Farinhoto said: So tell me something ZaZ, I use, ZaZ - Blue DM (Double Tweaked) because I like the players' positions more, if I implement your set pieces in this tactic it will work better too??
Thanks!! Expand
I don't think there will be much difference because they didn't have the same problem with throw ins. That doesn't mean you can't use the tweaked versions, they are still very good.
First of all congratulations on getting back to the top of the table.
In second 1 question, we continue with the same functionalities of the original tactic right?? The Trainings, which hits the corners is the DW of the corresponding side... Etc... Right??
Hugs and thanks! 😉 Expand
Everything is the same, I just fixed throw-ins that were harming the tactic performance. They were created in a context where long throw-ins had the best performance, but one of the patches made long throws worse.
Thanks for testing! Sorry for asking, but is that result good or bad? I have never heard of those clubs, don't know if that was overachievement or underachievement.
Tomen said: Big congrats for being at the top of the leaderboards again! I wonder how the different tweaks will stack up now to the original after they have seen the changes you made. Expand
Without trying to be mean, I believe the tweaks got ahead because they fixed the attacking throw ins, which was a major flaw in this tactic. I don't think those specific tweaks will get ahead again. However, I hope some other tweaks can break the wall and push the scores forward.
Mark said: I have had to start again as I realised the old tests were under the old match engine. I have picked out 4 set piece routines from original type tactics and will test each against 4 tactics. So 16 tests using 2 teams in each test. I may use further test runs if it doesn't show much. I think one of the set piece routines may be based on an older version of the ZaZ ones but that is how it plays. The routines are from ZaZ 3.2, cptdoggo, Snoop and Super Korean. The tactics will be ZaZ 3.2, Positive Tiki Taka, only my railgun and an update of my Winx v4 (I am always using this now and want to see the best set pieces to use on it. So most are easy to switch between but different enough to make it interesting. I have done the mapping across to one lot of set pieces and started to run tests. I will be away for a week from next Wednesday so hoping to finish before then. Should only be a few days but depends on trip planning and other life commitments. Expand
Just as a side note, Blue 3.2 has only attacking throw ins changed (all the rest is like Blue DM), while Blue 3.1 has most routines tweaked. I didn't put all tweaks to 3.2 because I don't know yet what actually improves performance, all I know is that they are better in goals conceded and scored from set pieces, but there is more to it like counter attacks and so on.
Blue 3.2 added, I'm currently running a test to add results to the first page. Changes in the "Changelog" section. I would like to thank @Zippo for the suggestions. Also, I'm still working with @Mark on further improvements to set pieces.
P.S.: To avoid the trouble of searching, I should just add the changes here: improved attacking throw-ins and force opposition outside.
Zippo said: @ZaZ, I've checked and it seems that removing "Play Out Defense" TI and adding "Distribute To Specific Team-Mate" TI doesn't make much difference, at least it can't be clearly seen after a 1,824 matches test for ZaZ - Blue DM. Expand
Thank you so much! I guess I just need to wait for Mark to see how the new set pieces compare to the old and the others he tested. In the mean time, I guess I can do like you suggested and upload a version with what we know works for sure (default attacking TI and Force Opposition Outside), since people keep bombarding me with messages to release it soon.
Zippo said: You know how many factors that increase RNG are eliminated in our testing methodology, not to mention that all the teams including the AI controlled teams and the human controlled teams use the same staring elven in all matches but still it requires testing 1,824 matches to clearly see the difference. Oh, gosh... I can only imagine how many matches it requires testing if there are huge RNG factors present like changing morale, conditions and different players in the starting eleven and so on. Expand
My testing league does 1k matches divided in three runs and eight teams (four teams playing 46 matches and four teams playing 38). When some variation seems promising, I run it six times to get better precision. Consider that my PC is pretty old and takes almost 3h per run (actually two runs with four teams each, two from each league). Also, I don't freeze anything, I just edited all players to have maximum consistency, natural fitness and minimum injury proneness. It's obviously less precise than the league you guys have, but still enough to give me some good input after testing, which I use on a rank based statistical analysis before drawing conclusions and finally posting here.
Zippo said: Based on our tests, I can say that adding the default attacking throw-ins instead of long throw-ins and adding "Force Opponent Outside" TI improves the result of any tactic including ZaZ - Blue DM. Also it's possible that removing "Play Out Of Defense" TI and adding "Distribute To Specific Team-Mate" TI might further improve the result of ZaZ - Blue DM but I need to check it and I can report you back only later today, if you want to know my opinion then waiting a bit would be the best choice. Expand
I just deleted it. It had zero downloads, so no big deal. Thanks for testing that, it was really bugging me because everyone is using and I couldn't see it working for me.
P.S.: I'm leaving the tactic with new set pieces here in case you or anyone else wants to see it. This is the same version I sent to Mark, with "Force Opponents Outside" added.
Zippo said: Removing "Play Out Of Defense" TI only make sense when you also add "Distribute To Specific Team-Mate" TI because it only properly works in tandem.
I've been noticing that for some tactics it improves the result and for some tactic it doesn't if you're interested how it would work for ZaZ - Blue DM then I can check it and report you back later today. Expand
It would be nice to know, but I don't want to botter you with every small thing. Should I delete the tactic that I upload to reupload after you come with that answer? That would also give me time to test just changing attacking TI and see if it's better than my current set pieces, but I'm quite positive the new ones are better (else I lost several days testing for nothing).
Zippo said: Regarding the set pieces I suggest changing only the attacking throw-ins because it seems other set pieces work great. Expand
TI was the most changed, all the others are very similar, but I will run some tests here to compare the current version with the old one + new attacking TI and see which is better. Thanks for the tip!
Zippo said: We've tried adding "Force Opponent Outside" TI in different tactics and it always improved the result but it requires testing 1,824 matches to see that. Expand
Ok, I will add the instruction and put the tactic to be tested to see how it goes, with the new set pieces. I think it's in a good state and it's nice to hear some confirmation other than my tests. When Mark finishes his tests, he might give some extra input to improve it even further.
P.S.: One more question, @Zippo. I see the top tactics removed the instruction "Play Out Of Defense", but it doesn't seem to give me better results when I remove it in my tests. Did you do any experiments to know if it's good or bad?
Zippo said: @ZaZ, I just want to let you know that we tested your ZaZ - Blue DM tactic with the default attacking throw-ins routine and got 65 points vs 61 points ( the current ZaZ - Blue DM score ).
But I want to add that we tested 1,824 matches because only on the 1,824 matches distance the difference started to appear clearly. Expand
Yeah, I told Mark via PM that I identified attacking throw-ins as the main flaw in the tactic, which was then changed in this new version. I believe the new throw-ins are better than default, but I will do some tests to compare anyway. Thanks for the tip!
P.S.: What about "Force Opponent Outside"? I see people using it and making defense better, but it doesn't show much difference in my tests.
P.S.2: I just checked the throw-ins of Blue 3.1, which I sent to Mark earlier. It's exactly the same as default, which is funny because that was not intentional. In other words, I played around lots of time just to get to that very same shape that I should have tested first.
BTtw do you know why some tactics have a different grade on different forums ? Expand
Different methodologies get different results. If you get a tactic and try it in England, it might have a different result than trying it in Sweden, Brazil or China, because they have different teams, squads and tactics.
For example, Premier League has many managers that use 4231, meaning tactics effective against this formation will have higher score. It also means some teams have more players available to certain positions, making tactics that use those positions more effective.
Those are just a few examples, but there are many other things that can affect results. A testing league that has good players for all positions, resets injuries, freezes players, blocks firing managers and resets physical status like condition and fatigue will be more consistent and favour more intense tactics, while testing leagues that don't do those things will favour more the teams with balanced squads instead of focusing on evaluating exclusively the quality of a tactic (standard holiday testing usually fall into this category).
Anyway, tests are just methods to calculate some sort of metric and allow test subjects to be compared. You can't compare meters with feet, yards or other of those primitive metrics, because they use different methods of calculation. It's even further if you go from meters to grams, which is what usually happens between two different testing leagues.
Thanks!!
I don't think there will be much difference because they didn't have the same problem with throw ins. That doesn't mean you can't use the tweaked versions, they are still very good.
First of all congratulations on getting back to the top of the table.
In second 1 question, we continue with the same functionalities of the original tactic right?? The Trainings, which hits the corners is the DW of the corresponding side... Etc... Right??
Hugs and thanks! 😉
Everything is the same, I just fixed throw-ins that were harming the tactic performance. They were created in a context where long throw-ins had the best performance, but one of the patches made long throws worse.
I see corner routines are working well there. =)
Thanks for testing! Sorry for asking, but is that result good or bad? I have never heard of those clubs, don't know if that was overachievement or underachievement.
Without trying to be mean, I believe the tweaks got ahead because they fixed the attacking throw ins, which was a major flaw in this tactic. I don't think those specific tweaks will get ahead again. However, I hope some other tweaks can break the wall and push the scores forward.
Thanks! The routines I want to confirm their performance are all in 3.1.
Just as a side note, Blue 3.2 has only attacking throw ins changed (all the rest is like Blue DM), while Blue 3.1 has most routines tweaked. I didn't put all tweaks to 3.2 because I don't know yet what actually improves performance, all I know is that they are better in goals conceded and scored from set pieces, but there is more to it like counter attacks and so on.
Thanks!
Thanks for your efforts!
You're welcome!
P.S.: To avoid the trouble of searching, I should just add the changes here: improved attacking throw-ins and force opposition outside.
Thank you so much! I guess I just need to wait for Mark to see how the new set pieces compare to the old and the others he tested. In the mean time, I guess I can do like you suggested and upload a version with what we know works for sure (default attacking TI and Force Opposition Outside), since people keep bombarding me with messages to release it soon.
My testing league does 1k matches divided in three runs and eight teams (four teams playing 46 matches and four teams playing 38). When some variation seems promising, I run it six times to get better precision. Consider that my PC is pretty old and takes almost 3h per run (actually two runs with four teams each, two from each league). Also, I don't freeze anything, I just edited all players to have maximum consistency, natural fitness and minimum injury proneness. It's obviously less precise than the league you guys have, but still enough to give me some good input after testing, which I use on a rank based statistical analysis before drawing conclusions and finally posting here.
I just deleted it. It had zero downloads, so no big deal. Thanks for testing that, it was really bugging me because everyone is using and I couldn't see it working for me.
P.S.: I'm leaving the tactic with new set pieces here in case you or anyone else wants to see it. This is the same version I sent to Mark, with "Force Opponents Outside" added.
I've been noticing that for some tactics it improves the result and for some tactic it doesn't if you're interested how it would work for ZaZ - Blue DM then I can check it and report you back later today.
It would be nice to know, but I don't want to botter you with every small thing. Should I delete the tactic that I upload to reupload after you come with that answer? That would also give me time to test just changing attacking TI and see if it's better than my current set pieces, but I'm quite positive the new ones are better (else I lost several days testing for nothing).
TI was the most changed, all the others are very similar, but I will run some tests here to compare the current version with the old one + new attacking TI and see which is better. Thanks for the tip!
Ok, I will add the instruction and put the tactic to be tested to see how it goes, with the new set pieces. I think it's in a good state and it's nice to hear some confirmation other than my tests. When Mark finishes his tests, he might give some extra input to improve it even further.
P.S.: One more question, @Zippo. I see the top tactics removed the instruction "Play Out Of Defense", but it doesn't seem to give me better results when I remove it in my tests. Did you do any experiments to know if it's good or bad?
But I want to add that we tested 1,824 matches because only on the 1,824 matches distance the difference started to appear clearly.
Yeah, I told Mark via PM that I identified attacking throw-ins as the main flaw in the tactic, which was then changed in this new version. I believe the new throw-ins are better than default, but I will do some tests to compare anyway. Thanks for the tip!
P.S.: What about "Force Opponent Outside"? I see people using it and making defense better, but it doesn't show much difference in my tests.
P.S.2: I just checked the throw-ins of Blue 3.1, which I sent to Mark earlier. It's exactly the same as default, which is funny because that was not intentional. In other words, I played around lots of time just to get to that very same shape that I should have tested first.
BTtw do you know why some tactics have a different grade on different forums ?
Different methodologies get different results. If you get a tactic and try it in England, it might have a different result than trying it in Sweden, Brazil or China, because they have different teams, squads and tactics.
For example, Premier League has many managers that use 4231, meaning tactics effective against this formation will have higher score. It also means some teams have more players available to certain positions, making tactics that use those positions more effective.
Those are just a few examples, but there are many other things that can affect results. A testing league that has good players for all positions, resets injuries, freezes players, blocks firing managers and resets physical status like condition and fatigue will be more consistent and favour more intense tactics, while testing leagues that don't do those things will favour more the teams with balanced squads instead of focusing on evaluating exclusively the quality of a tactic (standard holiday testing usually fall into this category).
Anyway, tests are just methods to calculate some sort of metric and allow test subjects to be compared. You can't compare meters with feet, yards or other of those primitive metrics, because they use different methods of calculation. It's even further if you go from meters to grams, which is what usually happens between two different testing leagues.
It's just an update to set pieces. It's still being tested, though.