You will need to include screenshots of results before they will test it mate

You will need to include an image of the tactic set up and some results before they will test it.

Wow, well done mate

That is so impressive. I am trying this one out.

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.

I like to select players that are topping the training in each game. I reckon it encourages the players to train well.

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).

Yes, but not much in it. Comet is up there too

Filters depends on the league you are in. Look at the average for the key attributes for the league and then base your minimums on those as a starting point

ZaZ said: There is no such thing as 21.7, at least in the original edition. This tactic works well in 21.4, the current patch from fm. Expand

From memory the match engine was 21.7 but the game version is 21.4. Could be wrong. Either way this is still good under the current game which wont change now until the FM22 game

ta2199 said: How do you sort by club? Expand

Click on the column heading of Club and it will sort by club. You could read the user guide at https://www.fmscout.com/a-genie-scout-guide.html

Middleweight165 said: So for example, I load my current game in Genie Scout, then select your ratings, then search by position rating, Wing Back Right >80%, one result Kyle Walker, so according to your ratings Kyle Walker is the best WBR in the game.

Is this accurate? Expand

As long as they are also rated as Natural in that position. It looks like he is Natural as a DR and still Natural as a WBR even though the position rating is 18. So yes, I think he probably is.

The higher the Genie Scout rating the better the player based on the position. See post #48 on page two of this topic - it explains it for you

wsndbd said: hi,@Mark, can you sort these values into the minimum attribute values? Like this one? I don't know how to map the score to the minimum attribute. Sorting into the smallest attribute may be more intuitive. Thank you very much!
Expand

It really does depend what league you are managing in. Let me know and I will try and do this for you

Gaksital said: Okay, I'm going to start adding a new set piece to Liar v1 right now.

Btw, it is not clear until it is evaluated whether this tactic is excellent. However, I can be sure that this play is the funniest tactic I've ever uploaded.

Thank you





That's a disappointing rating. I was really, really sure... lol Expand

Definitely had that as well, and the tactics still play well and are worth it. As I have said before on this website, anything above 6.0 will do well and enjoy the tactics you have designed

hakanardich676 said: How can i add these .fmf files? i tried so many times but i could not upload to fm 21.Why does not my game see these files? Version 21.4.0 Expand

You need to make sure they go to the right folder so your game knows they are there.

Assuming you have a standard windows install the tactics file should go to a location like the following:

C:\Users\<<insert your user name of pc here>>\Documents\Sports Interactive\Football Manager 2021\tactics

Or go to this tutorial

https://www.gamepur.com/guides/how-to-import-user-created-tactics-into-football-manager-2021

Hope this helps

ZaZ said: They usually perform badly in any tactic using this formation. For attributes, I usually look for PAce, Acceleration, Agility and Jumping Reach. Expand

I agree but would add decisions as important for this role.

And improve your defensive players, better decisions and positioning required

I would select the league and then sort by position. Look at around 20th and somewhere around that mark or a little lower should be fine, given the tactics here are pretty impressive. Double that so 40th or a little lower for duplicate positions like DCs.