dzek said: @Zippo, I have noticed that you remove 442 formation for AI Managers and you insert another 443. Did you find that in this ME 442 is not powerful? Expand
Yup, 4-4-2 under AI isn't impressive at all at this moment if the situation changes with patches we'll bring it back.
dzek said: And “Team C” text on testing league table is not highlighted with blue color. Its still under control of you or you increase AI teams? Expand
It looks like a UI bug in the beta, multiple human managers not returning from Holiday simultaneously at the supposed time but as I said it's more a UI bug that doesn't have any impact on the result.
I think it'd be safe to say that this year in FM24 higher Mentalities ( for example, "Attacking" ) once more give a slight result boost to any shape and if you ask me it makes sense because back in FM23 higher Mentalities didn't give any boost to the result and that didn't make any sense to me because higher Mentalities increase intensity so they drain more Conditions of your players and if they don't give a boost to the result so there's no point in using them at all.
When it comes to the Intensity then there's one important difference between our tactic testing and normal gameplay - in our tactic testing every player gets 100% Conditions before every match but when you play the game in normal way then you have to manage the Conditions of your players if you want to achieve the best result with your team.
So when you play the game in normal way then using the Attacking mentality all the time might be not the best idea because it would burn the Conditions of your player at very fast rate. In order to get the best result from your team you have to wisely choose when to use Attacking mentality and when it would be more beneficial to use less intensive mentalities such as Caution, Balanced and other.
Let's imagine in some match your team already got a 2 goals lead and you play with a highly intensive tactic that uses Attacking Mentality so it would be a good idea to preserve the Conditions of your players by changing your tactic to something less intensive that implies "Time Wasting" and uses a less intensive mentality such as Caution, Balanced and other.
Or other example, let's there's an unimportant cup match ahead for your team so it would be a good idea to use a low intensity tactic to preserve the Conditions of your players for some other more important matches.
We decided not to do 4k tests for the beta, there's really no point in that at this stage.
But 4k tests still might happens for some tactics during the beta, the purpose of that is our need to tune the configuration of our testing server and test some other things such the game RNG and other stuff.
ta2199 said: Hi @Zippo, I think when player only play but didn't do any training his attributes or his development will be very small. Anyway It's too late for this version, can we test this on next FM version ? Expand
Hey,
Honestly, I don't think there's any point in testing such extreme scenario as "no training" at all because obviously, in this case there'll be a significant blow to the development rate and also "Match Sharpness" will be declining rapidly between matches without any training so we even might see declining of the CA and attributes.
Other words, "no training" is such terrible scenario for a player that no one would even should consider do that. I'm sure that "Recovery" training schedule is always more beneficial than "Resting" in case you want to give a player some rest to recover his Conditions as fast as possible.
Sane said: Hello Zippo. There are similar tests, but about how to keep the physical attributes of an older player for as long as possible.
I mean how to slow down the fall of pace and acceleration attributes as much as possible. What player parameters affect this? Expand
Hi,
I think "aging" is the main factor that causes the fall of pace and acceleration attributes so not much you can do about that. Also, I think "Natural Fitness" attribute might have some role in that but I'm not sure about that.
ta2199 said: HI @Zippo , is it true that there is a hidden development rate for each player base on each save ? Because there is a Cheat Engine table that can change the development rate. Thanks Expand
Hi,
No, I don't believe there's a hidden attribute "development rate" because if there were such thing then we'd have it for editing in the official pre-game editor or in the official in-game editor.
The player development rate depends on many various factors, it can't be just one thing that determines everything.
Middleweight165 said: You compared a Bournemouth against higher average CA teams, Man City, Liverpool. I'm curious to know what you think would happen if you compared teams with the same CA but one of those teams eg Bournemouth like your test had a higher scores in the important attributes.
I'd like to know is it simply CA that is the defining factor or specifically those attributes. I think the tactic plays a huge role in you being able to compete against the bigger teams Expand
In that test the CA of every player stayed the same and only what were chaining is their attributes, speaking other words, the CA was re-distributed from the highlighted attributes of Roles/Duties to Acceleration and Pace. And if you look at the result of that test then you'll that the general level of CA isn't what determines the result and the distribution of CA is much more important.
Middleweight165 said: @Zippo How do you think teams would compare with a same average CA but one with more points distributed in the key attributes and the other with a more even distribution and less points in the key attributes and both using the same tactics? Expand
Unforutanlty, without knowing the fractional part of the score number it's hard to say for sure because it could be like this:
After 1,200 matches the score might be 51.5111 points, which will be rounded to 52 points
and after 4,000 matches the score might be 49.4999 which will be rounded to 49 points
So without knowing the fractional part you see that there's 3 points difference ( 52 - 49 = 3 ) between the 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches tests, when actually, there's only 2.01 points difference ( 51.5111 - 49.4999 = 2.01 )
In general, at this point we've simulated 1,088,000 matches under our new testing database and we've got the following RNG statistic:
There's 45% probability of changing the result more than "1 point" between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches.
There's 12,5% probability of changing the result more than "2 points" between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches.
There's 1,4% probability of changing the result more than "3 points" between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches.
So in theory there could be 3 points difference between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches but the probably of it is about 1.4%. Btw, I've checked the result of this tactic and this tactic hit it.
Also, I want to add that there might be 1 - 1.5 points RNG even between two 4,000 matches tests of the same tactic. For example, if we take the current top tactic(424 Bombyte Tweak), which has a score of 57.4465 points, and we test it one more time for 4,000 matches then its score might vary +/- 1-1.5 points around 57.4465.
So you always should consider that there might be at least 1 point RNG even after 4,000 matches. In terms of FM, 1 point RNG is nothing because when you play FM in normal way and the length of your season is 38 matches then your RNG might be as high as 20-25 points and such RNG is a normal thing for underdogs and mid table teams, of course, for the strongest teams in the league the RNG is much smaller but still it's much higher than the 1 point that we have after 4,000 matches on our test.
dzek said: @Zippo In this tactic I have used wingers with opposite foot, so please when the tactic is tested choose players with opposite foot on each side. I think it produces better results because wider advanced players tend to cut to their stronger foot when they get into attacking positions and the difference between the winger role and the inverted winger role is that the winger role holds the width throughout the attack but the inverted winger only holds the width during the buildup phase and then cuts inside. Expand
Hi,
I can't influence on picking the starting elven for a test because the testing is automated so if you want having players with their preferred foot to be opposite to the flank they play then use "Inverted Winger" or "Inside Forward" roles and if you want having players with their preferred to be the same as the flank they play then use "Winger" role.
Btw, we've tested different preferred foot for Winger/Inside Forward roles and I can say that the difference was a quite insignificant so it isn't worth bothering.
@Gracolas no doubts, that "Match Sharpness" deserves to be tested and it's really a shame that we haven't tested it this year but unfortunately, at this point it's too late for testing it because all other attributes were tested under an outdated M.E. and our old testing database but at this point we can only test under the latest M.E and our new testing database so the results would not make sense compared to the previous result. Of course, we could retest all attributes under the current environment but we I don't think it's worth the efforts at this point.
Yes, I've checked it and the last 5 tactics were bugged due to an error on the testing server. They will be re-tested.
Chriswin4 said: I thought this, my latest tactic got a low score that doesn't make sense based on results Expand
Don't worry, we log and keep gave saves of every test result and they are being monitored so if there's something wrong then it'll be known soon or later. Also, we can provide game saves of every test if it's needed(as I said we keep them).
EDIT: This tactic has been re-tested and the current result is valid.
dzek said: Actually in terms of GD "Attacking" was the best result.
Expand
I'd suggested not to take the result of our "Tactical Instruction Testing" too seriously because at this point it's become obvious to us that there's some "flawed" results in it.
Please note, that it was our first attempt to do something like that and if you ask me then I find that our regular tactic testing is much more accurate and informative than the tactical instruction testing.
Also, the M.E. changes regularly but we can't update the result of tactical instructions testing accordingly so it becomes outdated quickly. So overall, I find it the tactical instruction testing isn't a good thing and I don't think we'll going to do something like that again in the future. The regular tactic testing is much better.
In our tactic testing the set pieces are delegated to the assistant manager. He sets up them according to his set pieces preference.
It doesn't matter whether the assistant manager is good or not at set pieces because anyway it'll be the same for every tactic.
So you can say that the quality of set pieces are excluded from the testing, it's the same for every tactic.
Yup, 4-4-2 under AI isn't impressive at all at this moment if the situation changes with patches we'll bring it back.
dzek said: And “Team C” text on testing league table is not highlighted with blue color. Its still under control of you or you increase AI teams?
It looks like a UI bug in the beta, multiple human managers not returning from Holiday simultaneously at the supposed time but as I said it's more a UI bug that doesn't have any impact on the result.
I think it'd be safe to say that this year in FM24 higher Mentalities ( for example, "Attacking" ) once more give a slight result boost to any shape and if you ask me it makes sense because back in FM23 higher Mentalities didn't give any boost to the result and that didn't make any sense to me because higher Mentalities increase intensity so they drain more Conditions of your players and if they don't give a boost to the result so there's no point in using them at all.
When it comes to the Intensity then there's one important difference between our tactic testing and normal gameplay - in our tactic testing every player gets 100% Conditions before every match but when you play the game in normal way then you have to manage the Conditions of your players if you want to achieve the best result with your team.
So when you play the game in normal way then using the Attacking mentality all the time might be not the best idea because it would burn the Conditions of your player at very fast rate. In order to get the best result from your team you have to wisely choose when to use Attacking mentality and when it would be more beneficial to use less intensive mentalities such as Caution, Balanced and other.
Let's imagine in some match your team already got a 2 goals lead and you play with a highly intensive tactic that uses Attacking Mentality so it would be a good idea to preserve the Conditions of your players by changing your tactic to something less intensive that implies "Time Wasting" and uses a less intensive mentality such as Caution, Balanced and other.
Or other example, let's there's an unimportant cup match ahead for your team so it would be a good idea to use a low intensity tactic to preserve the Conditions of your players for some other more important matches.
Here's some useful read about the Intensity:
https://fm-arena.com/thread/3241-adjusting-the-intensity-of-your-tactic-during-matches/
Cheers.
Hey,
We decided not to do 4k tests for the beta, there's really no point in that at this stage.
But 4k tests still might happens for some tactics during the beta, the purpose of that is our need to tune the configuration of our testing server and test some other things such the game RNG and other stuff.
Probably, at some point later when I got time.
Falbravv said: Hey all, is it planed to have Atributes testing ?
Yes, of course it's in plans but I can say it won't happen during the beta that's for sure.
Look at this, please. - https://fm-arena.com/thread/2733-how-to-get-your-tactic-tested/
Cheers.
Darrylweezy said: With the option of transferring your FM23 Save to 24/Beta, is it possible to already start some tactics testing?
Yes, that's true. We're waiting for FMRTE to start testing.
Hey,
Honestly, I don't think there's any point in testing such extreme scenario as "no training" at all because obviously, in this case there'll be a significant blow to the development rate and also "Match Sharpness" will be declining rapidly between matches without any training so we even might see declining of the CA and attributes.
Other words, "no training" is such terrible scenario for a player that no one would even should consider do that. I'm sure that "Recovery" training schedule is always more beneficial than "Resting" in case you want to give a player some rest to recover his Conditions as fast as possible.
I mean how to slow down the fall of pace and acceleration attributes as much as possible. What player parameters affect this?
Hi,
I think "aging" is the main factor that causes the fall of pace and acceleration attributes so not much you can do about that. Also, I think "Natural Fitness" attribute might have some role in that but I'm not sure about that.
Hi,
No, I don't believe there's a hidden attribute "development rate" because if there were such thing then we'd have it for editing in the official pre-game editor or in the official in-game editor.
The player development rate depends on many various factors, it can't be just one thing that determines everything.
Here's some of the factors that affect the player development rate - https://fm-arena.com/thread/2671-player-development-and-training/
I've moved it to FM23 tactic sharing section
I'd like to know is it simply CA that is the defining factor or specifically those attributes. I think the tactic plays a huge role in you being able to compete against the bigger teams
If I correctly understand what you're talking about then I suggest you to check this test - https://fm-arena.com/thread/5351-should-you-follow-the-highlighted-attributes-of-the-roles/
In that test the CA of every player stayed the same and only what were chaining is their attributes, speaking other words, the CA was re-distributed from the highlighted attributes of Roles/Duties to Acceleration and Pace. And if you look at the result of that test then you'll that the general level of CA isn't what determines the result and the distribution of CA is much more important.
Hi. Sorry, I don't get what you mean.
I just want to let you know that our tactic testing server is undergoing maintenance and it'll up only on Sunday(evening) or Monday(morning).
We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Cheers.
Unforutanlty, without knowing the fractional part of the score number it's hard to say for sure because it could be like this:
After 1,200 matches the score might be 51.5111 points, which will be rounded to 52 points
and after 4,000 matches the score might be 49.4999 which will be rounded to 49 points
So without knowing the fractional part you see that there's 3 points difference ( 52 - 49 = 3 ) between the 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches tests, when actually, there's only 2.01 points difference ( 51.5111 - 49.4999 = 2.01 )
In general, at this point we've simulated 1,088,000 matches under our new testing database and we've got the following RNG statistic:
There's 45% probability of changing the result more than "1 point" between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches.
There's 12,5% probability of changing the result more than "2 points" between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches.
There's 1,4% probability of changing the result more than "3 points" between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches.
So in theory there could be 3 points difference between 1,200 matches and 4,000 matches but the probably of it is about 1.4%. Btw, I've checked the result of this tactic and this tactic hit it.
Also, I want to add that there might be 1 - 1.5 points RNG even between two 4,000 matches tests of the same tactic. For example, if we take the current top tactic(424 Bombyte Tweak), which has a score of 57.4465 points, and we test it one more time for 4,000 matches then its score might vary +/- 1-1.5 points around 57.4465.
So you always should consider that there might be at least 1 point RNG even after 4,000 matches. In terms of FM, 1 point RNG is nothing because when you play FM in normal way and the length of your season is 38 matches then your RNG might be as high as 20-25 points and such RNG is a normal thing for underdogs and mid table teams, of course, for the strongest teams in the league the RNG is much smaller but still it's much higher than the 1 point that we have after 4,000 matches on our test.
Hi,
I can't influence on picking the starting elven for a test because the testing is automated so if you want having players with their preferred foot to be opposite to the flank they play then use "Inverted Winger" or "Inside Forward" roles and if you want having players with their preferred to be the same as the flank they play then use "Winger" role.
Btw, we've tested different preferred foot for Winger/Inside Forward roles and I can say that the difference was a quite insignificant so it isn't worth bothering.
Cheers.
Yes, I've checked it and the last 5 tactics were bugged due to an error on the testing server. They will be re-tested.
Chriswin4 said: I thought this, my latest tactic got a low score that doesn't make sense based on results
Don't worry, we log and keep gave saves of every test result and they are being monitored so if there's something wrong then it'll be known soon or later. Also, we can provide game saves of every test if it's needed(as I said we keep them).
EDIT: This tactic has been re-tested and the current result is valid.
I'd suggested not to take the result of our "Tactical Instruction Testing" too seriously because at this point it's become obvious to us that there's some "flawed" results in it.
Please note, that it was our first attempt to do something like that and if you ask me then I find that our regular tactic testing is much more accurate and informative than the tactical instruction testing.
Also, the M.E. changes regularly but we can't update the result of tactical instructions testing accordingly so it becomes outdated quickly. So overall, I find it the tactical instruction testing isn't a good thing and I don't think we'll going to do something like that again in the future. The regular tactic testing is much better.
We find that all valuable tactics from 23.4.0 haven been tested already.