Added Light Blue 2.0, a tactic to save energy, concede less goals and make less fouls, to be used when you have a comfortable lead (I use when winning by two goals of difference).
Rince said: I would say something like that is a half-measure.
I think having more than two tactics would make things too complicated for many people.
I'm sure you need to keep things as simple as possible.
Everyone just need some defensive tactic with a very low intensity to use when they achieve desirable score in the match and want to kill the game and save the players conditions. Expand
You are comparing apples and oranges. For resting, you can just turn off anything that increases intensity and turn on what decreases it. That's not my goal. I am trying to find the most effective tactic which concedes less goals than Blue 2.0 and has significantly lower intensity. I plan to use it to park the bus and rest players. My goal is not to just rest players, as that is trivial to do and don't need much testing at all.
Rince said: As people say "you can't sit in two chairs with one butt".
You have to choose between two modes: "conditions saving mode" and "extreme effectivity mode"
Sometimes you need the first and sometimes you need the second Expand
Like I said, I am thinking of 3 tactics. Blue 2.0, high performance rest and training mode. Training mode is the one you are talking about, when you have no chance of losing. I am trying to figure out the best tradeoff in the middle ground.
I am actually getting some good results with some variant now, using both stay on feet and waste time often, but keeping high tempo.
P.S.: I often play in lower divisions, with little money to get a large squad, then need to play two matches with one day to rest. I am talking here about the lowest divisions, with semi-professional teams. In that case, you need a balance between performance and resting your players.
Grimlock said: but it should not be as effective as Blue 2.0, you need this tactic when you already have a solid lead in a match and you just want to save the Physical Conditions of your players and "kill" the game. Expand
I want one that I can use when winning 2-0 with 15 min of match, so I can safely change without fear of losing. I can still have another with everything on for when I know I can't lose anymore. I am just trying to find a park the bus and rest with points per match similar to Blue 2.0.
Grimlock said: Why do you need using a different shape? Use the same shape as Blue 2.0 because it's the best shape at the moment, just bring the intensity level into the "green" zone. Expand
I said shape meaning team instructions. I plan to keep the same formation and roles than Blue 2.0. However, I don't think I will be able to bring it to green while achieving close to 100 points in the league with Manchester City, as well as good result with Fulham.
P.S.: Stay on feet also performed worse. However, I will keep one tactic with stay on feet and waste time often to use when the match is already decided.
Grimlock said: Also, it makes sense adding "Stay On Feet" TI if you want to reduce the amount of fouls your players produce and yellow/red cards they receive. Expand
It makes sense. I am running tests for that right now.
My way of testing is like this: I set the tactics for both teams (Manchester City and Fulham) and go in holiday for the season. Repeat it three times and consider the worst result. If the worst result is too different, then I run two more times and pick the second worst. That is to make sure my tactic is consistent.
For theses experiments with lower intensity, I am trying to get a tactic with lower intensity and results as close as possible to Blue 2.0. That would mean the tactic won't increase my chances of losing too much for pulling back.
Right now, the best option is cautious mentality with slow pace down. With that, my worst result had Manchester City with 100 points winning the Champions League. The results make me wonder if Light Blue 2.0 (name I chose for this tactic) is actually as good as Blue 2.0. I wonder if @Zippo would allow one test for this lower intensity tactic, when I figure the best shape for it.
Anyway, waste time often is good when you have a comfortable lead. It will make you concede as much as without the instruction at the cost of scoring less goals. However, scoring less golas can make you lose a match that you normally wouldn't, making it less effective than without wasting time. If you know you won't lose, then it's worth it to keep your players in shape.
I will bring more info when I get the results for stay on feet.
I am testing different things to lower the intensity and concede less goals for ZaZ 2.0, without losing much performance. The plan is to use that when winning to rest players and hold the result, but without risking too much. I suppose the same instructions can also be applied to Phoenix. Right now, I can say changing mentality to cautious and asking goalkeeper to slow pace down are effective measures to reduce intensity and concede less while keeping similar chance to win the match. Lower tempo, lower pressing intensity and deeper pressing line all reduce your chance to win, increasing the likelihood to concede goals. I am currently testing waste time often.
Mark said: @ZaZ A few interesting observations as I drill into the data.
Sides that had a lower number of players in the Squad were either worse off or more variable in their results. Weymouth had the smallest squad with just 16 players when I stopped them recruiting. It would only take a suspension or injury to impact them.
The stats that they all seemed to have that were consistently high for their sides were (in order):
Determination Natural Fitness Work rate Stamina Team work Acceleration
Of these there were 3 that increased in importance as you moved up through the grades ie you needed these to increase as you move through the leagues:
Work rate Stamina Team work Expand
I was thinking of checking team report to see the attributes of each of the ten teams, then list how much % of league average for each attribute. Then I could check what attributes are more important for each strategy.
skywalk3r83 said: What do you do for individual training? Player roles or playing position? General training by assistant? Expand
I do player roles for individual. For general training, I always have Attacking Movement, Defending Movement and Teamwork before every match. Before decisions, I also add Set Pieces Delivery. Other than that, I add Match Practice and Team Bonding for cohesion and happiness, and Recovery to prevent injuries. All the rest is usually optional, like one physical if I have full weak of training, overall or outfield.
Eric said: Usually, when my team leads by 2 goals or more in a match then I go for a very defensive tactic that implies very low tempo and time wasting to save the conditions of my players and I'm sure if you don't do something like that then you'll burn the conditions of your players very fast. Expand
I don't like to do that because I hate when my real team does that, putting the result at risk. But it's probably not a bad choice in game.
Tactic source is going to the wrong page. It should be either the first page of Blue, or the specific topic for Blue 2.0 (linked in the first page of Blue).
I usually just lower the mentality to cautious when winning by two goals or more, as it reduces 1/3 of the likelihood to concede goals as well as reducing intensity. I save a tactic on cautious so it trains the mentality and get tactical familiarity. I've tried other stuff like wasting time, lower tempo, lower pressing intensity and such, but all of them make the tactic way worse, putting the result at risk.
For resting, I would rather rotate the squad, give one or two days of resting from training, or just do lighter training sessions during a tight schedule (like just team bonding, recovery and some match preparation, like attacking/defending movement).
It just did. Better than Blue 1.0, but still behind Phoenix. It performs better in normal conditions, when players are not frozen in perfect state and make more mistakes. It also got the highest goal difference, which is always a plus.
Lapidus said: I think if you aren't ready to hear any criticism or a different opinion then you shouldn't post anything on the internet
Constructive criticism is a good thing, it helps evaluating and improving.
Expand
No point arguing like this.
healmuth said: In my testing, players, their stats, moral and condition is frozen. I also test 80 matches in a custom league per run. The basis of the league is provided by FMB and I’ve modified it further. Is it perfect? No, there’s no perfect testing but it certainly is more accurate than load tactic and press holiday. Expand
You are right if you mean loading a tactic once then pressing play. If you do the same thing for 1800 matches, then you start extracting useful information from the randomness. Either people like it or not, random facts have an impact on the tactics. Tests must aim to remove outliers, not to remove randomness. Freezing stats is one way to remove the outliers, but not the only way.
P.S.: Not saying holiday is the best way to test tactics, only that it is a different way, with different goals and outcomes.
Lapidus said: Pal, you're exaggerating here. I really don't see anyone tries "demotivate" Mark or saying anything negative about your Blue 2.0.
Guys were just pointing the weak and strong sides of different testing methods and that's all. I'm sure that such discussion can help people to improve their testing methods. Expand
I think they tried to discredit the results. One guy said "that proves you can't just plug and play and push holiday button", which is clearly a way of minimizing his methodology. The other guy said the difference of 4% was too small to mean anything and it was just RNG factors, while another was saying you can't say there is a clear winner, when there is clear statistical relevance to the results.
What I mean is that more people appeared to say something negative than to compliment the effort.
It's funny how it became something about Blue 2.0, when we should be appreciating all effort he put there. I think it's wonderful that people like you, @healmuth or him, among others, test tactics with different approaches. It really helps people improve the tactics. Today Blue 2.0 was on top, but maybe tomorrow there will be a better tactic. We need to be grateful that people are contributing to the community, not demotivate them by doubting their methods or results.
Droid said: For me that proves that you can't test tactics by just plugging them and pushing "On Holiday" button. I understand why people tend to test tactics this way because it the simplest way to test, it doesn't require any skill or any efforts but it also gives an inaccurate result even after 1600 matches because the impact of random factors is very significant in this case, any injuries of the key players in your team or any injuries of the key players in the opposition team have a great impact on the result and they can turn everything apart.
Also, the assistant manager is responsible for managing the morale, picking the starting eleven for the tactic but it's been proven many times that even the best assistant manager is very poor at piking the team for many different tactics and he isn't capable managing any morale issue so it's like play roulette. Expand
I think you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Holiday mode is a valid way to compare tactics when a significant number of matches/seasons is run. In that case, it tests how much a tactic is tolerant to player mistakes (caused by player out of position due to injuries, physical condition, morale or pressure, for example). It's not better or worse than freezing attributes, just a different methodology. Random factors do happen during normal gameplay, and the high number of matches make them behave as a statistical variance instead of as an outlier.
On the other hand, tests like fm-arena and fm-base are more suitable if you want to know how a tactic would behave when your squad is in perfect condition, which can happen often in practice if you are good at managing the squad.
Rince said: Nobody's minimizing anything. I see people just express their opinions on the subject, I think a quite normal thing... Expand
I am just saying that a difference of 4% (1.905/1.832) in 1800 matches is statistically relevant. We are talking about achieving 3-4 more points on average in every season, which can have even more impact in cups. For the conditions he tested, Blue 2.0 can be considered a clear winner. That doesn't mean it will be better in any conditions. Maybe Phoenix or Voila are better with stronger teams, or freezing stats, but that wasn't the objective of his tests.
For me, it would be really interesting if he had also tested Blue 1.0, or also tested on Premier League, but I can't ask him to do even more work after that.
I think having more than two tactics would make things too complicated for many people.
I'm sure you need to keep things as simple as possible.
Everyone just need some defensive tactic with a very low intensity to use when they achieve desirable score in the match and want to kill the game and save the players conditions.
You are comparing apples and oranges. For resting, you can just turn off anything that increases intensity and turn on what decreases it. That's not my goal. I am trying to find the most effective tactic which concedes less goals than Blue 2.0 and has significantly lower intensity. I plan to use it to park the bus and rest players. My goal is not to just rest players, as that is trivial to do and don't need much testing at all.
You have to choose between two modes: "conditions saving mode" and "extreme effectivity mode"
Sometimes you need the first and sometimes you need the second
Like I said, I am thinking of 3 tactics. Blue 2.0, high performance rest and training mode. Training mode is the one you are talking about, when you have no chance of losing. I am trying to figure out the best tradeoff in the middle ground.
I am actually getting some good results with some variant now, using both stay on feet and waste time often, but keeping high tempo.
P.S.: I often play in lower divisions, with little money to get a large squad, then need to play two matches with one day to rest. I am talking here about the lowest divisions, with semi-professional teams. In that case, you need a balance between performance and resting your players.
I want one that I can use when winning 2-0 with 15 min of match, so I can safely change without fear of losing. I can still have another with everything on for when I know I can't lose anymore. I am just trying to find a park the bus and rest with points per match similar to Blue 2.0.
I said shape meaning team instructions. I plan to keep the same formation and roles than Blue 2.0. However, I don't think I will be able to bring it to green while achieving close to 100 points in the league with Manchester City, as well as good result with Fulham.
P.S.: Stay on feet also performed worse. However, I will keep one tactic with stay on feet and waste time often to use when the match is already decided.
It makes sense. I am running tests for that right now.
My way of testing is like this: I set the tactics for both teams (Manchester City and Fulham) and go in holiday for the season. Repeat it three times and consider the worst result. If the worst result is too different, then I run two more times and pick the second worst. That is to make sure my tactic is consistent.
For theses experiments with lower intensity, I am trying to get a tactic with lower intensity and results as close as possible to Blue 2.0. That would mean the tactic won't increase my chances of losing too much for pulling back.
Right now, the best option is cautious mentality with slow pace down. With that, my worst result had Manchester City with 100 points winning the Champions League. The results make me wonder if Light Blue 2.0 (name I chose for this tactic) is actually as good as Blue 2.0. I wonder if @Zippo would allow one test for this lower intensity tactic, when I figure the best shape for it.
Anyway, waste time often is good when you have a comfortable lead. It will make you concede as much as without the instruction at the cost of scoring less goals. However, scoring less golas can make you lose a match that you normally wouldn't, making it less effective than without wasting time. If you know you won't lose, then it's worth it to keep your players in shape.
I will bring more info when I get the results for stay on feet.
Sides that had a lower number of players in the Squad were either worse off or more variable in their results. Weymouth had the smallest squad with just 16 players when I stopped them recruiting. It would only take a suspension or injury to impact them.
The stats that they all seemed to have that were consistently high for their sides were (in order):
Determination
Natural Fitness
Work rate
Stamina
Team work
Acceleration
Of these there were 3 that increased in importance as you moved up through the grades ie you needed these to increase as you move through the leagues:
Work rate
Stamina
Team work
I was thinking of checking team report to see the attributes of each of the ten teams, then list how much % of league average for each attribute. Then I could check what attributes are more important for each strategy.
Player roles or playing position?
General training by assistant?
I do player roles for individual. For general training, I always have Attacking Movement, Defending Movement and Teamwork before every match. Before decisions, I also add Set Pieces Delivery. Other than that, I add Match Practice and Team Bonding for cohesion and happiness, and Recovery to prevent injuries. All the rest is usually optional, like one physical if I have full weak of training, overall or outfield.
I don't like to do that because I hate when my real team does that, putting the result at risk. But it's probably not a bad choice in game.
For resting, I would rather rotate the squad, give one or two days of resting from training, or just do lighter training sessions during a tight schedule (like just team bonding, recovery and some match preparation, like attacking/defending movement).
It just did. Better than Blue 1.0, but still behind Phoenix. It performs better in normal conditions, when players are not frozen in perfect state and make more mistakes. It also got the highest goal difference, which is always a plus.
Constructive criticism is a good thing, it helps evaluating and improving.
No point arguing like this.
healmuth said: In my testing, players, their stats, moral and condition is frozen. I also test 80 matches in a custom league per run. The basis of the league is provided by FMB and I’ve modified it further. Is it perfect? No, there’s no perfect testing but it certainly is more accurate than load tactic and press holiday.
You are right if you mean loading a tactic once then pressing play. If you do the same thing for 1800 matches, then you start extracting useful information from the randomness. Either people like it or not, random facts have an impact on the tactics. Tests must aim to remove outliers, not to remove randomness. Freezing stats is one way to remove the outliers, but not the only way.
P.S.: Not saying holiday is the best way to test tactics, only that it is a different way, with different goals and outcomes.
Guys were just pointing the weak and strong sides of different testing methods and that's all. I'm sure that such discussion can help people to improve their testing methods.
I think they tried to discredit the results. One guy said "that proves you can't just plug and play and push holiday button", which is clearly a way of minimizing his methodology. The other guy said the difference of 4% was too small to mean anything and it was just RNG factors, while another was saying you can't say there is a clear winner, when there is clear statistical relevance to the results.
What I mean is that more people appeared to say something negative than to compliment the effort.
It's funny how it became something about Blue 2.0, when we should be appreciating all effort he put there. I think it's wonderful that people like you, @healmuth or him, among others, test tactics with different approaches. It really helps people improve the tactics. Today Blue 2.0 was on top, but maybe tomorrow there will be a better tactic. We need to be grateful that people are contributing to the community, not demotivate them by doubting their methods or results.
Also, the assistant manager is responsible for managing the morale, picking the starting eleven for the tactic but it's been proven many times that even the best assistant manager is very poor at piking the team for many different tactics and he isn't capable managing any morale issue so it's like play roulette.
I think you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Holiday mode is a valid way to compare tactics when a significant number of matches/seasons is run. In that case, it tests how much a tactic is tolerant to player mistakes (caused by player out of position due to injuries, physical condition, morale or pressure, for example). It's not better or worse than freezing attributes, just a different methodology. Random factors do happen during normal gameplay, and the high number of matches make them behave as a statistical variance instead of as an outlier.
On the other hand, tests like fm-arena and fm-base are more suitable if you want to know how a tactic would behave when your squad is in perfect condition, which can happen often in practice if you are good at managing the squad.
In short, they test different things.
I am just saying that a difference of 4% (1.905/1.832) in 1800 matches is statistically relevant. We are talking about achieving 3-4 more points on average in every season, which can have even more impact in cups. For the conditions he tested, Blue 2.0 can be considered a clear winner. That doesn't mean it will be better in any conditions. Maybe Phoenix or Voila are better with stronger teams, or freezing stats, but that wasn't the objective of his tests.
For me, it would be really interesting if he had also tested Blue 1.0, or also tested on Premier League, but I can't ask him to do even more work after that.