svonn said: Thanks for your work @Zippo! From your experience, is there any chance if you would add some more archetype players to the teams (like a target forward where the jumping/strenth stats matches those of the defenders, at the cost of speed/dribbling), would the automated team selection be smart enough to use them if such a role is selected in a tactic? Expand
then you'll see that increasing Strength attribute by +5 points for 10 positions in the tactic improves the score from 60 pts to 62 pts, so just by 2 points, which could be just the RNG for 2,400 matches.
Now, imagine what would be the difference if instead of 10 position the Strength attribute were increased only 1 or 2 positions because that's how many strikers a typical tactic has.
So Strength attribute does nothing for strikers, it could be "10" or "15" or "20", there'll be almost no difference at all.
Believe me, you aren't the first person who rises that kind of concerns and believe me, we aren't less curious than you when it comes to such matter so we have tested it many times.
and change the strikers' roles from AF/CF to TF/TF and also tweak their attributes increasing Strength and Jumping Reach but decreasing Acceleration and Pace then the result will drop significantly.
It has been tested and proven many times that Acceleration and Pace attributes are much more valuable than Strength and Jumping Reach for any striker role.
Speaking other words, if you have TF role in your tactic then with a fast and short striker for that role your result always will be much better than if you had a strong, tall but slow striker.
We've put a limit on the number of new tactics a person can share per 24 hours and that number is "2" at the moment.
We're planning to keep the limit until the next patch arrives. Of course, if there are no M.E. changes in the next patch then we keep the limit further until there are significant M.E. changes.
alex said: Hey @Zippo , I see there are differences on the rating for some tactics. The changes you mention, impact how ai teams respond to the tactics tested. Or? Thanks Expand
Hi,
Yes, as I said the tactical settings of AI managers were further enhanced and optimized and as you can see almost every tactics dropped points, some tactics dropped more points and some less.
dzek said: Well done for that. Can all the news from the website be in a separate thread so that we don't have to look everywhere for them? Expand
Nah, we aren't going to make news of it because for those people who don't share tactics here, to be fair, that feature is irrelevant thing and those people who share their tactics will notice it anyway.
CBP87 said: Going to be honest with you mate, I have never noticed the status update before. Just seen it on one I've recently uploaded
Expand
you haven't noticed them because we just added them
Soon it will be improved further and you will be getting "a notification" every time when the status of your tactic changes or your tactic is tested.
Also, the "Rejected" Status will get a more detailed description about the issue with your tactic and "a special button" that you can click to put under review again after you fix the issue.
CSTG KANE said: Ok, so can I just check that I didn't miss any screenshots of my 60+ point tactics, otherwise it's too much of a strain on my CPU Expand
Not only 60+ points tactics, pal... you have to fix them all.
Otherwise, it would be unfair to other tacticians who followed the rules.
CSTG KANE said: It's actually hard to confirm this, I can only guarantee that from now on, my tactical screenshots won't show the same Expand
Nope, pal. I'm afraid it won't work that way.
You have to check every of your tested tactic and make sure all of them have proper screenshots. If it's needed you have to run tests again to add proper screenshots.
Only when you can confirm that all your tested tactics and non-tested tactics have proper screenshots we start test your new tactics again.
dzek said: My brother perhaps I did not explain my question well. Certainly not making in-match subs will have an impact and the test will not be as reliable. My point is that maybe the 'Use of Subs' attribute has something to do with when these subs are made and if they are made in general.
An example: - The manager with 'Use of Subs' value 1 may not make subs in-match or may make them quite late - for example in the 85th minute. - The manager with 'Use of Subs' value 20 to make subs very quickly and in every game.
This again would have an effect on the results as a more rested player in the game would have their ability at full capacity while those who are tired would be -3/-5 in every attribute due to fatigue. Expand
Only the game devs know for sure how "Use of Subs" attribute works, we can only guess about it.
Anyway, regardless of its working mechanic, it would be the same for every tactic tested so every tactic tested is effected by it at the same degree and we're comparing tactics here.
dzek said: 1. It says here that within the testing league no rotation happens for any team (including AI teams) however this seems to be something that is not the case and I wanted to ask if squad rotation of AI teams affects/increases the RNG? Expand Hi,
Yes, the AI managers rotate their teams but the alternative players for every position have the same attributes, morale and conditions as the main players, the alternative players are just copies of the main players so it can be considered as "no rotations happens"
dzek said: 2. Within matches the AI managers and assistant managers (of user controlled teams) do players subs but the 'Use of Subs' attribute is different for each of them individually. Does this play a role in the sub strategy and in the results and if so, does this also affect the RNG?
Thank you! Expand
Subs must happen and restricting them would have unpredictable consequences for the reliability of the results.
CBP87 said: @Zippo@Droid do you have this information available please? is it possible to add the result of 1200/2400/4000 (if applicable) to the results table? Expand
Hi,
Unfortunately, I don't think something like that would be possible.
@juwow, thank you for your vigilance and contribution, it's much appreciated.
@A Smile, @dzek, @letsgo9, thank you for your opinions and involvement in this situation, it's much appreciated.
@CSTG KANE, I see only one fair solution to this situation: you have to fix all the threads that have the same screenshots and add correct ones. Until then non of your tactics will be tested. Let me know when you're done.
infxamus said: Is it possible that there is a game file of the save at the end of the season? There used to be game saves available to see after a test was completed Expand
Hi,
We dropped that feature because the demand for game saves was low and the cost of hosting them was too high.
But we still keep all the game saves in an offline storage and I can provide them by a request.
There seems to be some obvious changes from last year, such as high LOE + Low def line being the default option last year, but now everything is much higher + much higher.
Sorry if it's been asked before. Expand
The last year TIs testing was more like an experiment and during the process it became clear that the way TIs work depends on formation/roles/duties/mentality and so on... other words, if something works well in one tactic then it isn't necessary also work well in other tactics.
The above means that if you want to test the TIs in a proper way then you have to test all possible combinations of TIs/Mentality/Formations/Roles/Duties. That would be something unrealizable to do. Also, add to it retesting with patches.
Mark said: As I said, I only used the first 6 tests, so is your data showing the average from all tests where you have tested 4000 matches or only the first 2400 matches? Expand
The thing is, the order in which the result screenshots are displayed isn't the order in which the tests happened. The result screenshot are randomly shuffled.
Mark said: I also only looked at the first 6 tests (ie 2400 matches) for each HOF tactic to ensure they were also all comparable. Expand
As you can see we've got 1,200 matches, 2,400 matches and 4,000 matches in our test result tables and we compare all them just fine.
You just need to calculate P.P.M.(Points Per Match) and then translate it for 38 matches.
Total Points / Total Matches Played = P.P.M.(Points Per Match)
P.P.M.(Points Per Match) x 38 = expected points after 38 matches
Mark said: I accept the statistical noise for less than 2 points. I was just trying to look at how I can use a combination of tactics through the season to my advantage. Expand
One important thing to note, we are talking about 1-3 points RNG when there's 1,200 matches and we are talking about 0.5 - 1.5 points RNG when there's 4,000 matches.
But if we take 2,400 matches then in this case a tactic is tested against a specific formation only for 480 matches.... could you imagine the level of the RNG at such small distance.
For example, look at your result for "424 deformation II" tactic vs "5-2-3" AI formation, it's "42.5" points after 6 runs, but after 10 runs it drops to "36" points so the RNG of 6 runs is about "6.5" points.
As I said when the RNG could be as high as "6.5" points, an attempt to rank tactics in 0.5-2.5 points range doesn't make sense.
dzek said: How did you test all the formations? AI against AI? Expand
dzek said: If we had a H2H tactic testing league with all the existing formations that the game has for AI managers then we would have a more accurate answer I believe on this case. Expand
Hi,
If you take the best 200 AI managers in the game then:
- 35% of them have 4-3-3 Preferred Formation - 35% of them have 4-2-3-1 Preferred Formation - 20% of them have "different variations of 5 at the back formation" Preferred Formation - 10% of them have 4-4-2 Preferred Formation
So 70% of 200 best AI managers in the game play with 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1
Also, look at the performance of AI's 5-2-3, it's significantly worse than AI's 4-2-3-1 or AI's 4-2-3-1.
We tested the rest of AI formations and they did even worse than AI's 5-2-3 so what's the point in having in the testing league?
According to our data If one tactic does better than other tactic vs AI's 4-2-3-1 or AI's 4-2-3-1 then it also will do better against other AI formations which are even weaker.
So when the overall difference between tactics is just 1-2 points then when it comes to a specific formation then the difference is also 1-2 points and such small difference is just "statistical noise".
Hey,
If you look at our player attributes testing for FM24 - https://fm-arena.com/tactic/7542-5-points-to-strength-for-all-positions/
then you'll see that increasing Strength attribute by +5 points for 10 positions in the tactic improves the score from 60 pts to 62 pts, so just by 2 points, which could be just the RNG for 2,400 matches.
Now, imagine what would be the difference if instead of 10 position the Strength attribute were increased only 1 or 2 positions because that's how many strikers a typical tactic has.
So Strength attribute does nothing for strikers, it could be "10" or "15" or "20", there'll be almost no difference at all.
Believe me, you aren't the first person who rises that kind of concerns and believe me, we aren't less curious than you when it comes to such matter so we have tested it many times.
For instance, if you take this tactic - https://fm-arena.com/thread/8315-424-cf-cabuloso/
and change the strikers' roles from AF/CF to TF/TF and also tweak their attributes increasing Strength and Jumping Reach but decreasing Acceleration and Pace then the result will drop significantly.
It has been tested and proven many times that Acceleration and Pace attributes are much more valuable than Strength and Jumping Reach for any striker role.
Speaking other words, if you have TF role in your tactic then with a fast and short striker for that role your result always will be much better than if you had a strong, tall but slow striker.
Cheers.
Yes, of course... as soon as the re-testing for v2.0 DB is over.
We've put a limit on the number of new tactics a person can share per 24 hours and that number is "2" at the moment.
We're planning to keep the limit until the next patch arrives. Of course, if there are no M.E. changes in the next patch then we keep the limit further until there are significant M.E. changes.
Cheers.
Hi,
Yes, as I said the tactical settings of AI managers were further enhanced and optimized and as you can see almost every tactics dropped points, some tactics dropped more points and some less.
Cheers.
Since the release of FM24 we've gather enough data to update and improve FM-Arena tactic testing league.
The improvements focus on enhancing and optimizing the tactical setting of AI managers in the league.
The updated DB result - https://fm-arena.com/table/28-patch-24-2-0-v2-0/
The old DB result - https://fm-arena.com/table/27-patch-24-2-0-v1-0/
Cheers.
Nah, we aren't going to make news of it because for those people who don't share tactics here, to be fair, that feature is irrelevant thing
you haven't noticed them because we just added them
Soon it will be improved further and you will be getting "a notification" every time when the status of your tactic changes or your tactic is tested.
Also, the "Rejected" Status will get a more detailed description about the issue with your tactic and "a special button" that you can click to put under review again after you fix the issue.
Not only 60+ points tactics, pal... you have to fix them all.
Otherwise, it would be unfair to other tacticians who followed the rules.
Let me know when you're done.
Nope, pal. I'm afraid it won't work that way.
You have to check every of your tested tactic and make sure all of them have proper screenshots. If it's needed you have to run tests again to add proper screenshots.
Only when you can confirm that all your tested tactics and non-tested tactics have proper screenshots we start test your new tactics again.
Let me know when you're done.
Cheers.
Tactical screenshots have been updated
@CSTG KANE, can you confirm that now all your tested tactics and non-tested tactics have proper screenshots?
An example:
- The manager with 'Use of Subs' value 1 may not make subs in-match or may make them quite late - for example in the 85th minute.
- The manager with 'Use of Subs' value 20 to make subs very quickly and in every game.
This again would have an effect on the results as a more rested player in the game would have their ability at full capacity while those who are tired would be -3/-5 in every attribute due to fatigue.
Only the game devs know for sure how "Use of Subs" attribute works, we can only guess about it.
Anyway, regardless of its working mechanic, it would be the same for every tactic tested so every tactic tested is effected by it at the same degree and we're comparing tactics here.
Hi,
Yes, the AI managers rotate their teams but the alternative players for every position have the same attributes, morale and conditions as the main players, the alternative players are just copies of the main players so it can be considered as "no rotations happens"
dzek said: 2. Within matches the AI managers and assistant managers (of user controlled teams) do players subs but the 'Use of Subs' attribute is different for each of them individually. Does this play a role in the sub strategy and in the results and if so, does this also affect the RNG?
Thank you!
Subs must happen and restricting them would have unpredictable consequences for the reliability of the results.
Hi,
Unfortunately, I don't think something like that would be possible.
Cheers.
@A Smile, @dzek, @letsgo9, thank you for your opinions and involvement in this situation, it's much appreciated.
@CSTG KANE, I see only one fair solution to this situation: you have to fix all the threads that have the same screenshots and add correct ones. Until then non of your tactics will be tested. Let me know when you're done.
Cheers.
Hi,
We dropped that feature because the demand for game saves was low and the cost of hosting them was too high.
But we still keep all the game saves in an offline storage and I can provide them by a request.
There seems to be some obvious changes from last year, such as high LOE + Low def line being the default option last year, but now everything is much higher + much higher.
Sorry if it's been asked before.
The last year TIs testing was more like an experiment and during the process it became clear that the way TIs work depends on formation/roles/duties/mentality and so on... other words, if something works well in one tactic then it isn't necessary also work well in other tactics.
The above means that if you want to test the TIs in a proper way then you have to test all possible combinations of TIs/Mentality/Formations/Roles/Duties. That would be something unrealizable to do. Also, add to it retesting with patches.
So, guys... no, TIs testing won't happen.
The thing is, the order in which the result screenshots are displayed isn't the order in which the tests happened. The result screenshot are randomly shuffled.
Mark said: I also only looked at the first 6 tests (ie 2400 matches) for each HOF tactic to ensure they were also all comparable.
As you can see we've got 1,200 matches, 2,400 matches and 4,000 matches in our test result tables and we compare all them just fine.
You just need to calculate P.P.M.(Points Per Match) and then translate it for 38 matches.
Total Points / Total Matches Played = P.P.M.(Points Per Match)
P.P.M.(Points Per Match) x 38 = expected points after 38 matches
Mark said: I accept the statistical noise for less than 2 points. I was just trying to look at how I can use a combination of tactics through the season to my advantage.
One important thing to note, we are talking about 1-3 points RNG when there's 1,200 matches and we are talking about 0.5 - 1.5 points RNG when there's 4,000 matches.
But if we take 2,400 matches then in this case a tactic is tested against a specific formation only for 480 matches.... could you imagine the level of the RNG at such small distance.
For example, look at your result for "424 deformation II" tactic vs "5-2-3" AI formation, it's "42.5" points after 6 runs, but after 10 runs it drops to "36" points so the RNG of 6 runs is about "6.5" points.
As I said when the RNG could be as high as "6.5" points, an attempt to rank tactics in 0.5-2.5 points range doesn't make sense.
dzek said: How did you test all the formations?
AI against AI?
We use a much more sophisticate method for that.
Hi,
If you take the best 200 AI managers in the game then:
- 35% of them have 4-3-3 Preferred Formation
- 35% of them have 4-2-3-1 Preferred Formation
- 20% of them have "different variations of 5 at the back formation" Preferred Formation
- 10% of them have 4-4-2 Preferred Formation
So 70% of 200 best AI managers in the game play with 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1
Also, look at the performance of AI's 5-2-3, it's significantly worse than AI's 4-2-3-1 or AI's 4-2-3-1.
We tested the rest of AI formations and they did even worse than AI's 5-2-3 so what's the point in having in the testing league?
According to our data If one tactic does better than other tactic vs AI's 4-2-3-1 or AI's 4-2-3-1 then it also will do better against other AI formations which are even weaker.
Best Of Both Worlds v4
424 deformation II
So when the overall difference between tactics is just 1-2 points then when it comes to a specific formation then the difference is also 1-2 points and such small difference is just "statistical noise".
Hi,
I have no idea what testing methodology was used to get those numbers so I can't say anything about it.
Xeno94 said: or the weighting on the editor highly value "decisions" for multiple positions.
If your are talking abut the official attribute weighting then it's been proven many times by our tests that they are far away from being "correct".