Flank players crossing from byline, paired with progress through the middle. The logic here is to progress as much as possible through the middle, then pass to flank players when they are closer to the goal, so they need to run less with the ball before crossing.
Testing 2.06 without cut inside. I am trying to compare AM to CHM to see which one supports SS better now that defenders are "smarter", assuming middle players need to participate more in attacking actions.
Jacko933 said: This isn’t a message to the creator, but who ever runs the ‘test’ . How can you have win% + loss% = 100% when there are clearly draws in the screenshots of the test league? Take test one Human team 4, win percentage is 74.4%, draw is 15.6% loss is 10%: still very good results but the header is incorrect Expand
Possible points won. If you win 90 points out of 114, that is 78% of points won.
Currently, every time you post a tactic, you spend one slot of your limit and enter a 24h cooldown for that slot. That makes harder to post new tactics at the same time every day, because people take at least a few minutes to post new tactics. For example, if I post two tactics at 8:00, and take 15 minutes to post those tactics, that means tomorrow I can only post at 8:15. If I take the same time to post tomorrow, I can only post again in the next day at 8:30, and you can see this will always push times further.
My proposal is to reset all slots at the same fixed time (for example, midnight UTC), so people can post every day at the same time.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: HarvestGreen22 is inclined to 331 or 334. I already did some calcs on 331 and didn't find it good enough to match the best, but 334 is a contender for the best due to its very high efficiency (performance per CA cost). I would still personally just go with the best performance (243) though.
In my view these are all strong results for GK, so these schedules don't come at the expense of GK.
I see low CA gain as somewhat important for GK unlike other positions, as I noticed GK has the highest CA cost of any position for an 'ideal' template, plus I think high PA GKs are in general difficult to get. But I didn't include this in my calculation.
9.09% weighting to the 3 main goalkeeping attributes 1.818% weighting to the 4 lesser GK attributes 20% weighting to jumping reach
My reasoning for these weightings is that a GK represents 9.09% of a team on the field and the 3 main attributes function basically as pace/acc do for outfield players. I gave the minor attributes a flat 20% weighting of the main ones (1.818% each), as we're talking fairly minuscule overall figures here anyway.
Jumping reach is more of a lowball guesstimate. In certain cases, jumping reach can be about as impactful as pace/acc, but I think more typically its value is that of a strong secondary attribute.
Although I have shown 'decisions' values here, it does not form part of my calculations. I figured it's going to be more accurate to simply divide the key attributes by the total CA cost, which will take decisions into account. So if you add in 'decisions' to below, it will double-count it and be invalid.
I've also added 92:[Attacking]x5[Defending]x5[Match Practice]x2[GoalKeeping][Quickness focus] to give an idea about a considerable but inferior schedule would compare. Although 92 doesn't do much worse than 243, it would result in a lot more tiredness and injuries.
As a suggestion, you can get those high performance trainings and combine with high efficiency trainings to produce a hybrid with lower CA gain. For example, 50% of 243 + 50% of 150, or other ratios like 25/75.
CBP87 said: I agree, they seem to fix some bits but break more doing it. What happened to just keeping things simple Expand
One of the things I hate the most is to have only summaries in the inbox, and having to click to read the actual message. Not being able to resize the screen is also pretty annoying.
CBP87 said: Enter the name of the tactic mate, then hit tab, the button should become available, strangely though when I'm saving a tactic the other tactics aren't showing in the save window pop up Expand
Thank you! The more I play this game, the more I realize how much it is worse than the previous version.
tam1236 said: I have u21 manager and I can manage team selection. Same u18. Dont have u19 manager and same result. I think selection is always made if you don't do it. And really don't know what's the function of all these managers and assistants. Do they have any job or are they just individuals to spend money on , make nice background and nothing more? (And don't say about arranging frendlies , in this they really suck) ok they can act as coach (with some exceptions not the best one). Expand
Do you think it's better than version 2.05? In the fm arena test, 2.05 is better
Their results are barely the same, so you can use the one you like the most. Personally, 2.03 seems to be performing better.
I didn't have time to test set pieces again, so unfortunately there are no updates.
Possible points won. If you win 90 points out of 114, that is 78% of points won.
My proposal is to reset all slots at the same fixed time (for example, midnight UTC), so people can post every day at the same time.
For GK (sorted best to worst):
334 - 40.3 CA | 4.5 agil, 1.4 aer, 0.6 ref (6.5 major) | 1 pac, 2.4 vis, 2.7 con, 2.9 ant (9 minor)
243 - 41.83 CA | 4.333 agil, 1 aer, 0.666 ref (6.0 major) | 1.33 pac, 3.16 vis, 2.83 con, 3.33 ant (10.65 minor)
150 - 44.5 CA | 3.5 agil, 1.5 aer, 1 ref (6.0 major) | 0 pac, 2.0 vis, 4.0 con, 3.5 ant (9.5 minor)
113 - 31.8 CA | 3.4 agil, 1.4 aer, 0.8 ref (5.6 major) | 1 pac, 2.8 vis, 3.4 con, 1.8 ant (9 minor)
97 - 37.2 CA | 2.8 agil, 1 aer, 1.2 ref (5.0 major) | 0.6 pac, 2.4 vis, 2.6 con, 3.4 ant (9 minor)
In my view these are all strong results for GK, so these schedules don't come at the expense of GK.
I see low CA gain as somewhat important for GK unlike other positions, as I noticed GK has the highest CA cost of any position for an 'ideal' template, plus I think high PA GKs are in general difficult to get. But I didn't include this in my calculation.
Jumping Reach:
334 - 1.4 jump
243 - 1.1666 jump
150 - 1.0625 jump
113 - 1.025 jump
97 - 0.925 jump
Decisions (low = good):
334 - 1.05 dec
113 - 2.15 dec
97 - 2.375 dec
243 - 2.625 dec
150 - 3 dec
Pace/Acc:
243: 6.08333
150: 6.0625
113: 6.375
97: 6.025
334: 6.0125
Dribbling:
243: 1.6666 drib
150: 1.58333 drib
97: 1.3333 drib
334: 1.0875 drib
113: 0.9666 drib
9.09% weighting to the 3 main goalkeeping attributes
1.818% weighting to the 4 lesser GK attributes
20% weighting to jumping reach
My reasoning for these weightings is that a GK represents 9.09% of a team on the field and the 3 main attributes function basically as pace/acc do for outfield players. I gave the minor attributes a flat 20% weighting of the main ones (1.818% each), as we're talking fairly minuscule overall figures here anyway.
Jumping reach is more of a lowball guesstimate. In certain cases, jumping reach can be about as impactful as pace/acc, but I think more typically its value is that of a strong secondary attribute.
Although I have shown 'decisions' values here, it does not form part of my calculations. I figured it's going to be more accurate to simply divide the key attributes by the total CA cost, which will take decisions into account. So if you add in 'decisions' to below, it will double-count it and be invalid.
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus] - 7.689 + 0.5454 + 0.193617 + 0.23332 = 8.661337 / 38.9583 = 0.222323
150: [Attacking x 6][Quickness focus] - 7.6855 + 0.5454 + 0.17271 + 0.2125 = 8.61611 / 36.875 = 0.233657
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.664 + 0.50904 + 0.16362 + 0.205 = 8.54166 / 35.575 = 0.240103
97: [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from front][Quickness][Quick focus] - 7.4395 + 0.4545 + 0.16362 + 0.185 = 8.24262 / 37.3 = 0.2209818
334 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking]: 7.3637 + 0.59085 + 0.16362 + 0.28 = 8.39817 / 31.21 = 0.2690859
To help clarify the true value of 'efficiency', I've added [Match Reviewx2][Quickness] to these, since it's the most efficient for just pure pace/acc.
100: [Match Reviewx2][Quickness] - 7.329584 + 0.34542 + 0.039996 + 0.2 = 7.915 / 18.05 = 0.4385
I've also added 92:[Attacking]x5[Defending]x5[Match Practice]x2[GoalKeeping][Quickness focus] to give an idea about a considerable but inferior schedule would compare. Although 92 doesn't do much worse than 243, it would result in a lot more tiredness and injuries.
This can be simplified to:
Efficiency
100 - 100%
334 - 61.4%
113 - 54.8%
150 - 53.3%
243 - 50.7%
97 - 50.4%
92 - 49.7%
Performance
243 - 100%
150 - 99.5%
113 - 98.6%
92 - 98.3%
334 - 97.0%
97 - 95.2%
100 - 91.4%
Combined
100 - 95.7%
334 - 79.2%
113 - 76.7%
150 - 76.4%
243 - 75.3%
92 - 74.0%
97 - 72.8%
As a suggestion, you can get those high performance trainings and combine with high efficiency trainings to produce a hybrid with lower CA gain. For example, 50% of 243 + 50% of 150, or other ratios like 25/75.
One of the things I hate the most is to have only summaries in the inbox, and having to click to read the actual message. Not being able to resize the screen is also pretty annoying.
Thank you! The more I play this game, the more I realize how much it is worse than the previous version.
Ohh, then I was wrong. =)