Is there a specific reason that testing our tactics with a different amount of matches? Tactics generally simulating with 400, 800, 1200, 2400, 4800 even some ones 9600 matches.
The fewer matches it is simulated, the more points you will have. For example, a tactic that gets 55.2 points in 400 matches will drop to almost 51.4 points if you go and simulate it in 9600 matches (figures are given as an example). The tactic that gets 70 points in 400 matches will get 60.1 points in 9600 matches. In other words, the more matches, the more realistic a score is away from "RNG", which means the decrease in the score. In other words, if tactic does not have the points to get to the top of the table in 400, 1200, 2400 matches so there is no need to sim that tactic 4800 or 9600 matches, Doing this would just be a waste of time
So actually the result of the test is important in the number of matches.
If you see that a tactic is simulated for 400 matches and another tactic is simulated for 2800 matches on the home page, you can make a prediction without looking at the points. Tactics with 2800 matches played > Tactics with 400 matches played
mir1337 said: The fewer matches it is simulated, the more points you will have. For example, a tactic that gets 55.2 points in 400 matches will drop to almost 51.4 points if you go and simulate it in 9600 matches (figures are given as an example). The tactic that gets 70 points in 400 matches will get 60.1 points in 9600 matches. In other words, the more matches, the more realistic a score is away from "RNG", which means the decrease in the score. In other words, if tactic does not have the points to get to the top of the table in 400, 1200, 2400 matches so there is no need to sim that tactic 4800 or 9600 matches, Doing this would just be a waste of time
So actually the result of the test is important in the number of matches.
If you see that a tactic is simulated for 400 matches and another tactic is simulated for 2800 matches on the home page, you can make a prediction without looking at the points. Tactics with 2800 matches played > Tactics with 400 matches played Expand
Thank you for your explanation mate. Got the concept now.
After about twenty minutes later, Gerrard uploaded his tactic named "EF IF HP V2.6 P105 AC" "I'm going to add a SS about this"
I was online that moment and I decided to download his tactic. And I detected that his tactic identical with mine (TIs and PIs are same you guys also can see and Tackle Harder removed from DM/R-Su) Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that he copied my tactic. I think it's impossible because of time (Or he could have lightning fast pc maybe I don't know) I personally belive that this is a coincidence.
What I'm wondering is this,
- Although with similarities, why his tactic tested with 3600 matches, mine is with 2400? Which things caused this difference? As I know, your tactic testing system is based on raw and static game parameters to maintain relible the testing (like no player traits, no Injuries, no transfers etc) Maybe I missed something big. Or Gerrard designs his tactics with different ways. Maybe with hidden parameters or something, Or you guys doing something different I really don't know and I want to understand this correctly to avoid make people with meaningless matters.
The purpose of fm-arena tactic testing is to find the most effective tactics to play FM and IS NOT to compete with other tacticians for the 1st place in the table or IS NOT determine the score of every uploaded tactic with a precise accuracy like 0.5 pts or 1 pts or 2 pts because something like that would required testing EVERY uploaded tactic for more than 30,000 matches which is no feasible task I'd say.
We have a tactic testing algorithm that is responsible for determining how many matches to test every tactic and it constantly evolving.
I'll try to explain how it works:
Your and Gerrard's tactics both use 4-4-2(DMs) formation and that means your tactics compete with the highest ranked 4-4-2(DMs) tactic so far which is this - https://fm-arena.com/thread/12717-ef-424-if-hp-v2-p101-ac/. As you can see it scored 63.2 pts.
During the test of your tactic after 2400 matches our testing algorithm looked at the current score and concluded then there's no point in any further testing your tactic because with such low score after 2400 matches it has no chances to beat the highest score for that formation which is 63.2 pts.
During the test of Gerrad's tactic after 3600 matches our testing algorithm looked at the current score and concluded then there's no point in any further testing your tactic because with such low score after 3600 matches it has no chances to beat the highest score for that formation which is 63.2 pts.
Obviously, during the test of Gerrard's tactic there was more positive RNG then in the test of your tactic that's why Gerrard's tactic hold testing for longer than your tactic but anyway as you can see none of the tactics reaches 4,800 matches because our tactic testing algorithm stopped the testing earlier.
Our tactic testing algorithm doesn't care about the accuracy of the test of your and Gerrard's tactics, because it concluded that none of the tactics can't beat the highest score for the formation which is 63.2 pts.
let's say you upload a 4-2-4(DMs) tactic and after only 1 run(400 matches) it scores 50 pts, obviously, after such low score for 4-2-4(DMs) formation our tactic testing algorithm would stop testing it further.
Let's assume that the hitting 50 pts after the first 400 matches was very unlucky event and if we continue testing the tactic further up to 4,800 matches it would ended with a higher score about 60 pts but our tactic testing algorithm won't be testing it further because he knows(based on the statistic) that yes, probably, if it were tested further up 4,800 matches it could improved the score from 50pts to 60pts but anyway the score still would be lower than the highest score for the formation which is 63.2 pts at the current moment.
But both tactics have the exact same form. Both team and player instructions. There is no differences.
From point of your explanations, the algorithm needs to measure the same RNG paramaters and finish at same point the test for both tactics. Am I wrong? But mine tested with 2400, Gerrard's tested with 3600.
So could you tell me, what is the exact differences between these two tactics from view of the algorithm? Why it is react different? Or what is the more positive RNG parameters in Gerrard's tactic? Set pieces? Opposite instructions etc? What caused that?
But both tactics have the exact same form. Both team and player instructions. There is no differences.
From point of your explanations, the algorithm needs to measure the same RNG paramaters and finish at same point the test for both tactics. Am I wrong? But mine tested with 2400, Gerrard's tested with 3600.
So could you tell me, what is the exact differences between these two tactics from view of the algorithm? Why it is react different? Or what is the more positive RNG parameters in Gerrard's tactic? Set pieces? Opposite instructions etc? What caused that?
And don't get me wrong mate. I'm just curious. Expand
But both tactics have the exact same form. Both team and player instructions. There is no differences.
From point of your explanations, the algorithm needs to measure the same RNG paramaters and finish at same point the test for both tactics. Am I wrong? But mine tested with 2400, Gerrard's tested with 3600.
So could you tell me, what is the exact differences between these two tactics from view of the algorithm? Why it is react different? Or what is the more positive RNG parameters in Gerrard's tactic? Set pieces? Opposite instructions etc? What caused that?
And don't get me wrong mate. I'm just curious. Expand
The test isn't precise, there is a lot of RNG involved. The algorithm does not evaluate tactics, it's based on results. After X runs you need to be above Y points to get more runs. So for example after 2400 runs your tactic scored slightly lower and fell under the threshold for further testing while the other tactic didn't and got another 1200 runs. Purely based on luck.
Yarema said: The test isn't precise, there is a lot of RNG involved. The algorithm does not evaluate tactics, it's based on results. After X runs you need to be above Y points to get more runs. So for example after 2400 runs your tactic scored slightly lower and fell under the threshold for further testing while the other tactic didn't and got another 1200 runs. Purely based on luck. Expand
Don't get me wrong but I think my question is clear enough. Both are the "same" No differences. So from view of the algorithm and testing system, they need to reach same points and results. And could you tell me, how is possible that a closed parameters based system (all frozen things that mentioned previous comments) find different scores from complete same tactics? Pure on luck? Strange.
In addition, I have to say honestly If mine was got played with more matches I would still open this thread. Because it's illogical. This is about algorithm. Not persons or any other things.
And moderator is deleted the original title. And he merged this thread with another one which I opened before. I don't know what was he thinking.
---------------
The thread is closed by moderator to replies as you can see down below.
Hey guys.
Is there a specific reason that testing our tactics with a different amount of matches? Tactics generally simulating with 400, 800, 1200, 2400, 4800 even some ones 9600 matches.
(Doesn't matter test result)
The fewer matches it is simulated, the more points you will have. For example, a tactic that gets 55.2 points in 400 matches will drop to almost 51.4 points if you go and simulate it in 9600 matches (figures are given as an example). The tactic that gets 70 points in 400 matches will get 60.1 points in 9600 matches. In other words, the more matches, the more realistic a score is away from "RNG", which means the decrease in the score. In other words, if tactic does not have the points to get to the top of the table in 400, 1200, 2400 matches so there is no need to sim that tactic 4800 or 9600 matches, Doing this would just be a waste of time
So actually the result of the test is important in the number of matches.
If you see that a tactic is simulated for 400 matches and another tactic is simulated for 2800 matches on the home page, you can make a prediction without looking at the points. Tactics with 2800 matches played > Tactics with 400 matches played
mir1337 said: The fewer matches it is simulated, the more points you will have. For example, a tactic that gets 55.2 points in 400 matches will drop to almost 51.4 points if you go and simulate it in 9600 matches (figures are given as an example). The tactic that gets 70 points in 400 matches will get 60.1 points in 9600 matches. In other words, the more matches, the more realistic a score is away from "RNG", which means the decrease in the score. In other words, if tactic does not have the points to get to the top of the table in 400, 1200, 2400 matches so there is no need to sim that tactic 4800 or 9600 matches, Doing this would just be a waste of time
So actually the result of the test is important in the number of matches.
If you see that a tactic is simulated for 400 matches and another tactic is simulated for 2800 matches on the home page, you can make a prediction without looking at the points. Tactics with 2800 matches played > Tactics with 400 matches played
Thank you for your explanation mate. Got the concept now.
Artabora said: Thank you for your explanation mate. Got the concept now.
You are welcome, it was a good thread for everyone to understand.
Hey guys.
The reason that I opened this thread is here:
I uploaded my tactic named "Artabora Evren V1.1" which is a tweaked version.
After about twenty minutes later, Gerrard uploaded his tactic named "EF IF HP V2.6 P105 AC" "I'm going to add a SS about this"
I was online that moment and I decided to download his tactic. And I detected that his tactic identical with mine (TIs and PIs are same you guys also can see and Tackle Harder removed from DM/R-Su) Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that he copied my tactic. I think it's impossible because of time (Or he could have lightning fast pc maybe I don't know) I personally belive that this is a coincidence.
What I'm wondering is this,
- Although with similarities, why his tactic tested with 3600 matches, mine is with 2400? Which things caused this difference? As I know, your tactic testing system is based on raw and static game parameters to maintain relible the testing (like no player traits, no Injuries, no transfers etc) Maybe I missed something big. Or Gerrard designs his tactics with different ways. Maybe with hidden parameters or something, Or you guys doing something different I really don't know and I want to understand this correctly to avoid make people with meaningless matters.
Thanks.
@Artabora, hi.
The purpose of fm-arena tactic testing is to find the most effective tactics to play FM and IS NOT to compete with other tacticians for the 1st place in the table or IS NOT determine the score of every uploaded tactic with a precise accuracy like 0.5 pts or 1 pts or 2 pts because something like that would required testing EVERY uploaded tactic for more than 30,000 matches which is no feasible task I'd say.
We have a tactic testing algorithm that is responsible for determining how many matches to test every tactic and it constantly evolving.
I'll try to explain how it works:
Your and Gerrard's tactics both use 4-4-2(DMs) formation and that means your tactics compete with the highest ranked 4-4-2(DMs) tactic so far which is this - https://fm-arena.com/thread/12717-ef-424-if-hp-v2-p101-ac/. As you can see it scored 63.2 pts.
During the test of your tactic after 2400 matches our testing algorithm looked at the current score and concluded then there's no point in any further testing your tactic because with such low score after 2400 matches it has no chances to beat the highest score for that formation which is 63.2 pts.
During the test of Gerrad's tactic after 3600 matches our testing algorithm looked at the current score and concluded then there's no point in any further testing your tactic because with such low score after 3600 matches it has no chances to beat the highest score for that formation which is 63.2 pts.
Obviously, during the test of Gerrard's tactic there was more positive RNG then in the test of your tactic that's why Gerrard's tactic hold testing for longer than your tactic but anyway as you can see none of the tactics reaches 4,800 matches because our tactic testing algorithm stopped the testing earlier.
Our tactic testing algorithm doesn't care about the accuracy of the test of your and Gerrard's tactics, because it concluded that none of the tactics can't beat the highest score for the formation which is 63.2 pts.
I hope it helps.
Cheers.
Here's another example.
let's say you upload a 4-2-4(DMs) tactic and after only 1 run(400 matches) it scores 50 pts, obviously, after such low score for 4-2-4(DMs) formation our tactic testing algorithm would stop testing it further.
Let's assume that the hitting 50 pts after the first 400 matches was very unlucky event and if we continue testing the tactic further up to 4,800 matches it would ended with a higher score about 60 pts but our tactic testing algorithm won't be testing it further because he knows(based on the statistic) that yes, probably, if it were tested further up 4,800 matches it could improved the score from 50pts to 60pts but anyway the score still would be lower than the highest score for the formation which is 63.2 pts at the current moment.
I hope it helps.
Cheers.
Hi and thank you for your answers.
But both tactics have the exact same form. Both team and player instructions. There is no differences.
From point of your explanations, the algorithm needs to measure the same RNG paramaters and finish at same point the test for both tactics. Am I wrong? But mine tested with 2400, Gerrard's tested with 3600.
So could you tell me, what is the exact differences between these two tactics from view of the algorithm? Why it is react different? Or what is the more positive RNG parameters in Gerrard's tactic? Set pieces? Opposite instructions etc? What caused that?
And don't get me wrong mate. I'm just curious.
Artabora said: Hi and thank you for your answers.
But both tactics have the exact same form. Both team and player instructions. There is no differences.
From point of your explanations, the algorithm needs to measure the same RNG paramaters and finish at same point the test for both tactics. Am I wrong? But mine tested with 2400, Gerrard's tested with 3600.
So could you tell me, what is the exact differences between these two tactics from view of the algorithm? Why it is react different? Or what is the more positive RNG parameters in Gerrard's tactic? Set pieces? Opposite instructions etc? What caused that?
And don't get me wrong mate. I'm just curious.
You should look at this and try to understand it - https://fm-arena.com/thread/2713-10-944-matches-tested-fm-rng-measured/
Artabora said: Hi and thank you for your answers.
But both tactics have the exact same form. Both team and player instructions. There is no differences.
From point of your explanations, the algorithm needs to measure the same RNG paramaters and finish at same point the test for both tactics. Am I wrong? But mine tested with 2400, Gerrard's tested with 3600.
So could you tell me, what is the exact differences between these two tactics from view of the algorithm? Why it is react different? Or what is the more positive RNG parameters in Gerrard's tactic? Set pieces? Opposite instructions etc? What caused that?
And don't get me wrong mate. I'm just curious.
The test isn't precise, there is a lot of RNG involved. The algorithm does not evaluate tactics, it's based on results. After X runs you need to be above Y points to get more runs. So for example after 2400 runs your tactic scored slightly lower and fell under the threshold for further testing while the other tactic didn't and got another 1200 runs. Purely based on luck.
Lapidus said: You should look at this and try to understand it - https://fm-arena.com/thread/2713-10-944-matches-tested-fm-rng-measured/
Let me clarify
The tactic posted had 1 PI Change from Top Tactic. The 4231 also had the same 1 PI Change. Both were made a long time before posting
I would suggest that you are tweaking the top tactic if they are identical!
Yarema said: The test isn't precise, there is a lot of RNG involved. The algorithm does not evaluate tactics, it's based on results. After X runs you need to be above Y points to get more runs. So for example after 2400 runs your tactic scored slightly lower and fell under the threshold for further testing while the other tactic didn't and got another 1200 runs. Purely based on luck.
Don't get me wrong but I think my question is clear enough. Both are the "same" No differences. So from view of the algorithm and testing system, they need to reach same points and results. And could you tell me, how is possible that a closed parameters based system (all frozen things that mentioned previous comments) find different scores from complete same tactics? Pure on luck? Strange.
In addition, I have to say honestly If mine was got played with more matches I would still open this thread. Because it's illogical. This is about algorithm. Not persons or any other things.
And moderator is deleted the original title. And he merged this thread with another one which I opened before. I don't know what was he thinking.
---------------
The thread is closed by moderator to replies as you can see down below.
So, nothing to say...