Zippo said: Guys, it's a very busy time right now and I almost don't have free time so I'll be quick.
Unforutanlty, we can't change by one click how the queue system work because it's very complicated matter.
We started with a "first come, first served" approach , which means the tactics were sorted in the queue by their upload time and we did a really huge work to bring 'CCP' ( Consumed Computing Power ) to make it much more fair than the "first come, first served" - https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/17204/
Our new 'CCP' approach is a bit raw, it requires polishing and it doesn't always work as it should but anyway it's miles better and more fair than the old "first come, first served" approach.
Unforutanlty, any adjustment to the queue would require spending a lot hours on codding and developing and that isn't something we're considering at the moment.
'Round Robin' approach might be a good idea but that's really only for a distant future.
Cheers. Expand
I guess we can organize our self, at least who want to join it.
Lemme know,otherwise gonna just post something that i really need info about.
Steelwood said: Yeah that's what I figured from some testing the other day
I'm actually just doing this test to see which system I want to use in my own save. My squad is set up for a 4-2-3-1 but I love my "simplified" tactic because it's good defensively and gives a lot of possession. However, if this is better I'll use this instead Expand
Nono don't missunderstand me! I guess we missing something on how the tactic-system impact on the M.E. ; that's why on balanced mentality can't even surpass 53 with that mentality. I really want to know how works out on a real test without "tackle harder" Because i just know from "my" test
Steelwood said: So I think it's time to draw a close on this tactic since I can only take a 4-2-3-1 so far and there are lots of formations that perform better in testing. So, here is Woodball FINAL.
It is based on @Delicious tactics but still includes my idea of no player instructions to see how it would do. The only player roles that have been changed are the two volantes because I've seen it do well in tactics at the top of the table.
Watford got 97 points as well as Birmingham also getting 97 points. However, Birmingham lost in the playoff final. So why am I bigging up this tactic so much if it is doing worse than my previous attempts.
The simple answer is because it's not. With Watford it equals my personal best at expected points from the simplified version uploaded previously. With Birmingham it beats the tally from that tactic by two.
This will probably be the last edition of Woodball that I upload. Expand
The truth lies in something else mate... A bit sad about that it's most likely the shape is "Locked" on benchmark,but gonna check it where or how later on.
Many people told me already that they prefer to remove stuck-in and tackle, let's see how it give so we can even move around
MemorizableUsername said: Soft&Wet_v2_4-2-4 Hi FMArena team, appreciate your help to test new tactic 'Soft&Wet_v2_4-2-4'. It is a tweak based on 'Soft&Wet_4-2-4' using personal & play tester @Vitinha feedback : 1) Change CWB > WB 2) TI Change : Low Cross > Whipped Cross 3) TI Change : Cross More Often 4) Cleaned up PI on AF
Thank you in advance ! Expand
Gonna check Cross more often maybe haaland can outscore 140
ZaZ said: Let's say you have tactic A and tactic B. They reached the number of points below after being tested with Manchester City: A 98 99 90 79 106
B 97 94 93 110 81
Then you rank all those values by higher to smaller: 1. 110 - B 2. 106 - A 3. 99 - A 4. 98 - A 5. 97 - B 6. 94 - B 7. 93 - B 8. 90 - A 9. 81 - B 10. 79 - A
Then you simply sum the ranks and see which one has the best (lowest) rank. In this example, A has 2+3+4+8+10=27, while B has 1+5+6+7+9=28. Therefore A is better (or you can say they are around the same since it's only 1 point of difference. I do some more complex stuff, but this is an easy way to compare tactics that anyone can do without any advanced knowledge. Expand
So from this reasoning you get the results that,is better going w/o overlap? Because on mine say the contrary. I am more confused then before now.
ZaZ said: I think you are a bit too full of yourself right now. When you started testing, you said the instructions you were using were meta, so you could copy from others without giving any credits. Now, you assume everyone is copying from you. You shouldn't hold that double standard.
I have been here for a while and every time someone is on top, it's natural that people will try to understand what made that tactic work and assimilate to their own tactics. If the difference is too small, then I agree it's just a tweak and it should be given credits, but after a while the tactics always start to converge somewhere. Expand
I am not assuming and you didn't even followed that if you say something like that,it's not like i've deleted any post. Because it's more or less all explained the process. Because i started with "old-meta no clue who or what created it" and new "meta". To make a comparasion. If you believe i did copy someone i will give credit him,i am not that self-fish,this thing about converge seem more my reasoning then yours. I am assuming that from the past, i might be wrong. But in order to achieve that it was required a tons of test, but somehow this hurted the community. Sorry if i am bit confused here,but really the thing that fished me was "it could be achieved by the author with a bit of test" more then anything else.
But assimilate all the template it's a bit optimistic to say, about the players instructions are basically none so i do accept that. But funny part you know what is it? That there are more hidden things around how those stuff works,guess will be your turn.
tom100000000000 said: Yes, exactly. I prefer to test over and over in my own database before sharing here.
Brute force here will work, but it’s not a very efficient use of @Zippo’s resource Expand
If you say so i might believe you know pretty well. But as i said for me is everything cool,even stay on my queque
Those are just a bunch, seem people need to understand, that it's not like i was random spamming because of something,but in order to achieve something-accurate you need a server-computing. Spoiler will wait you explain how mentality passive's works from your accurate work.
You trying to explain things with your "database" that is working in a completely different way to understand how things works under a "freeze" on this one?
Or do you have fm-arena file?
Do you really believe if i had something that was nearly accurate as this Tactic-Test i would even come here and "spamming"?
My mistake was trying to "hold" more "roles-slot" possible in order to prevent people to just copy.
About that kind of spam you're totaly right and since i've understand how things working i just went and deleted most of them that were on queque.
That's why even @ZaZ is using the work i did, because was very inefficient computing resource.
Hope you understand better now. And hope you will show me the results of your work so i can just use it for my liking.
ZaZ said: I'm not complaining with your methods, just making a suggestion to improve FM-Arena overall. Also, keep in mind that saying you are making a joke usually rubs off the other way. Expand
And i said that is totaly cool. You helping me in that way i am not blind to see that.
pixar said: Frankly, I am disturbed by this. I am not a tactic creator, but I think it is unfair to creators who think more about their tactics and produce new tactics by making major changes rather than minor ones. As a result, users can make minor changes. My personal opinion is that there is a limitation on uploading tactics to the site. For example, it can load 1 tactic in 3 days. Still not sure. I would like to hear your ideas. Expand
Frankly,i totaly agree with you. But in order to make it "clean" we should need a tool in order to conduct a research. In another site was provided and i am frankly using it for not shooting-gunning test in this place. Because as Zippo said i am obsessed too much with micro-improvements and i like to juice out till the last drop from everything i can about something i like. That could be a cpu or a script or a database or something that require always more speed.
ZaZ said: I'm not saying brute testing doesn't work, there are some well known people that release ten tactics per day changing just some minor instruction, until one of them gives good results. All I am suggesting is to make the queue more fair for those that test things thoroughly before uploading here, using some very simple scheduling system like round robin. This system will not hurt much people that do brute testing, but will greatly benefit those that try to understand their tactics before posting. Expand
But without those "tiny" test would've you really tested they way you did? or get any further idea how this M.E. working? (Don't need to reply to that we both know,i am just making italian jokes) As i said for me is totaly fine the round-robin! And it's really totaly cool idea.
Falbravv said: Totally agree, never seen such spam on this forum, only for one little change, FM ARENA is a tactic testing place, but some changes can be easily test by author.
Good suggestion as always Expand
Do you really believe that? That's why everyone is copying one tactical template? Or PI'S? Hello? Because was easy to get tested? So why didn't you show up before and showed us the right way?
tom100000000000 said: This testing is only conclusive if we view each instruction as being worth ‘x’ points, in total isolation of the rest of the tactic. I don’t agree it works like this.
You’ve tested the impact of overlaps… in that exact shape/roles/instructions. For a different tactic it doesn’t necessarily translate across 1:1 Expand
Mate,it's hard to say it was tested on 4231 433 4141 4123 424 343 3412, those are the famous shapes,yet you have to consider where do you actually test something at the very moment here is like ON -2 G.A. OFF +2 G.D.! Unfortunaly some tactics got 6k tornado test or i could show you easier. Try to setup a league and put managers with tendecies with 20 close up and try it with On and Off. That could be a really good test. And we can't compare yet because it need tornado test as well.
It's hard to organize something like that. Don't get me wrong,it would benefit me in primis but that's not really something easy to make and since i don't think @crizeKOS is going to "hoarding",you people are fine.
About me,i was personally "hoarding" because i didn't want people to just copy/pasta everything,but when i did understand that in order to get "author" you need to change any kind of cosmetic options,i've stopped that. And for me is totaly fine this way as well . And there are already more tactics copy-like that are on queque but i've already posted on my threads,more then a queque we first need to understand how things works,because after patch it's gonna be hell if we want to compete that way. And when something is considereted a tweak and when is not.
All this thing to explain that i will no hoarding more since i did understand it's completely useless,i just kept the one i am curious about.(deleted more then 15 or 20)
tom100000000000 said: I was just starting to think overlaps or underlaps were essential. Good job. Expand
kjarus said: I am not sure its about the underlap/overlap in this case... My thinking is to do with the higher D line compared to the lower one. Naturally you will score more and concede more and you can see that when comparing both top tactics - same amount of points, but this one more goals. Expand
Unforutanlty, we can't change by one click how the queue system work because it's very complicated matter.
We started with a "first come, first served" approach , which means the tactics were sorted in the queue by their upload time and we did a really huge work to bring 'CCP' ( Consumed Computing Power ) to make it much more fair than the "first come, first served" - https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/17204/
Our new 'CCP' approach is a bit raw, it requires polishing and it doesn't always work as it should but anyway it's miles better and more fair than the old "first come, first served" approach.
Unforutanlty, any adjustment to the queue would require spending a lot hours on codding and developing and that isn't something we're considering at the moment.
'Round Robin' approach might be a good idea but that's really only for a distant future.
Cheers.
I guess we can organize our self, at least who want to join it.
Lemme know,otherwise gonna just post something that i really need info about.
Cheers
Because i want to try 2-3 tactics
I'm actually just doing this test to see which system I want to use in my own save. My squad is set up for a 4-2-3-1 but I love my "simplified" tactic because it's good defensively and gives a lot of possession. However, if this is better I'll use this instead
Nono don't missunderstand me! I guess we missing something on how the tactic-system impact on the M.E. ; that's why on balanced mentality can't even surpass 53 with that mentality.
I really want to know how works out on a real test without "tackle harder"
Because i just know from "my" test
It is based on @Delicious tactics but still includes my idea of no player instructions to see how it would do. The only player roles that have been changed are the two volantes because I've seen it do well in tactics at the top of the table.
Watford got 97 points as well as Birmingham also getting 97 points. However, Birmingham lost in the playoff final. So why am I bigging up this tactic so much if it is doing worse than my previous attempts.
The simple answer is because it's not. With Watford it equals my personal best at expected points from the simplified version uploaded previously. With Birmingham it beats the tally from that tactic by two.
This will probably be the last edition of Woodball that I upload.
https://fm-arena.com/tactic/3949-4231-prochazka-iii/
The truth lies in something else mate... A bit sad about that it's most likely the shape is "Locked" on benchmark,but gonna check it where or how later on.
Many people told me already that they prefer to remove stuck-in and tackle, let's see how it give so we can even move around
Hi FMArena team, appreciate your help to test new tactic 'Soft&Wet_v2_4-2-4'.
It is a tweak based on 'Soft&Wet_4-2-4' using personal & play tester @Vitinha feedback :
1) Change CWB > WB
2) TI Change : Low Cross > Whipped Cross
3) TI Change : Cross More Often
4) Cleaned up PI on AF
Thank you in advance !
Gonna check Cross more often
You can't hide...
It's Tornado Time!
Do you remember what was your red and green value?
Imagine i am even Christian, what kind of proselytizing am i doing?
I guess UFC still a kind of sport,might be wrong.
For me is a wonderfull meaning.
If you prefer i can revert to 424 2WB2VOL2IFAAOS or you can suggest some names
I did tried CM no clue,can't make it work good as mezzala
A
98
99
90
79
106
B
97
94
93
110
81
Then you rank all those values by higher to smaller:
1. 110 - B
2. 106 - A
3. 99 - A
4. 98 - A
5. 97 - B
6. 94 - B
7. 93 - B
8. 90 - A
9. 81 - B
10. 79 - A
Then you simply sum the ranks and see which one has the best (lowest) rank. In this example, A has 2+3+4+8+10=27, while B has 1+5+6+7+9=28. Therefore A is better (or you can say they are around the same since it's only 1 point of difference. I do some more complex stuff, but this is an easy way to compare tactics that anyone can do without any advanced knowledge.
So from this reasoning you get the results that,is better going w/o overlap? Because on mine say the contrary.
I am more confused then before now.
I have been here for a while and every time someone is on top, it's natural that people will try to understand what made that tactic work and assimilate to their own tactics. If the difference is too small, then I agree it's just a tweak and it should be given credits, but after a while the tactics always start to converge somewhere.
I am not assuming and you didn't even followed that if you say something like that,it's not like i've deleted any post. Because it's more or less all explained the process. Because i started with "old-meta no clue who or what created it" and new "meta". To make a comparasion.
If you believe i did copy someone i will give credit him,i am not that self-fish,this thing about converge seem more my reasoning then yours. I am assuming that from the past, i might be wrong.
But in order to achieve that it was required a tons of test, but somehow this hurted the community.
Sorry if i am bit confused here,but really the thing that fished me was "it could be achieved by the author with a bit of test" more then anything else.
But assimilate all the template it's a bit optimistic to say, about the players instructions are basically none so i do accept that. But funny part you know what is it? That there are more hidden things around how those stuff works,guess will be your turn.
EDIT:
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/16473/
Will let it here so everyone can understand clearly.
Brute force here will work, but it’s not a very efficient use of @Zippo’s resource
If you say so i might believe you know pretty well. But as i said for me is everything cool,even stay on my queque
Those are just a bunch, seem people need to understand, that it's not like i was random spamming because of something,but in order to achieve something-accurate you need a server-computing.
Spoiler
will wait you explain how mentality passive's works from your accurate work.
You trying to explain things with your "database" that is working in a completely different way to understand how things works under a "freeze" on this one?
Or do you have fm-arena file?
Do you really believe if i had something that was nearly accurate as this Tactic-Test i would even come here and "spamming"?
My mistake was trying to "hold" more "roles-slot" possible in order to prevent people to just copy.
About that kind of spam you're totaly right and since i've understand how things working i just went and deleted most of them that were on queque.
That's why even @ZaZ is using the work i did, because was very inefficient computing resource.
Hope you understand better now. And hope you will show me the results of your work so i can just use it for my liking.
ZaZ said: I'm not complaining with your methods, just making a suggestion to improve FM-Arena overall. Also, keep in mind that saying you are making a joke usually rubs off the other way.
And i said that is totaly cool. You helping me in that way i am not blind to see that.
pixar said: Frankly, I am disturbed by this. I am not a tactic creator, but I think it is unfair to creators who think more about their tactics and produce new tactics by making major changes rather than minor ones. As a result, users can make minor changes.
My personal opinion is that there is a limitation on uploading tactics to the site. For example, it can load 1 tactic in 3 days. Still not sure. I would like to hear your ideas.
Frankly,i totaly agree with you. But in order to make it "clean" we should need a tool in order to conduct a research. In another site was provided and i am frankly using it for not shooting-gunning test in this place. Because as Zippo said i am obsessed too much with micro-improvements and i like to juice out till the last drop from everything i can about something i like.
That could be a cpu or a script or a database or something that require always more speed.
But without those "tiny" test would've you really tested they way you did? or get any further idea how this M.E. working? (Don't need to reply to that we both know,i am just making italian jokes)
As i said for me is totaly fine the round-robin! And it's really totaly cool idea.
Falbravv said: Totally agree, never seen such spam on this forum, only for one little change, FM ARENA is a tactic testing place, but some changes can be easily test by author.
Good suggestion as always
Do you really believe that? That's why everyone is copying one tactical template?
Or PI'S? Hello? Because was easy to get tested? So why didn't you show up before and showed us the right way?
You’ve tested the impact of overlaps… in that exact shape/roles/instructions. For a different tactic it doesn’t necessarily translate across 1:1
Mate,it's hard to say it was tested on 4231 433 4141 4123 424 343 3412, those are the famous shapes,yet you have to consider where do you actually test something at the very moment here is like
ON -2 G.A. OFF +2 G.D.! Unfortunaly some tactics got 6k tornado test or i could show you easier.
Try to setup a league and put managers with tendecies with 20 close up and try it with On and Off.
That could be a really good test. And we can't compare yet because it need tornado test as well.
About me,i was personally "hoarding" because i didn't want people to just copy/pasta everything,but when i did understand that in order to get "author" you need to change any kind of cosmetic options,i've stopped that. And for me is totaly fine this way as well
And there are already more tactics copy-like that are on queque but i've already posted on my threads,more then a queque we first need to understand how things works,because after patch it's gonna be hell if we want to compete that way.
And when something is considereted a tweak and when is not.
All this thing to explain that i will no hoarding more since i did understand it's completely useless,i just kept the one i am curious about.(deleted more then 15 or 20)
kjarus said: I am not sure its about the underlap/overlap in this case... My thinking is to do with the higher D line compared to the lower one. Naturally you will score more and concede more and you can see that when comparing both top tactics - same amount of points, but this one more goals.
https://fm-arena.com/thread/3181-do-overlaps-make-any-difference/#comment-17770
Everything was already tested. Even the counter-press. The only thing i don't quite know and how many points is giving underlaps or not.
But if even those are considereted cosmetic options i don't know what to think.
I bet there'll be a lot of them at the top.
It's fine,i even start to delete tactics that i feel that are not gonna hit 55+ maybe for new year we will know what is going to happen.