Filer974 said: Someone has to explain to me I don't understand, in my test Equilibrum is the best of my tactics... And yet Evidence 56, Inspiration 57 and Equilibrum 53... It doesn't hold up Expand No one has to explain you anything, if you think that your testing methodology is more accurate than fm-arena testing methodology then test your tactics yourself and don't offer them for the testing on here. It is simple as that... don't act as a spoiled 5 years old baby.
does this work for any tactic or just the ZAZ one? as i didn't find anything in the chinese table mentioning positions like MC, AML/AMR, WBR/WBL
there is a piece of software named FMLineupTool that can be used to prioritise the atributes needed and i would like to modify the ratings there to suit my needs
It's quite simple to me. For all positions except central defender you should look for Acceleration, Pace, Dribbling, Anticipation, Stamina and for central defenders you should look Jumping Reach and Strength instead of Dribbling.
ZaZ said: I understand your point, but as far as results go, it didn't change much when I consider the combined results of all clubs. If difference was that big, then WM would be the best, since it gets similar results while using worse players. Expand
If you reduce some very important attributes such Acceleration, Pace and Dribbling only for few points then the scores drops like 50%.
Now image, if the assistant manager picks Milner when you test WMs and when you DWs he picks Salah, of course, it won't cause a 50% drop but still it would make a significant difference.
When the assistant manager picks players for Deep Lying Playmaker role then he always pick slow players because there's no Acceleration or Pace among important attributes for the role
But we know how Acceleration, Pace and Dribbling important in this ME but some roles just don't have these attributes among important attributes so if your tactic has such roles and the assistant manager picks the team then it might have a significant impact on the result.
ZaZ said: My custom testing league is explained in the first post. It might not be perfect, but it's giving me more accuracy than before, specially with my new scoring system. As far as results go, I don't think assistant manager is making such a big difference. Expand
The AM might make a significant difference if a tactic has some confusing roles like Wide Midfielders and Attacking Midfielders because he pick players according with the most important attributes for a role.
For instance, here's how important attributes looks for Wide Midfielder and as you can see there's no Acceleration or Pace among them:
So if you test ZaZ - Blue DM with Arsenal and you use DWs then the assistant manager picks Smith Rowe
and if you use WMs then the assistant manager picks Odegaard who is much slower but in the AM's eyes his is better as WM than Smith Rowe
if you test on holiday or similar method where the assistant manager picks the team or do the subs then WM is quite confusing for him, usually, he pick slow players with high teamwork and work rate for WM but slow players work poorly in this ME. Also, I've been noticing he often picks players for WM with opposite preferred foot to the flank.
ZaZ said: That's what I'm testing right now, which role is better to replace DW so you can easily change from tackle harder to ease off tackles. I'll give the answer when tests are done. Expand
I really don't think there's much choice, Wingers look like the only option.
Stefan said: Well, tacticians is too much said in the case of your opponents, most of them just throw multiple tactics on the market and hope one works out. Expand
Belmorn said: @cptdoggo was thinking about this one and you thought of / tested with complete forward - support instead of f9 ? It does things pretty similar except should be scoring more ? Expand
It's a good idea.
I'd suggest upload it for the testing and we'll see what is better F9 or CF
Wigo said: for me personally very difficult to understand how come in the game of shooting the ball in to the net finishing is not making difference Expand
Many times in FM we've had corners exploits, long throw-ins exploits, strikerless tactics were doing much better than anything else and you say that it surprises you to find out that there's some weirdness in the attributes...
Sometimes when I read some people's comments I get impression that they think if a tactic is on the top of the fm-arena testing league then it should get you on the top of any league with any team but that isn't how it works at all.
Here's my result with Tottenham using a tactic that has about 3.5 rating ( I don't want to reveal the tactic name ).
The team got 50 points and finished the 9th place.
And here's my result with Tottenham using a tactic that has about 5.5 rating ( I don't want to reveal the tactic name )
The team got 77 points and finished the 4th place.
As you can see I didn't win the league with a tactic from the top of the table but I did much better than with a 3.5 rating tactic.
I just want to say that the fm-arena tactics testing just compares tactics and it really doesn't say that with the top you should win titles for granted.
I really hope someone might find this explanation is useful.
Tejash said: Earlier we used to get the match odds now its not there anymore so it gets tricky sometimes to select the mentality. If someone experienced could clarify the same, many thanks! Expand
Before the 1st match of the season the teams are ranked by their average CA take a picture of this and use it during the season to determine the strength of your opponents in the league
Mark said: The Attribute testing is probably the most helpful from the last two seasons. Good to see that it continues and that we can still target players with good pace and acceleration, especially for lower league clubs. Expand
Gaksital said: I made a 3-4-1-2 one. but i don't know the way how effectively defended in this beta-engine. Expand
I don't remember when the last time a 3 defenders tactic worked well in FM. They always have been very leaky and it looks like this year isn't an exception
famulor said: So all you do is promote your YT channel? Alrighty then Expand
There're many other people do the same. They review tactics and try to promote their youtube or discord channels. It's been a part of FM ecosystem for long time already. They put efforts in their videos so I think it's fair they expect to get some credits for doing that. If you like their reviews then you follow them and if you aren't then you don't, it's as simple as that and I think everyone are completely ok with that.
No one has to explain you anything, if you think that your testing methodology is more accurate than fm-arena testing methodology then test your tactics yourself and don't offer them for the testing on here. It is simple as that... don't act as a spoiled 5 years old baby.
I guess the same with the flank because they are wingers.
does this work for any tactic or just the ZAZ one?
as i didn't find anything in the chinese table mentioning positions like MC, AML/AMR, WBR/WBL
there is a piece of software named FMLineupTool that can be used to prioritise the atributes needed and i would like to modify the ratings there to suit my needs
Please reply guys
I really don't understand why people complicate things. Just look at this table - https://fm-arena.com/table/13-fm22-attributes-ratings/
It's quite simple to me. For all positions except central defender you should look for Acceleration, Pace, Dribbling, Anticipation, Stamina and for central defenders you should look Jumping Reach and Strength instead of Dribbling.
I wouldn't be that sure... just look at the attributes testing - https://fm-arena.com/table/13-fm22-attributes-ratings/
If you reduce some very important attributes such Acceleration, Pace and Dribbling only for few points then the scores drops like 50%.
Now image, if the assistant manager picks Milner when you test WMs and when you DWs he picks Salah, of course, it won't cause a 50% drop but still it would make a significant difference.
When the assistant manager picks players for Deep Lying Playmaker role then he always pick slow players because there's no Acceleration or Pace among important attributes for the role
But we know how Acceleration, Pace and Dribbling important in this ME but some roles just don't have these attributes among important attributes so if your tactic has such roles and the assistant manager picks the team then it might have a significant impact on the result.
The AM might make a significant difference if a tactic has some confusing roles like Wide Midfielders and Attacking Midfielders because he pick players according with the most important attributes for a role.
For instance, here's how important attributes looks for Wide Midfielder and as you can see there's no Acceleration or Pace among them:
So if you test ZaZ - Blue DM with Arsenal and you use DWs then the assistant manager picks Smith Rowe
and if you use WMs then the assistant manager picks Odegaard who is much slower but in the AM's eyes his is better as WM than Smith Rowe
if you test on holiday or similar method where the assistant manager picks the team or do the subs then WM is quite confusing for him, usually, he pick slow players with high teamwork and work rate for WM but slow players work poorly in this ME. Also, I've been noticing he often picks players for WM with opposite preferred foot to the flank.
I really don't think there's much choice, Wingers look like the only option.
Thanks in advance
Don't teach people bad things
It's a good idea.
I'd suggest upload it for the testing and we'll see what is better F9 or CF
Many times in FM we've had corners exploits, long throw-ins exploits, strikerless tactics were doing much better than anything else and you say that it surprises you to find out that there's some weirdness in the attributes...
Sometimes when I read some people's comments I get impression that they think if a tactic is on the top of the fm-arena testing league then it should get you on the top of any league with any team but that isn't how it works at all.
Here's my result with Tottenham using a tactic that has about 3.5 rating ( I don't want to reveal the tactic name ).
The team got 50 points and finished the 9th place.
And here's my result with Tottenham using a tactic that has about 5.5 rating ( I don't want to reveal the tactic name )
The team got 77 points and finished the 4th place.
As you can see I didn't win the league with a tactic from the top of the table but I did much better than with a 3.5 rating tactic.
I just want to say that the fm-arena tactics testing just compares tactics and it really doesn't say that with the top you should win titles for granted.
I really hope someone might find this explanation is useful.
Before the 1st match of the season the teams are ranked by their average CA take a picture of this and use it during the season to determine the strength of your opponents in the league
I agree, the attributes testing is awesome thing
I don't remember when the last time a 3 defenders tactic worked well in FM. They always have been very leaky and it looks like this year isn't an exception
There're many other people do the same. They review tactics and try to promote their youtube or discord channels. It's been a part of FM ecosystem for long time already.