dzek said: Brother I really cannot continue this discussion any further. I can't sit down and explain word by word what I mean. In every reply I post (not just here - in this discussion) I try to be as clear as I can be to anyone. If you really want to understand what I have said then I am here to discuss at your convenience.
We all agree that there is a factor called RNG. That's it! Good luck! Expand
IF you got your point on your head and is working, good for you i guess.
dzek said: I didn't say the same tactic was tested for 4000 matches. Please don't call me a liar and you can read again my last sentence before the asterisk.
Everything you show here is tested in your own environment which is probably not like that of FM-Arena. This has a huge impact on the outcome.
I have already said that this year the FM-Arena Testing League has changed. I've never said there is no RNG factor in every test, but if the runs sucked and it got 65 points on random numbers it would show up in all the other tweaks. Further up I sent you 4 of mine which they have very small tweaks and as I said above I'm almost certain but we can wait and see. There are still 15+ other tweaks tactics on the table from others with minimal changes and if you notice they are all on a scale of 60-65 so how much can the score change? Could it become 45 after 4000 matches? Also did you notice a little bit the difference in points from the controlled teams to the AI teams in each test of the original? The results all together show me that the original tactic is stable.
I'm providing you with the pictures here.
Let's take an example of another tactic that seems to be less stable:
The only difference in this tactic is the "Dribble Less" on the center backs. I don't think this tactical change is considered a big enough change to make an 11 points difference. If you consider it a big change then the game is completely broken. But what I understand here is that because there is a wide range in the scale of the two scores means that the score is somewhere in the middle +/-.
In the majority of things we agree but I hope you get my point. Expand
dzek said: I didn't say the same tactic was tested for 4000 matches. Please don't call me a liar and you can read again my last sentence before the asterisk.
Everything you show here is tested in your own environment which is probably not like that of FM-Arena. This has a huge impact on the outcome.
I have already said that this year the FM-Arena Testing League has changed. I've never said there is no RNG factor in every test, but if the runs sucked and it got 65 points on random numbers it would show up in all the other tweaks. Further up I sent you 4 of mine which they have very small tweaks and as I said above I'm almost certain but we can wait and see. There are still 15+ other tweaks tactics on the table from others with minimal changes and if you notice they are all on a scale of 60-65 so how much can the score change? Could it become 45 after 4000 matches? Also did you notice a little bit the difference in points from the controlled teams to the AI teams in each test of the original? The results all together show me that the original tactic is stable.
I'm providing you with the pictures here.
Let's take an example of another tactic that seems to be less stable:
The only difference in this tactic is the "Dribble Less" on the center backs. I don't think this tactical change is considered a big enough change to make an 11 points difference. If you consider it a big change then the game is completely broken. But what I understand here is that because there is a wide range in the scale of the two scores means that the score is somewhere in the middle +/-.
In the majority of things we agree but I hope you get my point. Expand
Btw idk how you changing your words, "Brother I must step in here.. 424 deformation II has been tested in at least 6000 matches"
Fail to see where i did said that you said the tactic was tested 4k, whatever.
Let's say your tweaks are cosmetic so the tactic is the same right?
"stable" or "favor" the test is different btw that's not the point.
On every of your run you never hitted 65, none did, so if we can assume 65 ain't the true "power" of the tactic.
Now tell me the average over those runs : i didn't check yet but you said already there is a 59 which we can assume is the bad luck run. Now tell me what happened if you are unlucky and get 2 times 59 and go on. By doing that you can even calculate how luck/RNG hitted your test. How do you know if you were in luck spree or medium. The example that i brought it in is very easy to understand same tactic 3 points different, no changes, just the name and author/tactic which are not influencing the results.
so what you can assume, 64/63/62/61/60/59 are the possible results, i literally didn't even see if there anything else similar "according" to your logic of "fake" tweaks. Now question is do you know the % chance of those runs? Maybe ain't just 3 scenario but more. Maybe the true number is 62 or 61 and RNG is playing his part as well. If you are considering a -+3/5 on every tweak you doing, you can "guess" if you don't you are commiting wrong assumption.
If you call that stable, we diverge from the main point is "what stable" means :
I've also seen some other tactic (can't remember which it was) that was tested at 1200 matches and got 57 points (if I'm not mistaken) and then when the minor update came out and was tested again for another 1200 matches it went up 1 point. The minor update did not change anything substantial in ME.
Sure there is RNG in every test but with so many tests with small to very small tweaks for each shape then we can roughly figure out the score a tactic will bring to the table.
* I want to remind everyone that this year's FM-Arena Testing League has changed a bit from last year. Expand
Bring those 6k runs then, if you saying that the same tactic was tested 6k times we can make the average.
how do you know if those tweaks are "small" or "big" ; you still on an environment of 1200 games which each run has his own RNG.
This can't be counted as the "original" one, even tho doesn't make sense since is just "mirroed" we don't know why on FM Arena Test this tactic went this nuts.
Just giving you and example on my test :
Deformation etc did :
Example of bad starting and conclude on decent :
This is 41131 Centrifuge :
I am not testing manually nothing, it's all automatizzated, so i am not even influecing anything in any way.
But for example i did tested many roles on Striker (zone) and immagine the record on negative was - 5 for Trequartista. I did literally changed one role and i got a -5.. If you believe those minus tweaks are doing nothing that's your own judgement.
I didn't say you can't "guess" ; the tactic is indeed good, but not 4 points from the others luck or no luck included. You can understand even from 1200 games, there were tons of cases on the previous that tactic dropped 3-4 points on 4k runs, or even gain points on 4k runs.
Luck/RNG is a part of the game as well, but if you want to measure micro-aspect factors that's not the way to conclude that the "M.E" is crazy or not or the tweaks are minus or not.
Steelwood said: It was very interesting this morning seeing the difference between the scoring of Cameron and Death Star. I forgot that I'd changed the DM with "hold position" but my initial thought is that it does very little on a double pivot now so sorry for wasting your time a little with that 😂 Expand
letsgo9 said: The problem with that is that we are testing too many stuff and we are not getting lucky hahahaha Expand
Because you are trying to get over something that is almost impossible to achieve. there are % of striking those crazy runs, it's not like you will achieve every time, like you guys noticing by doing tweaks etcetc.
Just think it's something like that :
Bad luck = - RNG 10-20 % of striking it ? Medium luck = Normal RNG % of striking it 20-30%? Super crazy ass b***c luck lottery = Crazy RNG % of striking it 1-3%?
I did literally made it super simple, but it's working like that.
P.S. numbers given are totaly random, it's literally to give you an example.
Will try to explain it again, it was explained like idk many times, there is a thing called RNG (random number generated) imagine on 1200 games can be +-5/7 (don't know yet on FMarena test), means the original tactic from Smile didn't really scored 65 but it's more around 61-2 maybe even 60. We can know only when 4000+ games will be runned. And even there is a possibility to get RNG.
Basically if you get some crazy lucky runs on the test then tactic will fly better the another. But if your goal is to check micro-aspect, you need to "hit" the same RNG that was hitted on "deformation II"
Beside the fact that there should be at least some rule on writing change-logs so at least people don't waste their time and we don't hold a queque for no reason.
So if we are guessing, this setup is the same as the orginal and it's in "line" with the RNG as well.
Added step up more
Overlap on + focus
removed get stuck-in
Trying this setup with CM (PI) from 4x4 Quadro
We all agree that there is a factor called RNG. That's it!
Good luck!
IF you got your point on your head and is working, good for you i guess.
Re-made it for FM24 3421 with wingers.
About the unit, i would run the same, about the schedule i will check those pretty soon
Here are at least 5 tests with very minor tweaks from me along with the original:
1st run - https://fm-arena.com/thread/6879-424-deformation-ii/
2nd run - https://fm-arena.com/thread/7010-424-deformation-ii-tweak-fairly-wide/
3rd run - https://fm-arena.com/thread/7009-424-deformation-ii-tweak-fairly-narrow/
4th run - https://fm-arena.com/thread/7011-424-deformation-ii-tweak-wide/
5th run - https://fm-arena.com/thread/7007-424-deformation-ii-tweak-narrow/
I'm almost certain. Time will tell.
I never speak about this tactic.
Everything you show here is tested in your own environment which is probably not like that of FM-Arena. This has a huge impact on the outcome.
I have already said that this year the FM-Arena Testing League has changed. I've never said there is no RNG factor in every test, but if the runs sucked and it got 65 points on random numbers it would show up in all the other tweaks. Further up I sent you 4 of mine which they have very small tweaks and as I said above I'm almost certain but we can wait and see. There are still 15+ other tweaks tactics on the table from others with minimal changes and if you notice they are all on a scale of 60-65 so how much can the score change? Could it become 45 after 4000 matches? Also did you notice a little bit the difference in points from the controlled teams to the AI teams in each test of the original? The results all together show me that the original tactic is stable.
I'm providing you with the pictures here.
Let's take an example of another tactic that seems to be less stable:
Tactic 1 (60 points) - https://fm-arena.com/thread/6923-4231-death-star/
Tactic 2 (49 points) - https://fm-arena.com/thread/6924-4231-death-star-ii/
The only difference in this tactic is the "Dribble Less" on the center backs. I don't think this tactical change is considered a big enough change to make an 11 points difference. If you consider it a big change then the game is completely broken. But what I understand here is that because there is a wide range in the scale of the two scores means that the score is somewhere in the middle +/-.
In the majority of things we agree but I hope you get my point.
dzek said: I didn't say the same tactic was tested for 4000 matches. Please don't call me a liar and you can read again my last sentence before the asterisk.
Here are at least 5 tests with very minor tweaks from me along with the original:
1st run - https://fm-arena.com/thread/6879-424-deformation-ii/
2nd run - https://fm-arena.com/thread/7010-424-deformation-ii-tweak-fairly-wide/
3rd run - https://fm-arena.com/thread/7009-424-deformation-ii-tweak-fairly-narrow/
4th run - https://fm-arena.com/thread/7011-424-deformation-ii-tweak-wide/
5th run - https://fm-arena.com/thread/7007-424-deformation-ii-tweak-narrow/
I'm almost certain. Time will tell.
I never speak about this tactic.
Everything you show here is tested in your own environment which is probably not like that of FM-Arena. This has a huge impact on the outcome.
I have already said that this year the FM-Arena Testing League has changed. I've never said there is no RNG factor in every test, but if the runs sucked and it got 65 points on random numbers it would show up in all the other tweaks. Further up I sent you 4 of mine which they have very small tweaks and as I said above I'm almost certain but we can wait and see. There are still 15+ other tweaks tactics on the table from others with minimal changes and if you notice they are all on a scale of 60-65 so how much can the score change? Could it become 45 after 4000 matches? Also did you notice a little bit the difference in points from the controlled teams to the AI teams in each test of the original? The results all together show me that the original tactic is stable.
I'm providing you with the pictures here.
Let's take an example of another tactic that seems to be less stable:
Tactic 1 (60 points) - https://fm-arena.com/thread/6923-4231-death-star/
Tactic 2 (49 points) - https://fm-arena.com/thread/6924-4231-death-star-ii/
The only difference in this tactic is the "Dribble Less" on the center backs. I don't think this tactical change is considered a big enough change to make an 11 points difference. If you consider it a big change then the game is completely broken. But what I understand here is that because there is a wide range in the scale of the two scores means that the score is somewhere in the middle +/-.
In the majority of things we agree but I hope you get my point.
Btw idk how you changing your words, "Brother I must step in here.. 424 deformation II has been tested in at least 6000 matches"
Fail to see where i did said that you said the tactic was tested 4k, whatever.
Let's say your tweaks are cosmetic so the tactic is the same right?
"stable" or "favor" the test is different btw that's not the point.
On every of your run you never hitted 65, none did, so if we can assume 65 ain't the true "power" of the tactic.
Now tell me the average over those runs : i didn't check yet but you said already there is a 59 which we can assume is the bad luck run. Now tell me what happened if you are unlucky and get 2 times 59 and go on. By doing that you can even calculate how luck/RNG hitted your test. How do you know if you were in luck spree or medium. The example that i brought it in is very easy to understand same tactic 3 points different, no changes, just the name and author/tactic which are not influencing the results.
so what you can assume, 64/63/62/61/60/59 are the possible results, i literally didn't even see if there anything else similar "according" to your logic of "fake" tweaks. Now question is do you know the % chance of those runs? Maybe ain't just 3 scenario but more. Maybe the true number is 62 or 61 and RNG is playing his part as well. If you are considering a -+3/5 on every tweak you doing, you can "guess" if you don't you are commiting wrong assumption.
If you call that stable, we diverge from the main point is "what stable" means :
https://fm-arena.com/thread/7007-424-deformation-ii-tweak-narrow/
https://fm-arena.com/thread/7009-424-deformation-ii-tweak-fairly-narrow/
Hope it's clear
I've also seen some other tactic (can't remember which it was) that was tested at 1200 matches and got 57 points (if I'm not mistaken) and then when the minor update came out and was tested again for another 1200 matches it went up 1 point. The minor update did not change anything substantial in ME.
Sure there is RNG in every test but with so many tests with small to very small tweaks for each shape then we can roughly figure out the score a tactic will bring to the table.
* I want to remind everyone that this year's FM-Arena Testing League has changed a bit from last year.
Bring those 6k runs then, if you saying that the same tactic was tested 6k times we can make the average.
how do you know if those tweaks are "small" or "big" ; you still on an environment of 1200 games which each run has his own RNG.
This can't be counted as the "original" one, even tho doesn't make sense since is just "mirroed" we don't know why on FM Arena Test this tactic went this nuts.
Just giving you and example on my test :
Deformation etc did :
Example of bad starting and conclude on decent :
This is 41131 Centrifuge :
I am not testing manually nothing, it's all automatizzated, so i am not even influecing anything in any way.
But for example i did tested many roles on Striker (zone) and immagine the record on negative was - 5 for Trequartista. I did literally changed one role and i got a -5.. If you believe those minus tweaks are doing nothing that's your own judgement.
I didn't say you can't "guess" ; the tactic is indeed good, but not 4 points from the others luck or no luck included. You can understand even from 1200 games, there were tons of cases on the previous that tactic dropped 3-4 points on 4k runs, or even gain points on 4k runs.
Luck/RNG is a part of the game as well, but if you want to measure micro-aspect factors that's not the way to conclude that the "M.E" is crazy or not or the tweaks are minus or not.
It's oke at least i can bring an example
Because you are trying to get over something that is almost impossible to achieve. there are % of striking those crazy runs, it's not like you will achieve every time, like you guys noticing by doing tweaks etcetc.
Just think it's something like that :
Bad luck = - RNG 10-20 % of striking it ?
Medium luck = Normal RNG % of striking it 20-30%?
Super crazy ass b***c luck lottery = Crazy RNG % of striking it 1-3%?
I did literally made it super simple, but it's working like that.
P.S. numbers given are totaly random, it's literally to give you an example.
We can know only when 4000+ games will be runned. And even there is a possibility to get RNG.
Basically if you get some crazy lucky runs on the test then tactic will fly better the another. But if your goal is to check micro-aspect, you need to "hit" the same RNG that was hitted on "deformation II"
Example i didn't know that https://fm-arena.com/thread/7174-cameron-4-2-3-1-bal/ made the change on DMs as well and removed Hold position as well.
And guess what? it's the same as https://fm-arena.com/thread/7194-4231-death-star-balanced/ . 3 points different.
Beside the fact that there should be at least some rule on writing change-logs so at least people don't waste their time and we don't hold a queque for no reason.
So if we are guessing, this setup is the same as the orginal and it's in "line" with the RNG as well.
Basically this tactic didn't won the gamble.
Adapting to meta to check out
I didn't remember i posted on beta, i did even re-made a vacation run
gonna check out
Checking 433 and DLP
No clue yet, i am running even on my test league many test; checking out some DM(zone) combos
Volante+DLP
Checking out DLP+DM
Changed Mentality to Balanced as well.