a defender. Is the cost of all the future points attributed using the weight for striker or defender? Because that would lead to a massive difference in potential points.
Bonus question what is the exact trigger? (I have read that it could be position familiarity that would decide if the game considers you to be a striker or a defender) but if the player only trains as a defender but rarely plays it will take ages to achieve familiarity as a defender (which would be good as we could load up more cheap attributes points onto him)
You're complicating things and talking about unrealistic scenarios and things that don't make sense.
I've already told you already it works quite simple.
If you got a pure striker from your youth intake and you want him to be as efficient as possible at the STC position then don't train him any other positions. If you want him to cover some other positions then you can train him to play there but he won't be the same efficient at the STC position as if it was the only his playing position.
P.S. I don't think it's possible for a player "to forget" his "natural" playing position, at least I don't remember I've seen it.
When a player gains attribute points the CA cost will depend on its position so increasing tackling for instance will be very expensive for a defender but pretty much free for a striker.
What happens if I have a striker that I retrain as a defender? Is the cost increase based on being a striker? A defender? An average of the 2?
Is it possible to min/max by keeping it natural as a striker and only accomplished as a defender so that the tackling cost is using the striker weight rather than the defender weights?
The position training works really simple. If you train a player an additional position then it inevitably leads to decreasing of his attributes, of course, if his CA stays the same and doesn't increase because if it works differently and additional position doesn't cost anything then everyone would want to train their players as many positions as possible which would be imbalanced.
Focusing the training on the most influencing attributes from the fm-arena table would be a good choice.
I think when it come to the difficulty of building a team for a tactic then Void tactic is the winner because for it you need having only 5 different positions instead of having 7-8 different positions as other tactics require. Also, it uses AMs, CMs, DMs and there're many players who can cover multiple positions at the same time like CM and DM or AM and CM so it makes building your team even more easier.
i loved this tactic and my strikers scored like crazy but this has stopped for a full season one of my top striker failed to score goals but the results werent bad. why is my striker failing to score goals like he did for me previous seasons??
The game is very complicated, there're hundred different factors that affect the result so it's very hard to say something, it cold be just luck/unluck
I think it's exactly what I'm looking for! I'll replace my old ones with Phoenix's and test them again.
btw, there're few videos that show how it works in the thread I linked
In additon, I found out that tactics without throw-in set pieces were also highly rated at the table as those with it.
Is there any experiment on the Long throw-ins effect, conducted in 21.4.0 patch?
I think you need to look at this thread - https://fm-arena.com/thread/1035-attacking-throw-ins-set-pieces-for-21-4-0-patch/
I think you need to read this - https://fm-arena.com/thread/826-information-regarding-the-way-we-pick-tactics-for-the-testing/
weird stuff, indeed.