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 Expand
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%.
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 10% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
'Competent' rating is about 15% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
'Unconvincing' rating is about 20% 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.
ZaZ said: Is it possible to test another thing? I always wanted to know if it's better to have DCL with right or left foot, as well as DCR. Same for AMCL and AMCR. I mean, everyone only cares about feet from wingers, but what is better for those central positions with two players? Expand
We've tested that and I can say that it's better to have a left footed player for DCL and a right footed player for DCR and the same for AMCL and AMCR but sadly, I can't give any numbers.
ZaZ said: It would be nice to have "untrained", since we already have accomplished. I believe that's what people would like to know the most, what is the impact of directly lining up a ST as AMC. Expand
If you're talking about the 'Ineffectual' rating then sure, we'll test it too.
Grimlock said: I don't know maybe FM-Arena will test more different position ratings at some point. For example, what's the difference between "Competent" position rating and "Natural" position rating. Expand
I'm sure no one would argue that people tend to consider the latest version of a tactic as the most recent version and the most effective version at least in the eyes of the author so handling the updates in any different way would create a lot of confusion.
It's common practice and there's nothing wrong in updating your tactic to revert the changes that was made in the previous version.
Higher version number should indicate a more recent tactic.
If you think that some of the previous versions(e.g. Blue 2.1) is the best for the 21.4 patch then there's nothing wrong in uploading it once more but with a different name(e.g. Blue 3.0).
ZaZ said: Sorry, I thought it wasn't useful anymore since you can't roll back to previous patch. I will get it back immediately. I deleted because I thought it would confuse people to have a version 2.2 that is outdated while version 2.1 is considered the one to be used in this patch, so I thought it would confuse people to leave them there. Expand
No worries, thank you for your comprehension.
The previous versions are far from being useless because it's always very useful to know what worked well for the previous patches and how you've been changing your tactics from patch to patch. Also, there are some people that keep their Steam clients in 'Offline mode' to avoid updates so they are still on the previous patches.
Also, having different tactics with the same name is extremely confusion. Imagine, people were discussing and positing results for a tactic that was called Blue 2.0 but you've deleted it and uploaded a different tactic with the same name. Now people are discussing and uploading results for a tactic that's is also called Blue 2.0 but it's a different tactic. Could you imagine how confusing it will be for people that only recently stumbled across your thread?
ZaZ said: I've removed Blue 2.2 from the first post since it now performs worse than 2.1. If anyone still wants to use it, it's the same as 2.1, but with "Use Tighter Marking" option enabled.
I'll keep Blue 2.1 for this patch since my attempt of 3.0 was also performing worse than 2.1. Unfortunately, Phoenix became too similar to Blue, so I'll probably set it aside for a while to work in different formations. @Zippo can test Blue 2.1 anytime. Expand
ZaZ said: Updated for this patch. Since I Blue 2.1 performed better in my experiments, this one is a variation of that tactic instead of 2.2 or 3.0 (which failed). Expand
Hi, pal.
Please, restore the 2.2 version which was tested.
Deleting your tactics, especially those which were tested, creates great confusion for everyone and nullifies our work. Please, never do that.
Tell me when you sort out your threads and I'll add your new tactics in the queue.
Please, give the tactic a more appropriate name.
Also, could you add screenshots of the tactic and some results with it.
Thank you.
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...
Outdated Data under the poiler.
Spoiler 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 10% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
'Competent' rating is about 15% less effective than 'Natural' rating.
'Unconvincing' rating is about 20% 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.
We've tested that and I can say that it's better to have a left footed player for DCL and a right footed player for DCR and the same for AMCL and AMCR but sadly, I can't give any numbers.
If you're talking about the 'Ineffectual' rating then sure, we'll test it too.
That's a good idea. We're working on it.
You forgot to upload the tactic.
I've fixed your post.
If you want to insert an attachment somewhere in your post then just click the 'Insert' button and that's all.
You forgot to upload the tactic.
Please, add screenshots of the tactic and some results with it.
Thank you.
Please, add screenshots of the tactic and more result with it.
Thanks.
Please, post some results with the tactic.
Thanks.
Thank you.
I'm sure no one would argue that people tend to consider the latest version of a tactic as the most recent version and the most effective version at least in the eyes of the author
It's common practice and there's nothing wrong in updating your tactic to revert the changes that was made in the previous version.
Please, upload screenshots of the tactic.
Thanks.
Pal, it's still very confusing.
Higher version number should indicate a more recent tactic.
If you think that some of the previous versions(e.g. Blue 2.1) is the best for the 21.4 patch then there's nothing wrong in uploading it once more but with a different name(e.g. Blue 3.0).
Please, let me know when you sort it out.
Thanks.
No worries, thank you for your comprehension.
The previous versions are far from being useless because it's always very useful to know what worked well for the previous patches and how you've been changing your tactics from patch to patch. Also, there are some people that keep their Steam clients in 'Offline mode' to avoid updates so they are still on the previous patches.
Also, having different tactics with the same name is extremely confusion. Imagine, people were discussing and positing results for a tactic that was called Blue 2.0 but you've deleted it and uploaded a different tactic with the same name. Now people are discussing and uploading results for a tactic that's is also called Blue 2.0 but it's a different tactic. Could you imagine how confusing it will be for people that only recently stumbled across your thread?
Please, check this - https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/3977/
Thanks.
I'll keep Blue 2.1 for this patch since my attempt of 3.0 was also performing worse than 2.1. Unfortunately, Phoenix became too similar to Blue, so I'll probably set it aside for a while to work in different formations. @Zippo can test Blue 2.1 anytime.
Hi, pal.
Please, check this - https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/3967/.
Thanks.
Hi, pal.
Please, restore the 2.2 version which was tested.
Deleting your tactics, especially those which were tested, creates great confusion for everyone and nullifies our work. Please, never do that.
Tell me when you sort out your threads and I'll add your new tactics in the queue.
Thanks.