Zippo
CBP87 said: @Zippo @Droid  I've not been able to upload any tactics for 2 days and I think I've only requested 1 tactic to be retested, any chance you can take a look and see if something is going on with my account please?

That works as intended, pal.

There's a limit on how many testing requests a person can have in the queue at one moment and that limit is "2" at the moment.

In times like this, when we aren't able to satisfy testing requests as fast as we usual do, the limit preventing the queue from growing to enormous sizes.
alex said: Wasn't this tested for 2400 already? Or?

Hi,

We found a small error in the settings that are responsible for "freezing" attributes with FMRTE, it isn't a big deal but it might affect the results by 1-2 points.

Thanks, we found it on an early stage of the testing.

After fixing that small error, we decided to retest the tactics with a score above 62 points under the correct DB and leave the tactics with a below 62 points as is because a difference of 1-2 points isn't critical for them.
dzek said: 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.

Yes, that's correct for our FM24 DB v1.0 but FM24 DB v2.0 is different and it has the changes I mentioned above.

Btw, now we are even using on FM24 DB 3.0, which have more changes and improvements compared with FM24 DB 2.0.
dzek said: 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.


Hi dzek,

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 have 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.
CBP87 said: Thanks @Zippo

Will you still be testing the tactics that were submitted in the last 24 hours? will these be tested after the Hall of Fame tactics?

Thanks


The priority will be given to the tactics from the HOF, probably, not all of them will be retested from the start but obviously, a bunch of top tactics from the top of HOF should be retested at first then next, probably, a mix of newly uploaded tactics and retesting requests.

Now, we just wait until FMRTE gets updated. :)
Hi,

"The Winter Patch" just dropped and as you may already know it doesn't have any M.E. changes.

Anyway, we have updated our tactic testing league and soon we'll start retesting tactics on the updated DB.

We implemented some tweaks to the tactic testing league that greatly reduce the RNG in the league, these tweaks reduce the RNG about 2 times. Also, we made slight tweaking to the players' attributes and AI managers' tactical settings.

Soon, after our testing algorithm finishes retesting the tactics from the "Hall of Fame" under the new DB, you can manually request retesting your tactic under the new DB.




Please note, that the "retesting requests" share the same cooldown with the regular tactic sharing so per 24 hours you can only make 2 retesting request or share 2 new tactics or a combination of both.

Cheers.
Hey guys,

I just want to inform you that our tactic testing server has been put under maintenance, probably, until tomorrow evening.

There's a high probability that the "Winter Patch" arrives tomorrow, but it's unknown whether it has any M.E. changes or not but anyway, we need to prepare our testing server.

You still can upload your tactics but be aware it's unlikely any of them get tested until tomorrow evening.

Cheers.
Sane said: Interesting. Guys, what do you think can be done to improve team cohesion?

There are 3 major things that greatly affect the Team Cohesion:

1) Keeping all your players "happy", which means solving all their "Concerns/Issues" is a way that makes them "happy" after that.

2) Rotating your team. Giving all players enough playing time so they were satisfied with their "playing time".

3) Winning matches. :)

Also, there're some training sessions that increase "Team Cohesion" but we found they have a very small impact.
Hey,

No doubts, "Team Cohesion" is one the most "mysterious" concepts in FM.

Let's find out how it affects the result:






As you can see "Team Cohesion" isn't something "decorative" and the difference between "Good" and "Excellent" level is about "6" points.
Hey,

It would be logically to assume that "Run At Defence" TI adjusts the "dribbling" settings of the positions in a tactic, forcing them to dribble more. But then what about "Dribble More" PI? Do these two tactical instructions do the same thing? How do they interact with each other?

Let's find out it.



"Run At Defense" TI and "Dribble More" PI





GENERIC BASE TACTIC:
PIs: "Dribble More", "Tackle Harder"


1) Dribble More ( ON ) | Run At Defense ( OFF )
2) Dribble More ( ON ) | Run At Defense ( ON )
3) Dribble More ( OFF ) | Run At Defense ( ON )
4) Dribble More ( OFF ) | Run At Defense ( OFF )





It's obvious that "Run At Defence" TI and "Dribble More" PI do the same job and when all positions in a tactic already have "Dribble More" PI then adding "Run At Defence" TI does nothing.

Also, it's obvious that "Run At Defence" TI doesn't adjust the dribble settings of every position in a tactic, it's hard to tell which positions get it. Highly likely it ignores the positions in the defence line, for example, it ignores Full Backs and Central Defenders and all positions that are illegible for getting "Dribble More" PI.

So if you want to have a full control over the dribble setting of each position in your tactic then you should use "Dribble More"/"Dribble Less" PIs instead of "Run At Defence"/"Dribble Less" TIs because the logic behind the TIs is unknown.

I predict that after this research some people might rush tweaking the top tactics adding "Dribble More" PI to every position in these tactics in hope to see their scores increasing but I can tell you that most likely it won't any effect because almost all the top tactics already have the dribble setting of each position maximized. For example, if look at Katana 4231 104p v3.1 tactic then you'll find out that the Full Backs and Central Defenders have their dribbling setting maximized through out "Dribble More" PI and other positions have their dribble settings maximized through out through out "Run At Defence" TI so at the end all positions in the tactic have their dribble setting maximized.

Once more, if you want to have a full control over dribble settings of each position in your tactic then you should use "Dribble More"/"Dribble Less" PIs instead of "Run At Defence"/"Dribble Less" TIs.
Cherknam said: Are you going to test 'Take more risks' on every position?

Yes, it's on the list.
Lapidus said: The tactic already has "Run At the Defense" Team Instruction, and the presence if this TI highly adds the same effect as adding "Dribble More" to every position.

At the moment we're testing 'Run At Defense' vs 'Dribble More'.

It's early days but it's already obvious that 'Run At Defense' isn't the same as adding 'Dribble More' to every position.

Yes, it seems 'Run At Defense' TI adds 'Dribble More' PI to the positions in a tactic but it does that only for some positions, which positions get it, it's hard to tell but it's obvious that not every position gets it.

I hope by tomorrow evening we'll finish testing 'Run At Defense' TI adds 'Dribble More' PI and I'll share the result with you.
alex said: did significantly worse

Ok, let's think whether "significantly worse" would be a correct definition in that case or not.

If we compare two of your tactics 4213 Striker Madness V5 and 4213 Striker Madness V6 then V6 scored "62.178" points and V5 scored "64.114" points so the difference between them is "1.936" points.

V6 was tested for 2,400 matches and in this case the RNG can be as high as "3" points.

V5 was tested for 4,000 matches and in this case the RNG can be as high as "2.5" points.


The above means that the 4,000 matches test of V5, where it scored "64.114", only revealed to us that the real score of the tactic is somewhere between "61.614" and "66.614" points, which means if we keep retesting V5 for 4,000 matches again and aging then in theory it might hit as low as "59.5" points and as high as "66.5", of course, "59.5" and "66.5" points for V5 would extreme values and the probability of their appearance would be no more than 5% and most of time we'll be getting "61", "62", "63" scores.

Please note, that in normal game when you play a standard season that consists of 38 matches the RNG can be as high as "20" points and that with using the same tactic!!! and now think whether "1.936" points difference can be defined as "significantly worse"? :)
Hi there,

This time let's find out how "Dribble More" PIs impacts the result.




GENERIC BASE TACTIC:
PIs: "Dribble More", "Tackle Harder"



1) All positions have "Dribble More"
2) "Dribble More" has been removed from the Full Backs
3) "Dribble More" has been removed from all positions

Hey,

I'm sure that many of you have noticed that almost in any successful 4231 tactic you can find that the Inside Forwards have "Sit Narrower" PI and the Full Backs have "Stay Wider" PI but what if we remove these PIs and see how it changes the result.

"Say Wider" and "Sit Narrower" PIs



GENERIC BASE TACTIC:
PIs: "Dribble More", "Tackle Harder"



Hey,

Here's another interesting research. Let's find out what the difference between Full Backs "Attack" and Full Backs "Support" when it comes to 4231 formation.


GENERIC BASE TACTIC:
PIs: "Dribble More", "Tackle Harder"


Hey,

No doubts, "Focus Play Down The Flanks" are among the most "mysterious" Team Instructions in FM.

Unfortunately, it's quite hard to measure the impact of these TIs through out our regular tactic testing because even if you take 4,000 matches tests then the RNG still can be as high as 2.5 points which only allows spotting changes that make at least 2.5 points difference.

So we decided to shed light on "Focus Play Down The Flanks" TIs and test them for 32,000 matches, such amount of matches gives us a very small RNG which is no more than 0.5 points.

"Focus Play Down The Flanks" TIs



GENERIC BASE TACTIC:
PIs: "Dribble More", "Tackle Harder"


Here's data for Katana 4231 104p v3.1 tactic with "Overlaps" TIs and without "Overlaps" TIs after 32,000 matches tested.





Judge for yourself.

There's no obvious negative effect from "Overlaps" TIs as it happened for the two previous "generic" tactics.

It seems the "Attacking" mentality or other TIs and PIs might influence on how "Overlaps" TIs perform and in "Katana 4231 104p v3.1" tactic the "Overlaps" TI even give a small positive effect which is about "+0.1" points but don't forget that even 32,0000 matches test also have at least 0.2 RNG.

@alex this tactic - https://fm-arena.com/thread/9578-katana-4231-104p-v3-1-27/ might scored that low due to the fact that the "Overlaps" TIs weren't the only instructions that were changed, I noticed that "Moves Into Channels" PI was also removed from AM, so there's no point in testing it for 32,000 matches because anyway, it isn't possible to "isolate" the absence of "Overlaps" TIs in that case.
alex said: It dropped quite a bit

CBP87 said: I'm more intrigued to see if the score drops and by how much

By tomorrow evening I'll try to run this for 32,000 matches to make sure it didn't hit any nasty RNG.

It could be that some TIs such "Focus Down The Flanks", the Mentality and some PIs make a huge difference for "Overlaps" TIs.

Tomorrow we'll find out it for sure. ;)
Gianaa9 said: I think that using Hold Up on IFs could improve Overlaps’ rating respect to others one, did you used it?
Thank You!


Hi,

Yes, I agree that some PIs such as "Hold Up Ball" or even "Attacking" Mentality might make "Overlaps" TIs shine in such tactics as Katana or COSMOS.

Probably, by tomorrow evening or earlier I'll try to run Katana tactic without "Overlaps" for 32,000 matches and we'll find out whether the Mentality or other ITs and PIs make a difference for the performance of "Overlaps" TIs.