Zippo said: As far as I know the "Pass Into Space" TI just adds "Take More Risk" PI to all the positions and that's all but usually, the "Take More Risk" PI is already present so adding "Pass Into Space" TI won't have any effect.
As I already said the RNG of 2 runs ( 304 matches ) can be as high as 7.5% so when you make a very small change or a change that doesn't make any difference then the RNG can easily send you in a wrong direction and I think it's very important to understand that. Expand
Then it makes sense that I got inconclusive results, since the TI is doing absolutely nothing. Thanks for the clarification!
ta2199 said: End of season: All cups I think It's very promising Expand
I took the freedom to upload your version together with mine, I hope you don't mind. In my experiments, pass into space and stay on feet didn't perform as well for strong team, but performed better for weak team, so the only way to know which one is better is testing here.
Another thing I would like to add is that some things don't require immediate credits, because they are overused. For example, I don't think people need to say in every tactic like "set pieces are from ZaZ". It's sufficient if they give credits when asked about set pieces, or to simply correct other people if they try to give them credits for those set pieces. Not sure what other people think about that, though.
ta2199 said: Not sure about the Stay On Feet team instruction but It helped lower the mentality a little bit so I did added it. Pass into Space definitely helped the team when attacking. I also tried pulling 1 ST to AMC but the result doesn't seem as good as 2 ST Expand
Yeah, it definitely seems promising. I'm testing with and without stay on feet to see if there is much difference, then I'll test with and without pass into space, then with distribute quickly instead of slow pace down. This last one is because I believe slow pace down rests both teams at once, and since this tactic has lower intensity, it might benefit from not allowing the opponent to rest.
gameresq said: This tactics is unbelievable. I played with Gremio, a brazilian team, and so far I have only 1 defeat the whole season. The only defeat I suffered was when I put a completely bench team on a cup because I had won the first game 5-0
And even when I put bench team on the pitch, they won or drew every league game. Thanks a lot, going to test this tactic on european underdog teams Expand
I'm curious about the influence of professionalism, because professional players always have better body language and it seems like in some tests it caused players to perform better in the league (possibly due to other reasons that also affect match performance).
SEBASTCARP said: This tactic is created by emulating the last tactical system used by MARCELO GALLARDO in RIVER PLATE, which he used with a large part of the players emerged from the RIVER PLATE quarry, imposing his soccer style as a hallmark, aimed at fans and non-fans of RIVER PLATE , I would love to submit it to your analysis P.D greetings and thanks from Argentina Expand
River Plate had the best football in South America for a while, together with some brazilian names like Palmeiras and Santos. It will be interesting to see how this one does. Last matches of them I watched were against Palmeiras last year, where they got completely dominated at home and then dominated completely away, but lost in the aggregate.
artemis220 said: Ha ha, you are so humorous. In fact, if you look at this picture upside down, it is more like the word "丂" in Chinese characters. Expand
Mirror it to the other direction and call it "Zorro". (Not sure if anyone does not know him, but he used to cut a Z at his enemy's chest.)
Haha, that would be funny, but I think most of those people don't actually do because they are mean or want to steal the idea, but simply because they don't understand yet why it's wrong. Some of them are even more innocent and just think their small tweak was amazing and want to test it, but don't know they need to tell where the base came from.
ta2199 said: @ZaZ I did some changes here. Can you check it ? Low intensity but still great result. I change DW to W cause I remmember from last FM Winger work better with Striker than DW Expand
Gonna test it here, thanks! I see the changes in pass into space, ease off tackle and slow pace down. I will tell you how it compares in my tests.
P.S.: Results are promising, gonna keep testing to see which of the instructions are really making the difference and then upload it. Does someone know if Stay On Feet has effect on players with Ease Off Tackles? I heard it also affects pressing intensity.
One thing that could help would be to not test tactics that are too similar to another that was already tested, unless they are marked as a tweak. I believe there is a rule about that in how tactics are tested, saying you won't test things that are too close, to avoid the use of brute force. But then we would need to have a clear understanding of what is considered "too close", and that's up to debate.
99357 said: and so? credits should be given where its due or fm-arena is encouraging silent plagiarism many will just take a top tactic here, change few roles and call it their own Expand
To be fair, the author of that tactic explicitly said he based it on Blue and Fanatic. I don't mind people tweaking my tactics, as long as they give proper credit. It's exactly because people were working around Blue that I felt free to explore other tatical shapes, since it wouldn't make much sense if everyone was exploring in the same direction.
It's a hard issue because the more we test, the more we get close to a set of instructions or roles that work better than others. After some point, it's hard to run away from that if you want your tactic to be competitive. I don't think anyone has a problem with using someone's else tactic as a base, the problem is finding out when some tactic becomes unique enough to allow claiming it as your own.
In my opinion, any tactic with too few changes, like only two or three visible differences (not counting player instructions or set pieces), should be called a tweak instead of having a unique name. In those cases, it's pretty obvious credits are mandatory. It can still have a unique name with the base name, like "Revelation SS Tweak - Rush" or "Rush (Revelation Tweak)", for example.
The hard part is defining when changes are deep enough to stop being a tweak. I would say you can't use team instructions and player instructions to define that, as most top tactics use a very similar set of those instructions (which don't need to be called "Blue instructions" anymore at this point). However, some team instructions actually change gameplay drastically and should count for tactic uniqueness, like low tempo, pressing less, regroup, hold shape, shoot on sight and low line of engagement, for example.
Other than those more unique team instructions, what should be counted are basically different team positions and roles. Any tactic that only changes one position, like pulling a striker from AF to SS, should be considered a tweak (unless it's something that has been historically used by some user, in previous patches/versions of the game). That also counts for making some shape into a three defender tactic, for example, or just moving the wings. More than that and it gets in the spot where it's fine to either call it a tweak or claim ownership of the tactic.
Changes in roles, however, have a smaller weight than change in position. I would say changing the roles of two or three positions should still count as a tweak, if there aren't any other changes other than that. When the changes hit half the team, or when you change roles together with some team instruction or position, then it starts becoming more unique.
One way to address the problem could be, for example, to add a field at tactic creation to link to the tactic used as base, if it's a tweak.
Some people tested Ease Off Tackles with high intensity tactics and said it was harmful. It might have better effect on low intensity tactics like Cyan.
No, if it's like you say, it doesn't even make sense to test. Should I remove it?
As I already said the RNG of 2 runs ( 304 matches ) can be as high as 7.5% so when you make a very small change or a change that doesn't make any difference then the RNG can easily send you in a wrong direction and I think it's very important to understand that.
Then it makes sense that I got inconclusive results, since the TI is doing absolutely nothing. Thanks for the clarification!
I think It's very promising
I took the freedom to upload your version together with mine, I hope you don't mind. In my experiments, pass into space and stay on feet didn't perform as well for strong team, but performed better for weak team, so the only way to know which one is better is testing here.
just wow
Gratz!
Tookajobs said: great test and the most goals ive seen in a Tactics test aswell
Thanks for testing! Try Orange SS, it scores even more! In FM-Arena, it has the highest goal difference by a large margin.
Pass into Space definitely helped the team when attacking.
I also tried pulling 1 ST to AMC but the result doesn't seem as good as 2 ST
Yeah, it definitely seems promising. I'm testing with and without stay on feet to see if there is much difference, then I'll test with and without pass into space, then with distribute quickly instead of slow pace down. This last one is because I believe slow pace down rests both teams at once, and since this tactic has lower intensity, it might benefit from not allowing the opponent to rest.
And even when I put bench team on the pitch, they won or drew every league game.
Thanks a lot, going to test this tactic on european underdog teams
Thank you for testing!
P.D greetings and thanks from Argentina
River Plate had the best football in South America for a while, together with some brazilian names like Palmeiras and Santos. It will be interesting to see how this one does. Last matches of them I watched were against Palmeiras last year, where they got completely dominated at home and then dominated completely away, but lost in the aggregate.
Mirror it to the other direction and call it "Zorro". (Not sure if anyone does not know him, but he used to cut a Z at his enemy's chest.)
Haha, that would be funny, but I think most of those people don't actually do because they are mean or want to steal the idea, but simply because they don't understand yet why it's wrong. Some of them are even more innocent and just think their small tweak was amazing and want to test it, but don't know they need to tell where the base came from.
Low intensity but still great result. I change DW to W cause I remmember from last FM Winger work better with Striker than DW
Gonna test it here, thanks! I see the changes in pass into space, ease off tackle and slow pace down. I will tell you how it compares in my tests.
P.S.: Results are promising, gonna keep testing to see which of the instructions are really making the difference and then upload it. Does someone know if Stay On Feet has effect on players with Ease Off Tackles? I heard it also affects pressing intensity.
Good writer.
That's a funny compliment, thanks.
many will just take a top tactic here, change few roles and call it their own
To be fair, the author of that tactic explicitly said he based it on Blue and Fanatic. I don't mind people tweaking my tactics, as long as they give proper credit. It's exactly because people were working around Blue that I felt free to explore other tatical shapes, since it wouldn't make much sense if everyone was exploring in the same direction.
In my opinion, any tactic with too few changes, like only two or three visible differences (not counting player instructions or set pieces), should be called a tweak instead of having a unique name. In those cases, it's pretty obvious credits are mandatory. It can still have a unique name with the base name, like "Revelation SS Tweak - Rush" or "Rush (Revelation Tweak)", for example.
The hard part is defining when changes are deep enough to stop being a tweak. I would say you can't use team instructions and player instructions to define that, as most top tactics use a very similar set of those instructions (which don't need to be called "Blue instructions" anymore at this point). However, some team instructions actually change gameplay drastically and should count for tactic uniqueness, like low tempo, pressing less, regroup, hold shape, shoot on sight and low line of engagement, for example.
Other than those more unique team instructions, what should be counted are basically different team positions and roles. Any tactic that only changes one position, like pulling a striker from AF to SS, should be considered a tweak (unless it's something that has been historically used by some user, in previous patches/versions of the game). That also counts for making some shape into a three defender tactic, for example, or just moving the wings. More than that and it gets in the spot where it's fine to either call it a tweak or claim ownership of the tactic.
Changes in roles, however, have a smaller weight than change in position. I would say changing the roles of two or three positions should still count as a tweak, if there aren't any other changes other than that. When the changes hit half the team, or when you change roles together with some team instruction or position, then it starts becoming more unique.
One way to address the problem could be, for example, to add a field at tactic creation to link to the tactic used as base, if it's a tweak.
??
Speaking english is a good start. Then, click share tactic here https://fm-arena.com/board/7-football-manager-2022-tactics-sharing-section/, and make sure to add screenshots of results and the tactic screen.
Test switching all Tackle Harder PIs for Ease Off Tackles. In my control tactic (Cyan), it gives similar results using way less energy.
P.S.: Oops, instant reply.