CBP87 said: How is the tactical familiarity with the swapping of the tactics pal? I know its terms of instructions that the team will be familiar but in terms of roles how are they getting on? do you see a drop in rating? Could a right sided DW suddenly play a Left IW the next game? Sorry for the questions, I'm intrigued though as I think you're on to something here Expand
I think if you train the 3 main tactics in terms of familiarity they will be fine. I train them in roles of the main tactic and in additional focus for the one I decide is best. It seems to work for me
I have been thinking about the last changes to the testing environment here at FM Arena. The new system takes the best of the AI tactics and plays them against the tactic being tested. I wondered what would be the best tactic against each of the AI tactics.
Those who have read any of my thoughts on this and other sites will know I like to run with 3 tactics that are easy to move between. With this in the back of my mind I decided to look at the Hall of Fame. I picked a couple of tactics based on good goal scoring and defence and then a 4-2-4, a 4-4-2 wide diamond and the 4-1-2-3 wide that dominated early.
The AI tactics in the FM Arena test environment are 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 4-4-2 and 5-2-3. The results are points conceded.
So I am using the following tactics. Bombyte (Tweak) 4-2-4, Re-Cookie VI 4-4-2 wide diamond, and Cookie Shooter 4-1-2-3. I also sometimes use the Paradox Bomb 4-4-2 with 2 DM. Base is Re-Cookie VI, moves to Cookie Shooter by DM to ST, moves to Bombyte Tweak by AM to DM and wingers forward, and moves to Paradox Bomb by AM to DM. I would prefer just 3 tactics but can handle 4 as Paradox Bomb isn't used very often.
Against
4-2-3-1 I use Cookie Shooter with back up from Paradox Bomb
4-3-3 I use Re-Cookie VI with backup from Bombyte Tweak
4-4-2 I use Re-Cookie VI with backup from Bombyte Tweak
5-2-3 I use Bombyte Tweak with backup from Re-Cookie
Feel free to give it a try and let me know your thoughts. Hopefully helps someone.
Petrades said: On Genie Scout: is a 83% player with 16/20 better than a 81% player 20/20 position ability? Expand
See post #233 on page 8. The 83% player with 16/20 drops to around 75.78%, so the other player is better. But if you keep using the 83% player and training him there he will pass the other player when his rating gets to 19/20.
This tactic is working really well. I selected Bournemouth in the EPL and Kettering in the Vanarama North. Both sides were expected to fight against relegation.
They both performed well above expectations with Kettering winning the VNN and Bournemouth performing admirably in the EPL making it into the European comps for the following season by finishing 6th.
I am really interested to see how such a different tactic performs in the FM Arena test environment. I have received Vujevic's permission to get this tested here.
Lapidus said: For example, if you train a pure striker to play also AM and Winger then when he reaches his PA then his attributes will be lower than if he stayed a pure striker.
I don't say that training additional positions is a bad thing, I just wanted to point out that it isn't "for free" and there's a price for it. People should understand it. Expand
Fair enough. The screenshots above were from 2 16yo players. Hunter had starting CA at 30 and starting PA at 128 and is an AMC. I trained Hunter as a DM as I don't usually use an AMC in my tactics. Bell had a starting CA of 36 and PA of 118 and is a winger. Bell is a winger and is training as a winger. After the 10 weeks Hunter had a CA of 31 and PA of 128. Slight increase in CA but PA the same. Bell was still 36 and 118.
However, if you look at the screenshots, Hunter's PA attributes had risen 1 point for 3 attributes and 2 points for another. Hunter had no reductions. Bell's PA attributes had also changed slightly with two rising a point and two dropping a point. I know this is a very small sample but I find it interesting. If I get a chance at some point I will do some testing.
Learning a new position is always a trade off form some attributes levels. Not always it's a big trade off but still.
You can't train players additional positions "for free" in FM, if it was possible then you would want to train them as many additional positions as possible. Expand
All of my players who were learning new positions increased CA quicker than those that weren't. I haven't done extensive testing, it is just an observation.
Cherknam said: Interesting, thank you. Presumably it is the additional focus that causes this, I can't think of what else would cause it to change, do you know? Expand
I am not sure as I haven't really focused on that aspect, it is just something that I have noticed. I am managing a Vanarama South part time team. What I have noticed is that players develop faster if they are training a different position. I know @ZaZ wingers and wing backs to the opposite side. I am also training centre backs to DM and Strikers to AM. Also DM to either centre back or AM and AM to wingers for versatility.
I have been using additional focus to pick up the attributes specific to the position the players are playing that are not focused on through my training schedule - see above.
Potential attributes are not set. Here are 2 of my juniors after 10 weeks. The have only really been competing for 5 weeks. Current stats on left and starting ones on right.
Yarema said: Max posted another video. Some interesting stuff on diminishing returns of using several same training sessions per week. Expand
I have looked at Max's latest video. A couple of things to note are that I have based my schedule on Max's research and even though I have most training slots full, I have also used @ZaZ automatic resting process, so players who are playing games wont participate in much more than 12 sessions, other than Goalkeepers.
Let me just talk you through the rationale. I looked at the main attributes that make a difference in the game based on FM Arena attribute testing and the machine learning ykykyky Genie Scout rating. The general attributes that were across all positions were Acceleration, Pace, Work Rate, Stamina, Agility, Anticipation, Passing, Dribbling. I then looked at the training sessions that were preferred by Max and that showed they made the best improvement for those attributes. This is how I landed on the above schedule.
For Additional Focus I looked at the other Attributes for each position as per the machine learning ykykyky Genie Scout rating that werent covered above and allocated the Additional Focus to that Training aspect. You should also note that Max observed that older players benefitted from Agility and Balance Additional Focus so I allocate all players 25 and over to that.
BadA said: @ZaZ@Mark wondering if you guys made any changes to your individual training routine after taking a look at Max's analysis on the topic? I was in the "only quickness for outfield" mindset, but that seems to be the wrong approach given the negligible difference in Pace/Acc attributes from the testing. I'm thinking it makes the most sense to improve weaknesses or key attributes even though it may be at the cost of other (hopefully) less important ones, but would love to get your thoughts. Expand
Here is what I was using, although I am mostly playing with a part time team currently.
I use it in conjunction with the @ZaZ training rest approach. For additional training focus I use the following:
Some of the training sessions like Chance Creation include Individual Focus so activate the Additional Focus sessions.
I think this is the best balance, but will test it more thoroughly when I get my side to Professional. My young players are developing reasonably well using a Part Time version.
saycarramrod said: @Mark@ZaZ I know you guys have a lot of experience using Genie Scout and modifying the ratings files on it - a quick question: if hypothetically I wanted to modify the ykykyk balanced or ZaZ ratings file to more heavily rate Pace and Acceleration (or any of the other ~7 or so attributes with most impact) is it as simple as just changing them to 100 in the ratings file in each individual position or is there some greater math behind them that other attribute ratings would need to be lowered for them to be increased? Expand
If you are doing the same for each position it means that players will be rated very similar for each position making it hard to pick. If you alter them slightly you might need to adjust the overall position applied for each position (balancing)
I did a quick test, first 2 games were with strikers 20 finishing, defenders 20 jumping reach everyone else were set to 1 on all attributes except 20 pace and 20 acc. Did not go well. third and fourth game I added 20 anticipation, 20 concentration and 20 work rate, removing 20 finishing and 20 jumping. fifth I added 20 stamina and 20 strenght sixth, 20 agility and 20 balance.
Then last 3 games I put all attributes to 10 except 20 on anticipation, concentration work rate, acceleration and pace. As you can see with mid attributes and peak on these 5 you can beat city away. Recommended CA for this configuration was about 123
Just beat Rennes 5-0 with all attributes set on 10 and pace and acc on 20. Expand
Hi @Zippo. This tactic was in the Hall of Fame prior to the new (N) testing but it hasn't been tested under (N). There are no tactics with this formation in the current test table. Is there any chance it could be retested. Thanks
Zeyad said: @Middleweight165 It depends on what level you are recruiting for. For a top side in a top 5 league? It's probably not good enough. Otherwise it depends.
In general I also don't like looking at an attribute for a player in isolation when deciding whether he is good enough or not. For example if he is 11 JR but maybe pacy with good anticipation then he's definitely worth it Expand
I have successfully used just very tall CBs for lower league comps but not sure it would work for serious leagues. Higher leagues I would definitely used a good GS rating file like ykykyk balanced
I think if you train the 3 main tactics in terms of familiarity they will be fine. I train them in roles of the main tactic and in additional focus for the one I decide is best. It seems to work for me
Those who have read any of my thoughts on this and other sites will know I like to run with 3 tactics that are easy to move between. With this in the back of my mind I decided to look at the Hall of Fame. I picked a couple of tactics based on good goal scoring and defence and then a 4-2-4, a 4-4-2 wide diamond and the 4-1-2-3 wide that dominated early.
The AI tactics in the FM Arena test environment are 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 4-4-2 and 5-2-3. The results are points conceded.
So I am using the following tactics. Bombyte (Tweak) 4-2-4, Re-Cookie VI 4-4-2 wide diamond, and Cookie Shooter 4-1-2-3. I also sometimes use the Paradox Bomb 4-4-2 with 2 DM. Base is Re-Cookie VI, moves to Cookie Shooter by DM to ST, moves to Bombyte Tweak by AM to DM and wingers forward, and moves to Paradox Bomb by AM to DM. I would prefer just 3 tactics but can handle 4 as Paradox Bomb isn't used very often.
Against
4-2-3-1 I use Cookie Shooter with back up from Paradox Bomb
4-3-3 I use Re-Cookie VI with backup from Bombyte Tweak
4-4-2 I use Re-Cookie VI with backup from Bombyte Tweak
5-2-3 I use Bombyte Tweak with backup from Re-Cookie
Feel free to give it a try and let me know your thoughts. Hopefully helps someone.
It has been working well for me.
See post #233 on page 8. The 83% player with 16/20 drops to around 75.78%, so the other player is better. But if you keep using the 83% player and training him there he will pass the other player when his rating gets to 19/20.
They both performed well above expectations with Kettering winning the VNN and Bournemouth performing admirably in the EPL making it into the European comps for the following season by finishing 6th.
I am really interested to see how such a different tactic performs in the FM Arena test environment. I have received Vujevic's permission to get this tested here.
FM19 TFF link
I don't say that training additional positions is a bad thing, I just wanted to point out that it isn't "for free" and there's a price for it. People should understand it.
Fair enough. The screenshots above were from 2 16yo players. Hunter had starting CA at 30 and starting PA at 128 and is an AMC. I trained Hunter as a DM as I don't usually use an AMC in my tactics. Bell had a starting CA of 36 and PA of 118 and is a winger. Bell is a winger and is training as a winger. After the 10 weeks Hunter had a CA of 31 and PA of 128. Slight increase in CA but PA the same. Bell was still 36 and 118.
However, if you look at the screenshots, Hunter's PA attributes had risen 1 point for 3 attributes and 2 points for another. Hunter had no reductions. Bell's PA attributes had also changed slightly with two rising a point and two dropping a point. I know this is a very small sample but I find it interesting. If I get a chance at some point I will do some testing.
Learning a new position is always a trade off form some attributes levels. Not always it's a big trade off but still.
You can't train players additional positions "for free" in FM, if it was possible then you would want to train them as many additional positions as possible.
All of my players who were learning new positions increased CA quicker than those that weren't. I haven't done extensive testing, it is just an observation.
I am not sure as I haven't really focused on that aspect, it is just something that I have noticed. I am managing a Vanarama South part time team. What I have noticed is that players develop faster if they are training a different position. I know @ZaZ wingers and wing backs to the opposite side. I am also training centre backs to DM and Strikers to AM. Also DM to either centre back or AM and AM to wingers for versatility.
I have been using additional focus to pick up the attributes specific to the position the players are playing that are not focused on through my training schedule - see above.
Example, first 3 Physical for Hunter (right) 15, 13, 8 - (left) 16, 15, 9
I use the same schedule for my junior side.
I have looked at Max's latest video. A couple of things to note are that I have based my schedule on Max's research and even though I have most training slots full, I have also used @ZaZ automatic resting process, so players who are playing games wont participate in much more than 12 sessions, other than Goalkeepers.
Let me just talk you through the rationale. I looked at the main attributes that make a difference in the game based on FM Arena attribute testing and the machine learning ykykyky Genie Scout rating. The general attributes that were across all positions were Acceleration, Pace, Work Rate, Stamina, Agility, Anticipation, Passing, Dribbling. I then looked at the training sessions that were preferred by Max and that showed they made the best improvement for those attributes. This is how I landed on the above schedule.
For Additional Focus I looked at the other Attributes for each position as per the machine learning ykykyky Genie Scout rating that werent covered above and allocated the Additional Focus to that Training aspect. You should also note that Max observed that older players benefitted from Agility and Balance Additional Focus so I allocate all players 25 and over to that.
Here is what I was using, although I am mostly playing with a part time team currently.
I use it in conjunction with the @ZaZ training rest approach. For additional training focus I use the following:
Some of the training sessions like Chance Creation include Individual Focus so activate the Additional Focus sessions.
I think this is the best balance, but will test it more thoroughly when I get my side to Professional. My young players are developing reasonably well using a Part Time version.
I hope this helps.
If you are doing the same for each position it means that players will be rated very similar for each position making it hard to pick. If you alter them slightly you might need to adjust the overall position applied for each position (balancing)
I did a quick test, first 2 games were with strikers 20 finishing, defenders 20 jumping reach everyone else were set to 1 on all attributes except 20 pace and 20 acc. Did not go well.
third and fourth game I added 20 anticipation, 20 concentration and 20 work rate, removing 20 finishing and 20 jumping.
fifth I added 20 stamina and 20 strenght
sixth, 20 agility and 20 balance.
Then last 3 games I put all attributes to 10 except 20 on anticipation, concentration work rate, acceleration and pace. As you can see with mid attributes and peak on these 5 you can beat city away.
Recommended CA for this configuration was about 123
Just beat Rennes 5-0 with all attributes set on 10 and pace and acc on 20.
Winning the EPL with 1 CA Squad link here
Yes I would
In general I also don't like looking at an attribute for a player in isolation when deciding whether he is good enough or not. For example if he is 11 JR but maybe pacy with good anticipation then he's definitely worth it
I have successfully used just very tall CBs for lower league comps but not sure it would work for serious leagues. Higher leagues I would definitely used a good GS rating file like ykykyk balanced