Piratellava said: If someone uses this tactic (or a similar one) in an online save, is there actually a way of countering it or atleast have a slight edge? Or is mirroring the only chance you have? Expand
This is a very balanced tactic. Three defenders make it hard to infiltrate through the middle and to complete crosses. In defense, it parks the bus with a line of five. The attacking patterns happen equally through the middle and flanks, so it is hard to find the best way to play against it.
That being said, the weak point of this tactic is the fact that OCBs move high up in the field, leaving just a single defender (BCB) to cover against counter attacks. So, the natural counter will be a similar gegenpress, not necessarily a mirror.
The fact that it uses two BCBs (which stay back during attack) mean the tactic has better protection against counter attacks, and the DM contributes to that even further. The wingbacks also advance less than AWBs in Autumn, keeping a solid backline that will be hard to exploit. Other than that, the tactic works just like Autumn (or other similar tactics), so it will put pressure on that single BCB to score on counter attacks.
P.S.: If you try it against other people, then please let me know how it performed. Also, I will try to work on that concept to make a counter to Autumn, and test how they fare against each other.
@harvestgreen22, is it possible to verify if training roles (like IP/OOP training) always affect training weights, or if it only affects in sessions with attribute "individual roles" (eg. Match Practice)? I ask that because I like to train my flank players to play in the opposite side of the field, for flexibility, but I am scared that might hurt the balance of attribute gain.
Then, if it is a combination of 3 trainings, it is presumed to be a mixture of the individual effects of the 3 trainings.
I haven't tested it in this environment yet. I'll give it a try next week. I think there shouldn't be a significant difference. It should just add a little more physical attributes and reduce some technical attributes.
No problem.
I don't have any good ideas at the moment. For now, I'm measuring the scores like this: Using attributes with a win rate difference ranging from 6 to 18
For example, if the passing rate is 2.3%, then let the passing growth of this training schedule x 2.3 , and add it to the total score.
"358" total score = 2.3 x 0.68(Passing) + 0.1 x 0.6(Crossing) + 1.7 x 1.2(Marking) + ...... "358" Quality = "358" total score / "358" CA growth
Dribbling: It is one of the most important attributes. Moreover, since it becomes more difficult to increase or decrease when the winning rate is too high or too low, it is actually more significant. Therefore, I added an additional reward coefficient to it. The original measurement was 17.4%. Finally, 17.4% x 1.25 = 21.8%
Acceleration ，Jumping reach , Pace , on the same treatment, x1.25
Some attributes, such as "Natural Fitness", I haven't assigned any scores to, because I don't know how to measure its indirect effects. Expand
Thank you for testing. My goal is to get a schedule like 150, which improves good attributes, and offset the CA gain with some more efficient routine. I used 79, but it could also work well with 45, 77, 82, 85, 86, or 282. I picked 79 because of Natural Fitness and Stamina, but it could have been any other of those. I will test other variations like 150 + 79 + 85, to see if it tilts even more to what I want.
SonikoZe said: hey wich focus are you using ? allways quickness ? Expand
Always quickness, but GK goes for Agility or Reflexes, depending on their stats. Keep in mind the author of this thread has much more authority to talk about training than me, so I advise to take their word instead of mine for anything related to training.
juliius said: Do you notice anything different when you try mixing them up? Of course testing would be nice, but have you noticed anything when using it? Expand
I actually tested with half season each only, and results were very good. However, I don't have the tools or time to test in the same level as they do here, so I don't consider those tests very reliable, but more of a personal feeling. I assume doing one week each would be the same, but I couldn't test yet. I use that way in my save, but I didn't pay much attention to results to say anything.
debelizec19 said: @ZaZ oh, you did't understand me well I know how to set up but what training do you use for u18 and u21. do you use rebalance or growth or something else? Expand
I do rebalance on youth setup, to maximize pace and acceleration, but I also bring up any super kid to train in the upper team. I do that because I often give them some play time to help growth even further, and seeing them in main squad helps me remember they exist.
I am currently mixing two training schedules, one for reallocating attributes to pace and acceleration, and another to grow CA. Basically, 1x Endurance, and 6x Attacking. I want to know if there is any difference between using each of those for half of the season, or alternating them every week. Is it possible to test, please?
If the combination of schedules work like an average, it would probably open space for optimizing training even further.
debelizec19 said: @ZaZ Congratulations on excellent tactics!! Just one question, how do you set up training for u21 and u18? do you use same training as mention in post. Thank you! Expand
Thank you!
About training, you need to first get control of youth training in staff responsibilities. Then, in your Squad screen you will see the training box, with some circles on top. Just click there, then click in the box again to set up the training.
Just testing balanced crosses, so players can cross any way they want.
Player Instructions All: Tackle Harder OCB: Shoot Less Often and Take More Risks AWB: Sit Narrower, Cross From Byline and Shoot Less Often IF: Stay Wider
Opponent Instructions: None, and only recommend people to do so if they know what they are doing.
Light version when you have a comfortable lead: Ease Off Tackle for all players, Stay On Feet, reduce one step in Trigger Press and Tempo, set mentality to Balanced, and change IFs to IWs. The goal of this version is to avoid injuries and cards, at the cost of performance.
Set pieces and training are in the attachments. Training uses two schedules, one for rebalance (Endurance x1) and one for growth (Attack x6, or 2x in three different days), and they are divided equally (half a season each, or alternate one every week or month). Make sure to leave three rest sessions after every match, double intensity when full energy, and no pitch or gym training when below full condition. I also set everyone for Quickness focus, and train them in any role of their position with focus on pace and acceleration (highlighted attributes). Pictures for people on consoles are below. Training and Set Pieces
Credits to everyone in FM-Arena who did small experiments which gave hints to what might be working well in this patch. Probably there will be a better tactic inspired by this one in the next hours or days, so I am just happy to contribute.
I took some instructions from the top tactic into Autumn, and will test if Step Up More is actually helping or not. Results in my experiments were not great, but I like how goals scored are evenly distributed through a high number of players.
It is funny how some things that got exhaustively tested in the same patch suddenly create synergy together and become meta. I took some instructions from the top tactic into Autumn, and will test if Step Up More is actually helping or not. Previously, with IFs staying narrower, it harmed the performance, but maybe with wingers wide it help them reach the byline and cross the ball. Anyway, this is the version without Step Up More, to be compared to the version with it.
Can you tell a little about the choice of choosing CHM contra AM role in midfield? I mean are there any difference in choosing one role over the other? maybe some fits some players better?
i ask because i might try a combination between CHM and AM Expand
CHM drifts to the flanks, opening space for in the middle for other players. It is a role with higher focus on creation. AM will move more in the direction of the goal, getting in better positions to score. Either can work well, as you can see in the top tactics.
Xavinwonderland said: Following a discussion with some members of the forum on what would be the impact of retraining on the CA of a player I realized that there were opinions on the subject but little data.
So I decided to conduct a little test to clarify the situation.
The starting hypothesis was the following: when player gain attributes it will cost them CA points, that cost is not the same for all the player and is driven by their position. As an example it is more expensive for a defender to train tacking than it would be for a striker because that attribute is considered by the game to be useful for the position while it is considered to be much less useful in the case of the striker.
There was therefore a theoretical possibility to exploit that by retraining a player for a position very different of his. For instance you take a striker you teach him tackling which is pretty much a free attribute for him and then you turn him into a defender.
For that test you are going to take a player put him in a position different than his with the editor while erasing his natural position to simulate the perfect training that we could have achieved (like a natural defender with striker stats) and then we are going to reintroduce a position familiarity in the striker role up to natural.
I took one of the striker from my AJAX save. Based on his attributes when he is playing as a natural striker with no other roles he has a CA of 125. When I erased the striker familiarity to 1 and instead puts him as a natural defender his CA is 103. There is no magic here this is just the application of the different weights for the different attributes and it shows that our starting hypothesis is valid.
Now this is what happens when I start retraining him as a striker:
What you see in the defender/strikers columns are the position familiarity for the role.
The RCA is what the game would see as the new CA, if that value is above the CA of the player we have 2 options, either the player is maxed out in terms of PA and he will has to lose attributes to compensate until he reaches back his CA, if he is not maxed out it will cost him CA in term of developement and will not be able to reach the same level of attributes than he would have had he not been retrained.
The delta is the impact on the RCA of 1 point increase in the similarity when we retrain him.
I also did another simulation with another player with better stats and a natural CA of 144 as a striker instead of the 125 that we have in the first set of data to see if the move are consistent for different player ranges.
What we can see is that retraining someone up until 8 is free but then some costs start to appear for the better subject when we reach 9.
Then the cost of retraining is not linear with the bulk of the cost happening between 10 and 16 familiarity which means that is basically always worth it in a more normal scenario to retrain someone from accomplished to natural in a position as the cost for that upgrade is almost free.
We can also see that retraining someone with 2 opposite positions seems to take to worse of the 2 weights and not the average. It can be shown that when our subject was a pure defender he was CA103, a pure striker CA125 and when he was natural in both he was CA133. So retraining someone to an opposite position is never worth it from an optimisation point of view.
Also when you scout and you see players able to play different positions (even if they cant play them well) it will have an impact in terms of development vs someone that can only play 1. The more opposite the position the worse the impact will be. So for instance an advanced midfielder that can play as a striker will cost you virtually nothing, while a player being able to player being able to play as a DC and all the midfielder roles will cost a lot.
So the test clearly goes in the direction that some people had hinted to in their comments but at least now we have data to back it up Expand
I have tested that before and can confirm, it takes the highest weights of all positions for CA calculations. That is why it is free to train flank players to the opposite side, because they costs remain the same.
This is a very balanced tactic. Three defenders make it hard to infiltrate through the middle and to complete crosses. In defense, it parks the bus with a line of five. The attacking patterns happen equally through the middle and flanks, so it is hard to find the best way to play against it.
That being said, the weak point of this tactic is the fact that OCBs move high up in the field, leaving just a single defender (BCB) to cover against counter attacks. So, the natural counter will be a similar gegenpress, not necessarily a mirror.
I might be completely wrong, but I believe this tactic might do well against Autumn: https://fm-arena.com/thread/17034-ice-cold-v1/
The fact that it uses two BCBs (which stay back during attack) mean the tactic has better protection against counter attacks, and the DM contributes to that even further. The wingbacks also advance less than AWBs in Autumn, keeping a solid backline that will be hard to exploit. Other than that, the tactic works just like Autumn (or other similar tactics), so it will put pressure on that single BCB to score on counter attacks.
P.S.: If you try it against other people, then please let me know how it performed. Also, I will try to work on that concept to make a counter to Autumn, and test how they fare against each other.
rotate with [Endurance] And [Attacking]x6.xlsx
https://pixeldrain.com/u/1QV8Ph2a
or
https://mega.nz/file/YZMSDQzB#VU2H8rBQkSLo04xNRmdN4oZnE5WyH1GJhbnLMoZoLcM
The effect is indeed a mixture of the two , like :
Endurance , Marking +0.17
Attacking x6 , Marking +2.45
rotate with Endurance and Attacking x6 , Marking +1.2 ( ≈{(2.45+0.17)/2} , )
Then, if it is a combination of 3 trainings, it is presumed to be a mixture of the individual effects of the 3 trainings.
I haven't tested it in this environment yet. I'll give it a try next week. I think there shouldn't be a significant difference. It should just add a little more physical attributes and reduce some technical attributes.
No problem.
I don't have any good ideas at the moment. For now, I'm measuring the scores like this:
Using attributes with a win rate difference ranging from 6 to 18
For example, if the passing rate is 2.3%, then let the passing growth of this training schedule x 2.3 , and add it to the total score.
"358" total score = 2.3 x 0.68(Passing) + 0.1 x 0.6(Crossing) + 1.7 x 1.2(Marking) + ......
"358" Quality = "358" total score / "358" CA growth
Dribbling:
It is one of the most important attributes. Moreover, since it becomes more difficult to increase or decrease when the winning rate is too high or too low, it is actually more significant. Therefore, I added an additional reward coefficient to it. The original measurement was 17.4%. Finally, 17.4% x 1.25 = 21.8%
Acceleration ，Jumping reach , Pace , on the same treatment, x1.25
Some attributes, such as "Natural Fitness", I haven't assigned any scores to, because I don't know how to measure its indirect effects.
Thank you for testing. My goal is to get a schedule like 150, which improves good attributes, and offset the CA gain with some more efficient routine. I used 79, but it could also work well with 45, 77, 82, 85, 86, or 282. I picked 79 because of Natural Fitness and Stamina, but it could have been any other of those. I will test other variations like 150 + 79 + 85, to see if it tilts even more to what I want.
Its possible to give a example with wed-sat calendar?
As long as you use each for half the season, it is fine. You can use one month each, or alternate every week. You can see an example below.
Always quickness, but GK goes for Agility or Reflexes, depending on their stats. Keep in mind the author of this thread has much more authority to talk about training than me, so I advise to take their word instead of mine for anything related to training.
I actually tested with half season each only, and results were very good. However, I don't have the tools or time to test in the same level as they do here, so I don't consider those tests very reliable, but more of a personal feeling. I assume doing one week each would be the same, but I couldn't test yet. I use that way in my save, but I didn't pay much attention to results to say anything.
No, it is the same.
I do rebalance on youth setup, to maximize pace and acceleration, but I also bring up any super kid to train in the upper team. I do that because I often give them some play time to help growth even further, and seeing them in main squad helps me remember they exist.
If the combination of schedules work like an average, it would probably open space for optimizing training even further.
Just one question, how do you set up training for u21 and u18? do you use same training as mention in post.
Thank you!
Thank you!
About training, you need to first get control of youth training in staff responsibilities. Then, in your Squad screen you will see the training box, with some circles on top. Just click there, then click in the box again to set up the training.
Player Instructions
All: Tackle Harder
OCB: Shoot Less Often and Take More Risks
AWB: Sit Narrower, Cross From Byline and Shoot Less Often
IF: Stay Wider
Opponent Instructions: None, and only recommend people to do so if they know what they are doing.
Light version when you have a comfortable lead: Ease Off Tackle for all players, Stay On Feet, reduce one step in Trigger Press and Tempo, set mentality to Balanced, and change IFs to IWs. The goal of this version is to avoid injuries and cards, at the cost of performance.
Set pieces and training are in the attachments. Training uses two schedules, one for rebalance (Endurance x1) and one for growth (Attack x6, or 2x in three different days), and they are divided equally (half a season each, or alternate one every week or month). Make sure to leave three rest sessions after every match, double intensity when full energy, and no pitch or gym training when below full condition. I also set everyone for Quickness focus, and train them in any role of their position with focus on pace and acceleration (highlighted attributes). Pictures for people on consoles are below.
Training and Set Pieces
Credits to everyone in FM-Arena who did small experiments which gave hints to what might be working well in this patch. Probably there will be a better tactic inspired by this one in the next hours or days, so I am just happy to contribute.
Can you tell a little about the choice of choosing CHM contra AM role in midfield?
I mean are there any difference in choosing one role over the other?
maybe some fits some players better?
i ask because i might try a combination between CHM and AM
CHM drifts to the flanks, opening space for in the middle for other players. It is a role with higher focus on creation. AM will move more in the direction of the goal, getting in better positions to score. Either can work well, as you can see in the top tactics.
So I decided to conduct a little test to clarify the situation.
The starting hypothesis was the following: when player gain attributes it will cost them CA points, that cost is not the same for all the player and is driven by their position. As an example it is more expensive for a defender to train tacking than it would be for a striker because that attribute is considered by the game to be useful for the position while it is considered to be much less useful in the case of the striker.
There was therefore a theoretical possibility to exploit that by retraining a player for a position very different of his. For instance you take a striker you teach him tackling which is pretty much a free attribute for him and then you turn him into a defender.
For that test you are going to take a player put him in a position different than his with the editor while erasing his natural position to simulate the perfect training that we could have achieved (like a natural defender with striker stats) and then we are going to reintroduce a position familiarity in the striker role up to natural.
I took one of the striker from my AJAX save. Based on his attributes when he is playing as a natural striker with no other roles he has a CA of 125. When I erased the striker familiarity to 1 and instead puts him as a natural defender his CA is 103. There is no magic here this is just the application of the different weights for the different attributes and it shows that our starting hypothesis is valid.
Now this is what happens when I start retraining him as a striker:
What you see in the defender/strikers columns are the position familiarity for the role.
The RCA is what the game would see as the new CA, if that value is above the CA of the player we have 2 options, either the player is maxed out in terms of PA and he will has to lose attributes to compensate until he reaches back his CA, if he is not maxed out it will cost him CA in term of developement and will not be able to reach the same level of attributes than he would have had he not been retrained.
The delta is the impact on the RCA of 1 point increase in the similarity when we retrain him.
I also did another simulation with another player with better stats and a natural CA of 144 as a striker instead of the 125 that we have in the first set of data to see if the move are consistent for different player ranges.
What we can see is that retraining someone up until 8 is free but then some costs start to appear for the better subject when we reach 9.
Then the cost of retraining is not linear with the bulk of the cost happening between 10 and 16 familiarity which means that is basically always worth it in a more normal scenario to retrain someone from accomplished to natural in a position as the cost for that upgrade is almost free.
We can also see that retraining someone with 2 opposite positions seems to take to worse of the 2 weights and not the average. It can be shown that when our subject was a pure defender he was CA103, a pure striker CA125 and when he was natural in both he was CA133. So retraining someone to an opposite position is never worth it from an optimisation point of view.
Also when you scout and you see players able to play different positions (even if they cant play them well) it will have an impact in terms of development vs someone that can only play 1. The more opposite the position the worse the impact will be. So for instance an advanced midfielder that can play as a striker will cost you virtually nothing, while a player being able to player being able to play as a DC and all the midfielder roles will cost a lot.
So the test clearly goes in the direction that some people had hinted to in their comments but at least now we have data to back it up
I have tested that before and can confirm, it takes the highest weights of all positions for CA calculations. That is why it is free to train flank players to the opposite side, because they costs remain the same.