Elec said: Tactic is brilliant, currently using it with arsenal in my 5th season. Only issue I notice is that away from home, especially against the gods teams like city, Liverpool etc I seem to struggle. Is it best to start of with solid blue and then change accordingly. Also when should I use solid blue or light blue? Expand
It says in the first post when to use light and solid. "Use Solid Blue 4.0 when you want to hold a score. It concedes around 15% fewer goals than Blue 4.0. It's also a good idea to use Solid in the first half of matches against hard teams, to unsettle them, then change back to Blue during the second half, when their players are getting nervous.
You should use Light Blue 4.0 when you want to rest your players and avoid bookings, thinking about the rest of the season. I recommend using it anytime you think a match is under control, like two or three goals of difference. If your aim is to hold a score, use Solid Blue instead."
About losing to Liverpool, City and similar teams, the tactic can only help your team overachieve, but it's not invincible. As long as you still win the season by the end, it should be fine.
Middleweight165 said: Thanks for such a detailed reply. I have uploaded your balanced ratings file into Genie Scout. Can I ask does your file override the existing file or do i need to load it in when Im in GS? I copied the file into the ratings folder in the C drive. When clicking between your ratings file and the old one 'Football Manager 2016', the ratings dont seem to change, so I'm wondering if it has automatically updated to yours Expand
Middleweight165 said: Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. I understand completely what you're that the FM arena testing is limited because that's all they are capable of doing, but it still provides us with a huge insight into whats important and whats not.
What instigated my question was my assumption that the chinese research was more thorough, therefore a more accurate analysis of which attributes are most important for each position, but it felt to me, and this could just be a personal feeling is that members of this forum have't abandoned the FM Arena test results in favour of the Chinese results and I wanted to know why. Maybe paragraph 3 of your reply provides more info on this.
What is your personal opinion now? Do you follow the Chinese guidelines or the FM Arena ones? For the DM position would you prioritise Work Rate (Chinese) or Acceleration (FM Arena)? Expand
I leave this question for @Mark since he is the boss in attribute filters. Maybe you can ask him to test the filter from FM-Arena vs the filter from Chinese guys and compare performance between them.
Middleweight165 said: Can you give me a practical example? I don't understand. Looking at the chinese table, for out field players Work Rate is 5th most important for CB, 4th FB, 1st DM, 4th W, 4 AM, 7th ST, so on average should be around the 4th most important attribute. yet on the FM arena testing it is around 23rd Expand
Testing the impact of attributes is something very hard to do, because important attributes for DC are different from important attributes for ST. Basically, you need to test each position/role individually. It's also not something linear, which means the effect from 10 > 12 can be very big, but from 12 > 14 can be negligible. That means there are too many combinations to test, and FM-Arena just doesn't have the resources to do so. What they did was an approximation that is pretty accurate for most cases. We should be thankful they did that when no one else wanted to do it, and appreciate their contribution to FM community.
About the study from the Chinese group, they had more resources since they are a company that works in a basketball game with focus on statistics. That includes machines (possibly a supercomputer), experts in the field of statistics / machine learning, and time. I believe their results are more precise, but you have to consider the difference in their methodology.
For example, the AI made variations in attributes but kept the same CA for players, while in FM-Arena the attributes were changed without considering CA. The result is that attribute weights have direct impact in the Chinese study, while it was not considered by FM-Arena since it wanted to isolate the impact of the attribute.
Again, you have to understand that even if FM-Arena wanted to do a similar methodology, that wouldn't be possible because they just don't have resources to do so. I think FM-Arena's approximation is pretty decent considering how hard it is to test attributes. The Chinese guy itself said they wouldn't be doing any more similar tests using machine learning since the cost was too high to repeat the experiment.
So, in short, FM-Arena's results are different mainly because they are an approximation, and also because they chose to not consider the weight of attributes to CA, which has the potential to counter-balance the impact and make the analysis even harder.
For anyone curious, there is an Easter egg in FM22. If you manage to get a team with all players being model citizens, the team gets renamed to "Boy Scouts".
nator said: I saw a list a few days before that shows the best traits for every role in every position but I dont know if they have test it or something Expand
I think it's very situational and depends on the tactic you plan to use. In my case, I like to only train traits that reinforce some instruction from the role.
CR7THEGOAT said: Hey Zaz, i have a question. If I change camera settings for 2D change something? In some sites people say when they change the quality of the tactic change… and your tactic is a monster tactic , the goat 😂 Thanks by the way and sorry for my English Expand
I don't think it changes anything other than player view. It's the same match happening, using the same match engine, and you can even watch the match in different views over and over again. I believe it's just a fake rumour.
Thanks a lot for this tactic. I used to play a lot to the FM21 version. I had great results without using training schedules, I just let the assistant manage this. Are the results good without training schedule posted by Zaz ?
Sorry for my poor english Expand
Testing training schedules is very difficult, because there are multiple objectives to training, like developing players, improving team performance in the current season, reducing injuries and allowing enough rest to repeat the same team when needed. Anyway, I don't think the influence of training schedule is so big, so you can leave it to assistant manager if you feel more comfortable that way.
saitjerome said: Really appreciate that u gave a value to respond that long. According to "but some people forget that we are talking about the best Barcelona of all times, with at least three or four players that would figure in any list of best players in history." that sentence i'd say xavi, iniesta, etc. were already playing but they weren't considered as "world's best players". When pep took the charge and adapted his players at the second half of the league then people turned their eyes to barcelona and impressed of their "tiki-taka" magic.
As short, i believe that tactic makes players better not the players(at some point yes). I know every person has their own idea about football, like my friend absolutely in love with counter attack which i hate. I've tried many tactics to make it real tiki-taka on FM match engine but it doesn't work. Maybe i better stick with the tactic called "score more than your opponent" to be successful. Expand
About a tactic making players better, I agree, but the other way is also true. If you check the last champions from UEFA Champions League, they have been teams like Real Madrid, Chelsea and Liverpool, none of them known for putting emphasis in possession. Sure, there was a title from Barcelona and one from Bayern Munich, but they seem to be more of an exception than the rule.
Like I said before, I have nothing against positional play, but I like when possession converts into chances created. If a team has 90% of possession but created only two clear chances of goal, then it is less attacking than a team that defended the whole match and got five clear chances from counter attacks.
Anyway, you should probably check for a tactic with good possession and score over 6.0, that will be enough to win most championships.
saitjerome said: i love the number of passes completed by my team. It shows dominance imo. Expand
In my opinion, and that's just an opinion, the objective of football is to score more goals than opposition. There are several ways to achieve that, but anything you do in the field should contribute to use space better to score goals and avoid conceding.
That being said, passing is one of the mechanics that can potentialize a tactical style, but I can't see "completing several passes" as a good metric for entertaining football. For example, I prefer to look at clear chances created and clear chances conceded.
Anyway, I believe Barcelona from Messi created an illusion that Tiki-Taka is better than other styles, because they really dominated most opponents, but some people forget that we are talking about the best Barcelona of all times, with at least three or four players that would figure in any list of best players in history. However, teams have dominated the field with very different tactics both before and after that Barcelona.
P.S.: I'm not saying you can't win with high passing tactics, just that I don't think that metric should define a tactic. You can use very short passing with this tactic, but it will lose performance. Maybe you would have better success with another tactic with more players in the midfield, like this.
To be fair, youth setup is more useful in real life than in FM. If you play ten seasons, you will get at most two or three players that are worth using. Meanwhile, you can get very good youth players from other team and use them instead, possibly for a cheaper price than you pay to keep a state of the art youth setup running.
P.S.: Just to be clear, it's very useful to have good training facilities to develop the players in your main squad, I just never saw much benefit in youth setup (youth facilities, coaching, recruitment and youth level). Unlike real life, FM doesn't have strong competition for young talents, so it's not so hard to hire the best from other teams.
It says in the first post when to use light and solid.
"Use Solid Blue 4.0 when you want to hold a score. It concedes around 15% fewer goals than Blue 4.0. It's also a good idea to use Solid in the first half of matches against hard teams, to unsettle them, then change back to Blue during the second half, when their players are getting nervous.
You should use Light Blue 4.0 when you want to rest your players and avoid bookings, thinking about the rest of the season. I recommend using it anytime you think a match is under control, like two or three goals of difference. If your aim is to hold a score, use Solid Blue instead."
About losing to Liverpool, City and similar teams, the tactic can only help your team overachieve, but it's not invincible. As long as you still win the season by the end, it should be fine.
Thanks! It seems to work better with Vol-At, though.
It keeps the last rating you used.
What instigated my question was my assumption that the chinese research was more thorough, therefore a more accurate analysis of which attributes are most important for each position, but it felt to me, and this could just be a personal feeling is that members of this forum have't abandoned the FM Arena test results in favour of the Chinese results and I wanted to know why. Maybe paragraph 3 of your reply provides more info on this.
What is your personal opinion now? Do you follow the Chinese guidelines or the FM Arena ones? For the DM position would you prioritise Work Rate (Chinese) or Acceleration (FM Arena)?
I leave this question for @Mark since he is the boss in attribute filters. Maybe you can ask him to test the filter from FM-Arena vs the filter from Chinese guys and compare performance between them.
Testing the impact of attributes is something very hard to do, because important attributes for DC are different from important attributes for ST. Basically, you need to test each position/role individually. It's also not something linear, which means the effect from 10 > 12 can be very big, but from 12 > 14 can be negligible. That means there are too many combinations to test, and FM-Arena just doesn't have the resources to do so. What they did was an approximation that is pretty accurate for most cases. We should be thankful they did that when no one else wanted to do it, and appreciate their contribution to FM community.
About the study from the Chinese group, they had more resources since they are a company that works in a basketball game with focus on statistics. That includes machines (possibly a supercomputer), experts in the field of statistics / machine learning, and time. I believe their results are more precise, but you have to consider the difference in their methodology.
For example, the AI made variations in attributes but kept the same CA for players, while in FM-Arena the attributes were changed without considering CA. The result is that attribute weights have direct impact in the Chinese study, while it was not considered by FM-Arena since it wanted to isolate the impact of the attribute.
Again, you have to understand that even if FM-Arena wanted to do a similar methodology, that wouldn't be possible because they just don't have resources to do so. I think FM-Arena's approximation is pretty decent considering how hard it is to test attributes. The Chinese guy itself said they wouldn't be doing any more similar tests using machine learning since the cost was too high to repeat the experiment.
So, in short, FM-Arena's results are different mainly because they are an approximation, and also because they chose to not consider the weight of attributes to CA, which has the potential to counter-balance the impact and make the analysis even harder.
It can be several reasons. For example, it can be very important until certain value, then less important after some point.
I think it's very situational and depends on the tactic you plan to use. In my case, I like to only train traits that reinforce some instruction from the role.
Thanks by the way and sorry for my English
I don't think it changes anything other than player view. It's the same match happening, using the same match engine, and you can even watch the match in different views over and over again. I believe it's just a fake rumour.
I don't know since I have never tested it.
It drops. This tactic is already extremely attacking, so it's better to keep it that way.
Thanks a lot for this tactic. I used to play a lot to the FM21 version. I had great results without using training schedules, I just let the assistant manage this.
Are the results good without training schedule posted by Zaz ?
Sorry for my poor english
Testing training schedules is very difficult, because there are multiple objectives to training, like developing players, improving team performance in the current season, reducing injuries and allowing enough rest to repeat the same team when needed. Anyway, I don't think the influence of training schedule is so big, so you can leave it to assistant manager if you feel more comfortable that way.
I believe this one would have better possession than Blue: https://fm-arena.com/tactic/2674-positive-tiki-taka-cms-attack/
You can also try Green 5.0, which is essentially the same.
As short, i believe that tactic makes players better not the players(at some point yes). I know every person has their own idea about football, like my friend absolutely in love with counter attack which i hate. I've tried many tactics to make it real tiki-taka on FM match engine but it doesn't work. Maybe i better stick with the tactic called "score more than your opponent" to be successful.
About a tactic making players better, I agree, but the other way is also true. If you check the last champions from UEFA Champions League, they have been teams like Real Madrid, Chelsea and Liverpool, none of them known for putting emphasis in possession. Sure, there was a title from Barcelona and one from Bayern Munich, but they seem to be more of an exception than the rule.
Like I said before, I have nothing against positional play, but I like when possession converts into chances created. If a team has 90% of possession but created only two clear chances of goal, then it is less attacking than a team that defended the whole match and got five clear chances from counter attacks.
Anyway, you should probably check for a tactic with good possession and score over 6.0, that will be enough to win most championships.
In my opinion, and that's just an opinion, the objective of football is to score more goals than opposition. There are several ways to achieve that, but anything you do in the field should contribute to use space better to score goals and avoid conceding.
That being said, passing is one of the mechanics that can potentialize a tactical style, but I can't see "completing several passes" as a good metric for entertaining football. For example, I prefer to look at clear chances created and clear chances conceded.
Anyway, I believe Barcelona from Messi created an illusion that Tiki-Taka is better than other styles, because they really dominated most opponents, but some people forget that we are talking about the best Barcelona of all times, with at least three or four players that would figure in any list of best players in history. However, teams have dominated the field with very different tactics both before and after that Barcelona.
P.S.: I'm not saying you can't win with high passing tactics, just that I don't think that metric should define a tactic. You can use very short passing with this tactic, but it will lose performance. Maybe you would have better success with another tactic with more players in the midfield, like this.
In short, it lowers the performance. Why would you want to have much shorter passing?
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/12345/
P.S.: Just to be clear, it's very useful to have good training facilities to develop the players in your main squad, I just never saw much benefit in youth setup (youth facilities, coaching, recruitment and youth level). Unlike real life, FM doesn't have strong competition for young talents, so it's not so hard to hire the best from other teams.