I also think the throw ins lend themselves to FM19 throw in exploit but will test that later. Indeed some of the FM19 tactics might be the best for this release,
I wrote somewhere on this forum a few weeks ago that FM22 would definitely move away from FM21 Strikerless tactics the way FM did after the last FM Strikerless tactics were a success. I suggested we start with successful tactics from FM20. So my starting test was the best tactic from that year, the attached Apache tactic based on the TFF Cerber tactic. To test I started with 3 lower Division teams who were 33/1 with the bookies in Vanarama National, South and North. The sides were FC Halifax, Southport and Hungerford. All had media predictions of 16 to 20. I think this is a good starting point as all did well above expectations. Including a win in the Trophy to FC Halifax, and a League win to Southport.
All the sides finished top 6. I think this is a worthwhile kick off to FM22.
I am still very happy to have 3 tactics on the first page. This remains my favourite tactic. I started my last save for FM21 a month ago, called The Last Save - Hungerford. I was trying to put everything I learned into one last game and picked the lowest rated side in playable English football. We finished champions after 40 games with a record of 30 wins 5 draws and 5 losses, 21 points clear of second placed Havant. Our for and against was 97 to 35. We were predicted to finish 21st or last in the League. You can read about it on FM Scout. I have just signed a heap of replacement players and will see how far I get into the new season in Vanaarama National League before a start on the Beta of FM22.
Dezhy said: So, you said we needed to consider positional rating as the main criteria to compare players on GS. Should I completely ignore Role ratings on GS? Expand
The short answer is yes, ignore role ratings. I have tried using role ratings but there was no noticeable difference. It does mean you miss some very good players for the position. Players seem to be able to play the role regardless if they are reasonable at the position and it gives you flexibility if you want to move between tactics.
CBP87 said: Thanks pal and honestly I'm not sure. I'm not feeling it. I just keep looking at it and thinking to myself that they've only update the match graphics and a role Expand
I was a bit like that but signed up. I was keen on the old CMs and on steam have gone 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014 , 2019 and 2021. I think Covid has me in for the next one. Although I think I will revisit 2019 and 2014 at some stage. They were both very good games. The discussion here has kept my interest in FM21 especially during Covid. And my favourite save of running 3 teams simultaneously in 3 different countries and levels of competition.
Anyhow I hope we don't lose you @CBP87 from next years forum. I have enjoyed reading your stuff.
For me the 3 key attributes for a Fast Striker would be Acceleration, Pace and Finishing in that order. I would be trying to be above the best Acceleration stat for your league for Strikers for this, somewhere between best and average but closer to best for Pace and above average for finishing. I would also be keen to ensure the Weight was above the League average as well.
Another way to do it is to take the most important attributes for each position you are using and find the average and best for those attributes in the league you are playing. The filter average as a minimum but look for the higher end if you can afford it, especially for the attribute with the most impact.
ZaZ said: Seems like it's made for defenses with three players, acting as a central defender when defending and as a wingback when in possession. Expand
Last time strikerless was good it wasn't any good in the next iteration. I think the starting point for 2022 tactics might be something between 2020 and 2021 top tactics. Only a theory, but thats what I will be trying when the Beta comes out.
Here is an interesting post from many years ago that I think still is valid and interesting - At the beginning of the game, Ronaldo's CA is 192. Ronaldo is natural at AM L; accomplished at S C and AM R; competent at AM C; and unconvincing at M R and M L. - When I change Ronaldo to be natural at S C and every other position to 1, Ronaldo's recommend current ability (RCA) is 195. This means that Ronaldo's ability as a S C is higher than his CA. If I made these changes to Ronaldo's positions and didn't change his CA, within a few days the game would adjust some of Ronaldo's attributes down, so that his RCA would match his CA of 192. - I also tried changing Ronaldo to natural as a D R and every other position to 1. When I do this, Ronaldo's RCA becomes 134. If I changed Ronaldo's positional attributes in this way and didn't lower his CA, within a few days the game would bump up his attributes across the board so that his CA as a DR would reach 192. - Then I made Ronaldo natural at D R and S C. When I do this, his RCA is 178. This is between 195 (RCA as a SC) and 134 (RCA as a D R). However, it is not a simple average. In some earlier games, players with proficiency in many different positions had, often times, very very good attributes. I believe this had to do with the way the game averaged the RCA of different positions to calculate the overall CA. SI seems to have compensated for this potential bug by making the average biased towards the position the player is best at. - When, besides being natural at D R and SC, I also make Ronaldo natural at D C (Ronaldo RCA when he is only a D C is 137), Ronaldo's RCA becomes 170. It seems like the weight given to the RCA in the position the player is less good at becomes even smaller when the player is proficient in many positions. - I also tried starting Ronaldo as a S C only and then, one by one, increase his D R proficiency. Up until D R = 10, Ronaldo's RCA does not change. Starting at 11, Ronaldo's RCA steadily decreases as his DR proficiency increases, reaching 178 when his DR proficiency reaches 20. So, positions are "free" up to 10, and then gradually start to affect the CA weights of attributes. So, my take is that the CA costs of attributes for players with multiple positions are an average of the CA costs of attributes of the different positions. However, this average CA cost is not a simple average (nor even a "simple" weighted average based on the proficiency in the positions). Rather, the CA cost of an attribute is "biased" towards the CA cost of the attribute in the position the player is best RCA-wise. A player with 6 in attributes has a RCA of 0 with any natural position (also when I changed finishing to 5 in a striker, the in-game editor showed a RCA of -1; and when I changed finishing to 7 in a striker, the in-game editor showed a RCA of 1). This implies that you cannot just multiply the CA costs I posted originally by the attributes and get a player's CA. You have to subtract from that calculation, approximately, 6 x sum of the CA costs of all attributes. That being said, I still wouldn't expect you could get the exact CA of a player by doing that calculation. As I explained in the original post, there is some quirks in the way the whole CA weighting of attributes works that I couldn't fully figure out. But the number should be in the neighborhood. Attributes are not "free" up until 6. According to my testing, their cost seems similar below and above 6. What happens is that a player with CA = 1 has an allotment for attributes that is approximately 6 x CA cost of all attributes. You don't start with all attributes at 1 when CA is 1. A player with 1 in all attributes and 2 in corners has RCA = -99 (when I put all attributes to 1 the in game editor shows RCA=0 -> this is probably because the editor is not prepared for that extreme).
So is this the best of what you have tested so far?
All the sides finished top 6. I think this is a worthwhile kick off to FM22.
The short answer is yes, ignore role ratings. I have tried using role ratings but there was no noticeable difference. It does mean you miss some very good players for the position. Players seem to be able to play the role regardless if they are reasonable at the position and it gives you flexibility if you want to move between tactics.
I was a bit like that but signed up. I was keen on the old CMs and on steam have gone 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014 , 2019 and 2021. I think Covid has me in for the next one. Although I think I will revisit 2019 and 2014 at some stage. They were both very good games. The discussion here has kept my interest in FM21 especially during Covid. And my favourite save of running 3 teams simultaneously in 3 different countries and levels of competition.
Anyhow I hope we don't lose you @CBP87 from next years forum. I have enjoyed reading your stuff.
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/5071/
Another way to do it is to take the most important attributes for each position you are using and find the average and best for those attributes in the league you are playing. The filter average as a minimum but look for the higher end if you can afford it, especially for the attribute with the most impact.
I hope this helps
Last time strikerless was good it wasn't any good in the next iteration. I think the starting point for 2022 tactics might be something between 2020 and 2021 top tactics. Only a theory, but thats what I will be trying when the Beta comes out.
- At the beginning of the game, Ronaldo's CA is 192. Ronaldo is natural at AM L; accomplished at S C and AM R; competent at AM C; and unconvincing at M R and M L.
- When I change Ronaldo to be natural at S C and every other position to 1, Ronaldo's recommend current ability (RCA) is 195. This means that Ronaldo's ability as a S C is higher than his CA. If I made these changes to Ronaldo's positions and didn't change his CA, within a few days the game would adjust some of Ronaldo's attributes down, so that his RCA would match his CA of 192.
- I also tried changing Ronaldo to natural as a D R and every other position to 1. When I do this, Ronaldo's RCA becomes 134. If I changed Ronaldo's positional attributes in this way and didn't lower his CA, within a few days the game would bump up his attributes across the board so that his CA as a DR would reach 192.
- Then I made Ronaldo natural at D R and S C. When I do this, his RCA is 178. This is between 195 (RCA as a SC) and 134 (RCA as a D R). However, it is not a simple average. In some earlier games, players with proficiency in many different positions had, often times, very very good attributes. I believe this had to do with the way the game averaged the RCA of different positions to calculate the overall CA. SI seems to have compensated for this potential bug by making the average biased towards the position the player is best at.
- When, besides being natural at D R and SC, I also make Ronaldo natural at D C (Ronaldo RCA when he is only a D C is 137), Ronaldo's RCA becomes 170. It seems like the weight given to the RCA in the position the player is less good at becomes even smaller when the player is proficient in many positions.
- I also tried starting Ronaldo as a S C only and then, one by one, increase his D R proficiency. Up until D R = 10, Ronaldo's RCA does not change. Starting at 11, Ronaldo's RCA steadily decreases as his DR proficiency increases, reaching 178 when his DR proficiency reaches 20. So, positions are "free" up to 10, and then gradually start to affect the CA weights of attributes.
So, my take is that the CA costs of attributes for players with multiple positions are an average of the CA costs of attributes of the different positions. However, this average CA cost is not a simple average (nor even a "simple" weighted average based on the proficiency in the positions). Rather, the CA cost of an attribute is "biased" towards the CA cost of the attribute in the position the player is best RCA-wise.
A player with 6 in attributes has a RCA of 0 with any natural position (also when I changed finishing to 5 in a striker, the in-game editor showed a RCA of -1; and when I changed finishing to 7 in a striker, the in-game editor showed a RCA of 1). This implies that you cannot just multiply the CA costs I posted originally by the attributes and get a player's CA. You have to subtract from that calculation, approximately, 6 x sum of the CA costs of all attributes.
That being said, I still wouldn't expect you could get the exact CA of a player by doing that calculation. As I explained in the original post, there is some quirks in the way the whole CA weighting of attributes works that I couldn't fully figure out. But the number should be in the neighborhood.
Attributes are not "free" up until 6. According to my testing, their cost seems similar below and above 6. What happens is that a player with CA = 1 has an allotment for attributes that is approximately 6 x CA cost of all attributes. You don't start with all attributes at 1 when CA is 1.
A player with 1 in all attributes and 2 in corners has RCA = -99 (when I put all attributes to 1 the in game editor shows RCA=0 -> this is probably because the editor is not prepared for that extreme).