Eric, can you share the save you use for tottenham? I mean, since you already tested lots of tactics, I think it would be a nice complimentary test during beta. Also, the same steps you use to run (like set tactic, go on vacations and mark use same tactic). I understand if it's not possible.
Sane said: @ZaZ Should we expect your new tactics with changes in the coming days? Did you hide your findings in the first post because they probably don't work anymore? Expand
Yeah, I am trying to get a new tactic in the coming days.
About spoilers in first post, I did it because results suddenly got way different from before. I'm not sure if match engine changed or if variance was too big, but I hope I can get something solid soon. Meanwhile, some good tactics are already around, like Electro from @Cyborg.
arsenal737 said: @ZaZ which would be a better tactic between the test, red 0.1 & red 0.2?? Expand
Answered in the other topic.
Kyle said: Holidays test just seem unreliable in general, very dependent on how well other teams are doing, injuries to both player and AI and obviously sometimes you just get really lucky and is much easier to fluke 38 games than 456 or whatever the tests are. Expand
Unfortunatelly, it's the only way to test before editor is out.
Eric said: Here's my test with Tottenham, predicted 6th
Expand
Thank you for testing!
I'm not with much time this week to keep testing, so I just rolled back and added the pictures from Red 0.2. Match engine will change in one week after game releases, so I'll wait to test more when that happens. I also want the editor to create a league and make testing more reliable.
I can give your new Red tactic a go with Tottenham if you don't mind Expand
It's fine by me, thanks. I was just pointing out that they usually schedulle some match engine changes during beta. Since the match engine seems pretty broken right now, I would be surprised if those changes were subtle.
Also, it's very likely that they will try three versions of match engine during beta, then four after release, so it's hard to compare tactics from one week to the other.
I'm having some inconsistencies with the results, so I'll have to run some things again. Either I screwed up somewhere, or they changed the match engine last patch.
Jimmy said: @ZaZ What do you think about this one ? I just don't know if I should tell my SSs to stay outside and to take the flanks when they/we have the ball on their player instructions. Expand
It's better for the SS to play by the middle instead of going to the flanks.
P.S.: Current match engine has way more variance than previous. I am gonna create a custom test league to improve my tests accuracy.
After some testing, I noticed Red 0.2 was actually worse than Red 0.1. It's just that the first couple of results were too good, possibly outliers due to RNG. I have removed it from the main post to avoid confusion, but it will be here if anyone still want to try it.
pixar said: How likely are IWBs doing better on the opposite foot? I'm almost certain they have a higher tactical aptitude. Expand
Foot of IWB doesn't matter, since they don't shoot or cross. You can safely ignore the opinion of your assistant manager on that, it has no affect on performance.
Jimmy said: @ZaZ When you talked about 1 TF supported by 2 SS performing well… what kind of formation were you talking about ? What about a 3(CBs)-3(WBs+DM)-1(CM)-2(SSs)-1(TF) ? Basically your formation with SS instead of IW and one more CB instead of 1 TF, that allows WB to be a bit higher. Expand
Added Red 0.1. They have almost the same performance, but Red 0.1 is slightly better for stronger team while Red 0.2 is slightly better for weaker team.
Ucan said: and i set their trainings as a AF or shall i change to TF? i changed wingers trainings to inverted winger Expand
Always change training for their roles, so they get maximum tactical familiarity. I also recommend individual training for quickness. They will complain about it, but ignore the complaints. =)
Ucan said: i was using af. tf is better than af ? and i've already bought 2 af strikers they arent like a target player but shall i think same like af ? (you know i changed your blue 3.0 to 2 strikers af and winger version) Expand
It's fine, fast players make better TF than those slow but strong.
avonseller said: Based on your tests so far what's the most suited striker profile for the tactic? You think small and pacey ones will be fine even though by definition that's not what the role is? Expand
Yeah, fast is better. Those TFs don't play like your usual big bad guy that stays on the box all time. They instead will get the ball several times in the middle of the pitch and hold it until CM, wingers and other TF run into space.
I like to follow the philosophy of short-long-wide, meaning whenever a player touches the ball, he should have at least one option for short passing, long passing and someone in the flank giving width. DLP is the one offering short option most of the time in the back, while in the front it's CM and TFs. For long passes, you have all five forward players with run into space. The tactic actually changes from 4132 to 235 when you have possession, allowing you to overwhelm your opponent's defense. Finally, for width, the winger with the ball will cut to the middle while the other winger from the same side (IWB or IW) will run wide. This allows you to put high pressure from every direction, which makes it harder to defend against.
Belmorn said: yes ofc but you stated you do 10 tests or so per day so I was wondering how you doing that atm ? Expand
I just do one big holiday, like you said. If result is not terrible, I run the tactic three times. If at least two of the results are not bad, then I run five times in total. Then, I discard the two best and worse results for points per match and goal difference (which can be from different runs) and use it as my measurement of quality. This score (median) means I expect half of any future runs to be better and half to be worse, having an advantage over doing the average because it discards outliers (which can distort results). Running five holiday runs (from the same save) give me some confidence that my results might be good or bad, for the conditions I am testing.
Eric, can you share the save you use for tottenham? I mean, since you already tested lots of tactics, I think it would be a nice complimentary test during beta. Also, the same steps you use to run (like set tactic, go on vacations and mark use same tactic). I understand if it's not possible.
Yeah, I am trying to get a new tactic in the coming days.
About spoilers in first post, I did it because results suddenly got way different from before. I'm not sure if match engine changed or if variance was too big, but I hope I can get something solid soon. Meanwhile, some good tactics are already around, like Electro from @Cyborg.
You can put here for people to try.
It's very close, don't be alarmed.
Answered in the other topic.
Kyle said: Holidays test just seem unreliable in general, very dependent on how well other teams are doing, injuries to both player and AI and obviously sometimes you just get really lucky and is much easier to fluke 38 games than 456 or whatever the tests are.
Unfortunatelly, it's the only way to test before editor is out.
Lapidus said: Here's how a proper testing should be done - https://fm-arena.com/thread/652-fm-arena-tactic-testing-league/
I agree, but can't be done without the editor.
Hard to know, they are pretty close. 0.1 worked better for stronger team while 0.2 for weaker, but I'm not sure at all.
Thank you for testing!
I'm not with much time this week to keep testing, so I just rolled back and added the pictures from Red 0.2. Match engine will change in one week after game releases, so I'll wait to test more when that happens. I also want the editor to create a league and make testing more reliable.
I can give your new Red tactic a go with Tottenham if you don't mind
It's fine by me, thanks. I was just pointing out that they usually schedulle some match engine changes during beta. Since the match engine seems pretty broken right now, I would be surprised if those changes were subtle.
I just don't know if I should tell my SSs to stay outside and to take the flanks when they/we have the ball on their player instructions.
It's better for the SS to play by the middle instead of going to the flanks.
P.S.: Current match engine has way more variance than previous. I am gonna create a custom test league to improve my tests accuracy.
Yeah. It went very well in the first two runs, then bad in the later three. I then run a couple more just to be sure, and it was worse.
Chewbacca said: Any results with the tactics?
Running right now. (Don't have a save of the end of season to get the screenshots.)
Foot of IWB doesn't matter, since they don't shoot or cross. You can safely ignore the opinion of your assistant manager on that, it has no affect on performance.
Jimmy said: @ZaZ When you talked about 1 TF supported by 2 SS performing well… what kind of formation were you talking about ?
What about a 3(CBs)-3(WBs+DM)-1(CM)-2(SSs)-1(TF) ? Basically your formation with SS instead of IW and one more CB instead of 1 TF, that allows WB to be a bit higher.
Not sure, I didn't test it.
As long as they are fast, it doesn't matter much what role your scouts or assistant manager thinks they play best.
Sane said: ZaZ, how much percentage of role 2Tf-at is better than roles 2Af-at?
I don't know, might be just 2 or 3 points in the end of a full season.
Always change training for their roles, so they get maximum tactical familiarity. I also recommend individual training for quickness. They will complain about it, but ignore the complaints. =)
It's fine, fast players make better TF than those slow but strong.
Yeah, fast is better. Those TFs don't play like your usual big bad guy that stays on the box all time. They instead will get the ball several times in the middle of the pitch and hold it until CM, wingers and other TF run into space.
I like to follow the philosophy of short-long-wide, meaning whenever a player touches the ball, he should have at least one option for short passing, long passing and someone in the flank giving width. DLP is the one offering short option most of the time in the back, while in the front it's CM and TFs. For long passes, you have all five forward players with run into space. The tactic actually changes from 4132 to 235 when you have possession, allowing you to overwhelm your opponent's defense. Finally, for width, the winger with the ball will cut to the middle while the other winger from the same side (IWB or IW) will run wide. This allows you to put high pressure from every direction, which makes it harder to defend against.
I just do one big holiday, like you said. If result is not terrible, I run the tactic three times. If at least two of the results are not bad, then I run five times in total. Then, I discard the two best and worse results for points per match and goal difference (which can be from different runs) and use it as my measurement of quality. This score (median) means I expect half of any future runs to be better and half to be worse, having an advantage over doing the average because it discards outliers (which can distort results). Running five holiday runs (from the same save) give me some confidence that my results might be good or bad, for the conditions I am testing.