dzek said: @Zippo, did you change anything on FM-Arena Testing League since you gave us that savegame? If yes, can we have a newly savegame file? It will be very helpful Expand
chalengr said: I found in fm-arena‘s testbase striker’s CA is much higher than AMC（acceleration and pace are higher too），I want to know if the difference is from this@Zippo （my English is not good） Expand
The Match Engine don't use CA to calculate the result of matches so CA is irrelevant in that terms.
The Match Engine uses the actual attributes to calculate the result of matches.
For example,
The striker above has 140CA
140CA Player
But if we add to him additional playing positions such as AMCL/AMCR/AMC/ML/MR/MC then his CA will increase from 140CA to 164CA
164CA Player
As you can see the player still has the same attributes but his CA has significantly increased from 140CA to 164CA but in matches his efficiency hasn't changed because his attributes haven't changed. In other words, even his CA has increased from 140CA to 164CA but he won't play better in matches because his attributes haven't changed.
So only by looking at the CA you can't say that one player is better than other, also, the attributes have a different CA cost for different positions. For example, in general the attributes cost much less CA for central defenders than for any other positions so you can't compare players only by looking at their CA. In other words, in the actual game in general Central Defenders tend to have lower CA comparing to Striker but it doesn't make them less efficient in matches than Strikers. it's just that for a Central Defender the attributes are "cheaper" in terms of CA than for any other position.
BulldozerJokic said: Well, looks like it's not only the strickers that are faster, but also the wingers. Meaning that any narrow-shaped and some 3 atb tactics might be underscoring points like crazy Expand
Our tactic testing leagues is designed to represent the actual game and not some "fantasy" custom football world.
Here're some facts from the actual game:
- in the actual game Central Defenders tend to have a very low "Finishing" attribute, it isn't higher than "6-7" so if in your tactic testing league you set the Finishing attribute of your Central Defenders higher than that, for example, you give them "16" Finishing then your tactic testing league will be represent the actual game very poorly.
- in the actual game Central Defenders tend to have a very low "Dribbling" attribute, it isn't higher than "8-9" so if in your tactic testing league you set the Dribbling attribute of your Central Defenders higher than that, for example, you give them "16" Dribbling attribute then your tactic testing league will be represent the actual game very poorly.
- Winger/Inside Forward/Full Backs/Strikers tend to be faster than other positions in the actual game so that's why in our tactic testing league Winger/Inside Forward/Strikers are faster than other positions.
TommyToxic said: I use the same setup just with IWB instead of FB. Is the consensus that FB with play narrow and run inside just works better than IWB? Expand
In this setup(where both DM slots are occupied) FBs that have the same PIs as IWBs would work 99% the same.
Delicious said: @Zippo question if i have a WBR/L (position) and i have it on IWBS how works the code? They move inside if there is no CM role? Just to understand if they keep the same "logic" even on WBx position Expand
In case you put IWBs into WBR/L slots then it still only checks the state of DMs slots.
The sate of CMs slots is irrelevant in both cases.
Yarema said: Surely on the side of lets say volante or RPM that space at least occasionally clears up to move into? Expand
Delicious said: You can make wbs sitting narrow as well but one cut inside and the other cut wide with the ball. About iwbs i was trying to test if the would over-load as well. Expand
The role and duty of the adjacent DM position doesn't matter, it doesn't matter whether it's Vol(A) or RMP(S) or any other role, it's hard coded that if there's no free DM slot near the Inverted Wing-Back then he act as a regular Wing-Back with "Cut Inside" and "Sit Narrow" PIs so the unique Inverted Wing-Back behavior is lost in this case.
Chewbacca said: sitting narrow is the only what distinguishes IWBs from WBs? Expand
Mostly, yes.
Look at the screenshot below. You see how narrow Shaw ( Inverted Wing-Back ) sits.
When "in possession" he plays like a central midfielder or central defensive midfielder and it's an unique feature of Inverted Wing-Back role which can't be recreated in any other full back's role.
And that unique behavior of Inverted Wing-Back can only be activated if a specific condition is met and that specific condition is a free DM slot near the Inverted Wing-Back.
Once more, Inverted Wing-Backs have a very unique behavior when "in possession" which can't be recreated in any other full back's role but to reveal that unique behavior a specific condition must be met and that specific condition is a free DM slot near them but if that condition isn't met then they as act as regular Wing-Backs with "Cut Inside" and "Stay Narrower" PIs so they're loosing their unique behavior.
So there's no point in testing Inverted Wing-Backs if there're 2 or more DMs present.
babemocni1988 said: I agree with that 100 % but this ME is unlogical and so many times you get results with some formations and roles that shouldn't be working together Expand I want to stress that what I said isn't my opinion about what should work and what not.
I was talking about the game code and Inverted Wing-Backs are coded the way that if there's no a free DM slot near them then Inverted Wing-Backs act as regular Wing-Backs with "Stay Narrower" and "Cuts Inside" PIs, which means in that case there's almost no difference between Inverted Wing-Backs and regular Wing-backs.
I think there might be people who aren't not familiar with the way Inverted Wing-Backs work.
The main difference between Inverted Wing-Backs and other roles of full backs is that when "in possession" Inverted Wing-Backs act as central midfielders or central defensive midfielders, which means they take the position in the center like on the screenshot below:
But you need to be aware about one important thing about Inverted Wing-Backs: they act as regular Wing-Back if there're 2 or 3 Defensive Midfielders or there's a Defensive Midfielder on the side of Inverted Wing-Back
Here's a few examples when Inverted Wing-Backs act as regular Wing-Backs:
If you want your Inverted Wing-Backs act as they should then there must be a free DM slot on their side:
If there're 3 central defenders in your tactic then Inverted Wing-Backs are also hard-coded to play as regular Wing-backs with "Cuts Inside" and "Stay Narrower" PIs:
So there's almost no difference between Inverted Wing-Backs and regular Wing-Backs when your tactic has 2/3 Defensive Midfielders or 3 Central Defenders because in this case Inverted Wing-Backs act as regular Wing-Backs with "Stay Narrower" and "Cut Inside" PIs but in all other cases Inverted Wing-Backs have a completely different and unique behavior.
Please note, that what I said isn't my opinion about what should work and what not in the game. I was talking about how the game code works and Inverted Wing-Backs are coded the way that if there's no a free DM slot near them then Inverted Wing-Backs act as regular Wing-Backs with "Stay Narrower" and "Cuts Inside" PIs, which means here's almost no difference between Inverted Wing-Backs and regular Wing-backs, they're loosing their unique behavior.
Of course, at some point we'll give this tactic and other top rated tactics an additional testing.
At this point the testing server is quite busy, there're some tactics from the previous patch await to be re-tested and also people post tactics for the new patch.
Tomaka said: Ah, should have uploaded the upgraded versions of my HoF tactics before patch then But ya, it's a good start, see which shape gets out on top Expand
As I said, we haven't decided yet what to do after we re-test all tactics from the Hall Of Fame.
I mean, should we then re-tested more tactics from the previous patch or should start testing only tactics that have been updated for the new patch. I guess, a lot will depend on the result of the re-testing. It'll reveal whether the patch has brought a lot of changes or not.
Middleweight165 said: @Zippo When choosing the attributes why did you eliminate Jumping Reach, Balance, Finishing from your list when these scored higher than others in the attribute testing? Obviously JR and Finishing are quiet position specfic but balance is generic?
I'm just interested, I have been using GS with Marks file, but I want to eliminate GS use now, so I'm going to try and focus on the method you have used here Expand
Yes, you're right that Jumping Reach and Finishing are quite position specific attributes and that's why I decided not to include them in the list but Balance is generic and could be included.
The reason why I didn't include Balance is because I wanted to keep the attribute list as short as possible so that's why I didn't include it as many other attributes that could included. Of course, when you play the game in normal way then paying attention to other attributes would beneficial and that's what you should do.
opq said: yeah, that's exactly what I see, so I have to select all players and use "position" OIs checkbox once, so they'll be implemented for all of them or you think it works behind the UI anyway and it just a confusing way to show in-match? Expand
As @Yarema said, by clicking the icons you aren't implementing anything, your're just changing between the views.
Btw, do you know that there are also "Personal" and "Position" PIs ( Player Instructions ).
It works the same way as it works with the OIs.
Every player can have his personal PIs that would apply only to him.
Just look it have the same icons and changing views style that you can see in the OIs.
opq said: Maybe this is just a UI bug, but when I have OIs being set on “positions” tab, then in match it’s a blank space. Expand You don't see "Position" OIs in a match because by default in a match it shows "Player" OIs and to see "Position" OIs you need to click on the icon that switches between "Player" OIs and "Position" OIs
This:
Or this:
Once more, there 2 types of OIs: "Player" OIs and "Position" OIs. Both types can be set in a match and outside of a match.
If you are in a match then the only way to switch between two types of OIs is clicking on the appropriate icons.
When you outside a match then setting "Position" OIs is also available in the "Position" tab:
It didn't make any difference when you have it On/Off for every position then what's the point in testing it On/Off for a single position or a few positions?
So here's my advice if you're gonna test different OIs to save your time I suggest testing them before On/Off for every position to see whether it make any difference or not.
Delicious said: Btw if you want we can test position OIs (no clue how to call them)after a while... I'll try to collect more data possible once the patch is released.
Thanks again for your vital support. Expand
To be honest, I don't think there's much to tests.
It's been tested already that the more "Press", the better. Every top rated tactic has it set on the highest possible level and the OIs can't set it above the limit.
It's been tested already that the highest level of the Tackles give the best result so the OIs can't set the it above the limit.
Back in FM22 I remeber we tested "Show Onto Weaker Foot" OIs with and w/o for every position and the difference was like 1 point.
It's been tested that "Tight Marking" ON/Off for every position and it didn't make any difference.
But I guess it's worth testing "Show Onto Weaker Foot" for FM23, there might be changes but honestly, not much hope.
Delicious said: For example there is a KDB playing as RPM/Regista on DM (Basically DM CM CM) and for that game i want to focus him as well.. those Player OIs overdrive Position OIs just for that game? Expand Unforutanlty, with that I can't help. I really don't know for sure whether the Player OIs take priory over the Position OIs or not.
For me, it would be logically if the Player OIs take priority over the Position OIs but as I said I'm not sure about that I think it's worth asking the devs on the official forum because only they can answer for sure on that question.
Or I guess to be sure you can set only 1 type of OIs at time.
Delicious said: Step 2 : As you can see there is nothing there. Expand
Here's another example.
Let's imagine you set OIs using "Player" OIs on Ivan Toney(Striker) but he got substituted early in the match which means the OIs you set on Ivan Toney won't be applied to the player who took his place.
To avoid that you can set OIs on the striker position instead of a player. So no matter who plays on the striker position will have the OIs you set.
Please, note I'm not saying that the second option is better and should be always used, I'm just saying that those 2 options are different things and have different purpose. Sometimes, you might want to use the 1st option and sometime the 2nd option.
No, there haven't been any changes.
（my English is not good）
The Match Engine don't use CA to calculate the result of matches so CA is irrelevant in that terms.
The Match Engine uses the actual attributes to calculate the result of matches.
For example,
The striker above has 140CA
140CA Player
But if we add to him additional playing positions such as AMCL/AMCR/AMC/ML/MR/MC then his CA will increase from 140CA to 164CA
164CA Player
As you can see the player still has the same attributes but his CA has significantly increased from 140CA to 164CA but in matches his efficiency hasn't changed because his attributes haven't changed. In other words, even his CA has increased from 140CA to 164CA but he won't play better in matches because his attributes haven't changed.
So only by looking at the CA you can't say that one player is better than other, also, the attributes have a different CA cost for different positions. For example, in general the attributes cost much less CA for central defenders than for any other positions so you can't compare players only by looking at their CA. In other words, in the actual game in general Central Defenders tend to have lower CA comparing to Striker but it doesn't make them less efficient in matches than Strikers. it's just that for a Central Defender the attributes are "cheaper" in terms of CA than for any other position.
BulldozerJokic said: Well, looks like it's not only the strickers that are faster, but also the wingers. Meaning that any narrow-shaped and some 3 atb tactics might be underscoring points like crazy
Our tactic testing leagues is designed to represent the actual game and not some "fantasy" custom football world.
Here're some facts from the actual game:
- in the actual game Central Defenders tend to have a very low "Finishing" attribute, it isn't higher than "6-7" so if in your tactic testing league you set the Finishing attribute of your Central Defenders higher than that, for example, you give them "16" Finishing then your tactic testing league will be represent the actual game very poorly.
- in the actual game Central Defenders tend to have a very low "Dribbling" attribute, it isn't higher than "8-9" so if in your tactic testing league you set the Dribbling attribute of your Central Defenders higher than that, for example, you give them "16" Dribbling attribute then your tactic testing league will be represent the actual game very poorly.
- Winger/Inside Forward/Full Backs/Strikers tend to be faster than other positions in the actual game so that's why in our tactic testing league Winger/Inside Forward/Strikers are faster than other positions.
and so on...
I hope this helps.
Cheers.
Can we expect to see Mr.Tornado visiting the top tactics?
Hi,
Probably, later today/tomorrow the top tactics will get an additional testing to find out whether the result was a fluke or not.
In this setup(where both DM slots are occupied) FBs that have the same PIs as IWBs would work 99% the same.
If the "Edit" button is available then feel free to edit whatever you want
In case you put IWBs into WBR/L slots then it still only checks the state of DMs slots.
The sate of CMs slots is irrelevant in both cases.
Delicious said: You can make wbs sitting narrow as well but one cut inside and the other cut wide with the ball.
About iwbs i was trying to test if the would over-load as well.
The role and duty of the adjacent DM position doesn't matter, it doesn't matter whether it's Vol(A) or RMP(S) or any other role, it's hard coded that if there's no free DM slot near the Inverted Wing-Back then he act as a regular Wing-Back with "Cut Inside" and "Sit Narrow" PIs so the unique Inverted Wing-Back behavior is lost in this case.
Chewbacca said: sitting narrow is the only what distinguishes IWBs from WBs?
Mostly, yes.
Look at the screenshot below. You see how narrow Shaw ( Inverted Wing-Back ) sits.
When "in possession" he plays like a central midfielder or central defensive midfielder and it's an unique feature of Inverted Wing-Back role which can't be recreated in any other full back's role.
And that unique behavior of Inverted Wing-Back can only be activated if a specific condition is met and that specific condition is a free DM slot near the Inverted Wing-Back.
So there's no point in testing Inverted Wing-Backs if there're 2 or more DMs present.
I want to stress that what I said isn't my opinion about what should work and what not.
I was talking about the game code and Inverted Wing-Backs are coded the way that if there's no a free DM slot near them then Inverted Wing-Backs act as regular Wing-Backs with "Stay Narrower" and "Cuts Inside" PIs, which means in that case there's almost no difference between Inverted Wing-Backs and regular Wing-backs.
I think there might be people who aren't not familiar with the way Inverted Wing-Backs work.
The main difference between Inverted Wing-Backs and other roles of full backs is that when "in possession" Inverted Wing-Backs act as central midfielders or central defensive midfielders, which means they take the position in the center like on the screenshot below:
But you need to be aware about one important thing about Inverted Wing-Backs: they act as regular Wing-Back if there're 2 or 3 Defensive Midfielders or there's a Defensive Midfielder on the side of Inverted Wing-Back
Here's a few examples when Inverted Wing-Backs act as regular Wing-Backs:
If you want your Inverted Wing-Backs act as they should then there must be a free DM slot on their side:
If there're 3 central defenders in your tactic then Inverted Wing-Backs are also hard-coded to play as regular Wing-backs with "Cuts Inside" and "Stay Narrower" PIs:
So there's almost no difference between Inverted Wing-Backs and regular Wing-Backs when your tactic has 2/3 Defensive Midfielders or 3 Central Defenders because in this case Inverted Wing-Backs act as regular Wing-Backs with "Stay Narrower" and "Cut Inside" PIs but in all other cases Inverted Wing-Backs have a completely different and unique behavior.
Please note, that what I said isn't my opinion about what should work and what not in the game. I was talking about how the game code works and Inverted Wing-Backs are coded the way that if there's no a free DM slot near them then Inverted Wing-Backs act as regular Wing-Backs with "Stay Narrower" and "Cuts Inside" PIs, which means here's almost no difference between Inverted Wing-Backs and regular Wing-backs, they're loosing their unique behavior.
I hope that helps.
Cheers.
Of course, at some point we'll give this tactic and other top rated tactics an additional testing.
At this point the testing server is quite busy, there're some tactics from the previous patch await to be re-tested and also people post tactics for the new patch.
But ya, it's a good start, see which shape gets out on top
As I said, we haven't decided yet what to do after we re-test all tactics from the Hall Of Fame.
I mean, should we then re-tested more tactics from the previous patch or should start testing only tactics that have been updated for the new patch. I guess, a lot will depend on the result of the re-testing. It'll reveal whether the patch has brought a lot of changes or not.
Anyway, your suggestions are always welcome.
The Winter Patch ( 23.3.0 ) Live Now - https://community.sigames.com/forums/topic/573744-fm23-main-data-update-now-live/
Our current plan is at first to re-test all tactics from the Hall Of Fame - https://fm-arena.com/table/fm23-hall-of-fame/
What's next after retesting all tactics from Hall of Fame? Honestly, we haven't decided yet. Your suggestions are welcome.
Cheers.
I'm just interested, I have been using GS with Marks file, but I want to eliminate GS use now, so I'm going to try and focus on the method you have used here
Yes, you're right that Jumping Reach and Finishing are quite position specific attributes and that's why I decided not to include them in the list but Balance is generic and could be included.
The reason why I didn't include Balance is because I wanted to keep the attribute list as short as possible so that's why I didn't include it as many other attributes that could included. Of course, when you play the game in normal way then paying attention to other attributes would beneficial and that's what you should do.
or you think it works behind the UI anyway and it just a confusing way to show in-match?
As @Yarema said, by clicking the icons you aren't implementing anything, your're just changing between the views.
Btw, do you know that there are also "Personal" and "Position" PIs ( Player Instructions ).
It works the same way as it works with the OIs.
Every player can have his personal PIs that would apply only to him.
Just look it have the same icons and changing views style that you can see in the OIs.
You don't see "Position" OIs in a match because by default in a match it shows "Player" OIs and to see "Position" OIs you need to click on the icon that switches between "Player" OIs and "Position" OIs
This:
Or this:
Once more, there 2 types of OIs: "Player" OIs and "Position" OIs. Both types can be set in a match and outside of a match.
If you are in a match then the only way to switch between two types of OIs is clicking on the appropriate icons.
When you outside a match then setting "Position" OIs is also available in the "Position" tab:
It didn't make any difference when you have it On/Off for every position then what's the point in testing it On/Off for a single position or a few positions?
So here's my advice if you're gonna test different OIs to save your time I suggest testing them before On/Off for every position to see whether it make any difference or not.
Thanks again for your vital support.
To be honest, I don't think there's much to tests.
It's been tested already that the more "Press", the better. Every top rated tactic has it set on the highest possible level and the OIs can't set it above the limit.
It's been tested already that the highest level of the Tackles give the best result so the OIs can't set the it above the limit.
Back in FM22 I remeber we tested "Show Onto Weaker Foot" OIs with and w/o for every position and the difference was like 1 point.
It's been tested that "Tight Marking" ON/Off for every position and it didn't make any difference.
But I guess it's worth testing "Show Onto Weaker Foot" for FM23, there might be changes but honestly, not much hope.
Unforutanlty, with that I can't help. I really don't know for sure whether the Player OIs take priory over the Position OIs or not.
For me, it would be logically if the Player OIs take priority over the Position OIs but as I said I'm not sure about that I think it's worth asking the devs on the official forum because only they can answer for sure on that question.
Or I guess to be sure you can set only 1 type of OIs at time.
As you can see there is nothing there.
Here's another example.
Let's imagine you set OIs using "Player" OIs on Ivan Toney(Striker) but he got substituted early in the match which means the OIs you set on Ivan Toney won't be applied to the player who took his place.
To avoid that you can set OIs on the striker position instead of a player. So no matter who plays on the striker position will have the OIs you set.
Please, note I'm not saying that the second option is better and should be always used, I'm just saying that those 2 options are different things and have different purpose. Sometimes, you might want to use the 1st option and sometime the 2nd option.