Zippo
@Asstem, hi.

Please, add a screenshot of the tactic.

Thank you.
@ClaudiuG, hi.

Please, add some results with the tactic.

Thank you.
@Gracolas, hi.

Please, add screenshots of the tactic.

Thank you.
babemocni1988 said: Yes its Vujevic tactic,wanted to test it if its possible

Please, edit the opening post and add the necessary information about the tactic.
@tester1988, I see that this is Vujevic's tactic... if you post not your own tactic then please, always state it in the opening post and provide info about the author and a link to the source of the tactic.

Please, edit the opening post and add the necessary information.

Thank you.
@tester1988, hi.

Please, upload your tactic as an attachment.

Thanks.
Prutton said: I would like to suggest a competition with the top 10 tactics (from different authors), two teams per tactic, all with the same players and frozen attributes. After the initial setup of this league, it would be pretty easy to update and run again if the top tactics have changed, like once a month or two. Results would be shown in a new table, with the score of each of these tactics in this test league, in the same layout as the other tables.

The benefit of this league would be to understand strengths and vulnerabilities of the tactics, allowing us to improve further. Is there any chance to make this happen, @Zippo?


Hi,

If I understand you correctly then you suggest testing human tactics vs human tactics but the result of such testing would be useless when you play vs AI managers because it's a completely different matter.

Testing human tactics vs human tactics sounds like an interesting idea but I'm not sure there are many people interested in it... if we see a lot of people interested then we might consider doing it.
giannis the greek said: Sorry but...why my tactic looks 4-4-2 ? Maybe you did test another tactic?

Hi,

It should show a correct formation now.
Ferni said: test please test

Hi,

It looks like you uploaded a wrong tactic because the screenshot shows a different tactic.

The V2 you uploaded is the same as V1 which has been tested - https://fm-arena.com/tactic/906-4-4-1-1-dm-lwb-supportive/
@Dimartino, hi.

Please, add screenshots of the tactic.

Thank you.
Egraam said: Should I create a new thread for this tactic and delete it from here, or keep it here?

Sure, feel free to start a new thread for the tactic.
Egraam said: I don't know why but I'm not able to start a new thread, the website just refreshes when I try to make one.

Thanks for the notice.

The issue should be fixed now.
@Zomba, hi.

Please, add screenshots of the tactic.

Thank you.
@risky, hi.

Please, add some results with the tactic.

Thank you.
@Panneton0, hi.

Please, add screenshots of the tactic and some results with it.

Thank you.
Mark said: regardless of their role ratings

The role rating and the position rating are different things and they should not be mixed.

The role rating is a quite irrelevant thing and can be safely ignored.


Mark said: That means that if you have a player with much higher stats for those 4 attributes than the league average, you could play them anywhere in attack.

I don't know maybe you can play your players anywhere in attack only if you are Barca and only when you play vs amateurs otherwise I don't think it would be a smart thing to do. For example, when we test ZaZ - Blue 3.0 with 'Ineffectual' position rating instead 'Natural' position rating for all positions then the PPG drop from 2.1 to 1.2, which means the rating drops from 7.2 to 4.0.
Prutton said: In other words, faster is better.

ta2199 said: So to conclude: Attributes > Position familarity ?

A 1% increase in 'Acceleration' increases the effectiveness of a player by about 2.1%.

If the attributes of two players are the same, except the Acceleration attribute and the 'Acceleration' attribute of the first player is '16' and the have the Acceleration attribute of the second player is '12' then the first player should be about 25% more effective than the second player.

If the first player is a 'Competent' AMC and the second player is a 'Natural' AMC then the first player should be about 12% more effective AMC.

But if the first player is an 'Ineffectual' AMC then the second player should be about 15% more effective AMC.
@kkaidy, hi.

Please, give the tactic a more appropriate name.

Also, could you add screenshots of the tactic and some results with it.

Thank you.
Mark said: So a Striker who is unconvincing in the AM C position, but who is 20% better on their important attributes (Pace, Acc, Agility and Dribbling) will be as good if not better than a Natural AM C

According to this table - https://fm-arena.com/table/9-important-attributes/

If we reduce the 'Acceleration' attribute of a player by about 18.75% then it'll reduce his effectiveness by about 20%.

If we reduce the 'Acceleration' and 'Pace' attributes of a player by about 18.75% then it'll reduce his effectiveness by about 40%.

If we reduce the 'Acceleration', 'Pace' and 'Agility' attributes of a player by about 18.75% then it'll reduce his effectiveness by about 55%.

If we reduce the 'Acceleration', 'Pace', 'Agility' and 'Dribbling' attributes of a player by about 18.75% then it'll reduce his effectiveness by about 67%.

and so on...
Hey guys,

I'm sure many of you, including me, have wondered many times how much worse a player plays at a position if he doesn't have the highest( 'Natural' ) rating for it so to answer this question we've done some tests.

Please note, testing the position rating is a quite complicated task due to many factors so the numbers below aren't exact but quite accurate.



'Natural' rating is the highest position rating. If a player has 'Natural' rating for a position then he plays at full of his ability without any penalty.





'Accomplished' rating is about 7.5% less effective than 'Natural' rating.




'Competent' rating is about 12% less effective than 'Natural' rating.




'Unconvincing' rating is about 19% less effective than 'Natural' rating.




'Awkward' rating is about 35% less effective than 'Natural' rating.




'Ineffectual' rating is about 40% less effective than 'Natural' rating.