Control Meta (Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 1000 sample = Win 676 (67.6%), Draw 196 (19.6%), Loss 128 (12.8%), avg. 2.36-0.86
V7 Variant B vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 1000 sample = Win 656 (65.6%), Draw 221 (22.1%), Loss 123 (12.3%), avg. 2.14-0.86
424 Mountain King vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample (not full familiarity) = Win 208 (69.33%), Draw 63 (21.00%), Loss 29 (9.67%), avg. 2.36-0.78
424 TON 424 HP HUB MC P105 EFC vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample (not full familiarity) = Win 221 (73.67%), Draw 50 (16.67%), Loss 29 (9.67%), avg. 2.15-0.75
424 'Park the Bus' (default tactic) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample (not full familiarity) = Win 50 (16.67%), Draw 78 (26.00%), Loss 172 (57.33%), avg. 1.37-0.66
I think an issue with comparing tactics is that the players you are fielding matter, and in real play you're more likely to get good players in certain positions rather than others.
So we can say, this tactic does best in a controlled test, and that tactic does best in a default plug-and-play with Luton, but it would be difficult to find conclusively that X tactic is 2% better than Y tactic. But you could demonstrate it's 2% better in 5 or 6 scenarios say.
( edited 8 hours, 17 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#842
Link to the post:
The results are suggesting that it is in fact the case that the negative of dirtiness only kicks in at lower fitness levels:
Control Meta (Knap 424 tactic) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 1000 sample = Win 676 (67.6%), Draw 196 (19.6%), Loss 128 (12.8%), avg. 2.36-0.86
Control Meta (Knap 424 tactic) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 217 (72.33%), Draw 44 (14.67%), Loss 39 (13.00%), avg. 2.35-0.83
Dirtiness 12 Meta vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 209 (69.67%), Draw 54 (18.00%), Loss 37 (12.33%), avg. 2.39-0.94
Dirtiness 12 Meta (1 day before) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 197, Draw 67, Loss 36, avg. 2.33-0.91
We see above that Dirtiness 8 > 12 seems to make no difference when the squad is set to 100% fitness.
Longshots Technique Passing Crossing 16 vs West Ham (Away) ~90% condition 300 sample = Win 92, Draw 98, Loss 110, avg. 1.35-1.49
Dirtiness 12 Longshots Technique Passing Crossing 16 vs West Ham (Away) ~90% condition 300 sample = Win 92, Draw 79, Loss 129, avg. 1.35-1.62
By contrast, when fitness is left to standard levels - around ~90% condition ~100% match fitness on average in this case - there does seem to be a significant difference.
This will require further testing to clarify. Other attributes aren't working this way, and are producing results in line with expectations.
I believe that the new method I'm using has fixed up my previous teamwork & technicals results, which should be disregarded as erroneous. I think it's mainly that I didn't adjust CA upwards in the realtime editor to match the increases, which I've done accurately now. I'll probably edit the previous post later to remove the old results to avoid confusion.
Control Meta (Knap 424 tactic) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 1000 sample = Win 676 (67.6%), Draw 196 (19.6%), Loss 128 (12.8%), avg. 2.36-0.86
Control Meta (Knap 424 tactic) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 217 (72.33%), Draw 44 (14.67%), Loss 39 (13.00%), avg. 2.35-0.83
Teamwork 14 Meta vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 217 (72.33%), Draw 52 (17.33%), Loss 31 (10.33%), avg. 2.47-0.88
So 8 > 14 Teamwork is now seemingly marginally beneficial. This is what I would have expected.
Pressure 1 Meta vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 146 (48.67%), Draw 73 (24.33%), Loss 81 (27.00%), avg. 1.60-1.00
Thought I'd try a very obvious one just to make sure things are on the right track and provide a yardstick to compare these lesser attributes to. Big drop from Pressure 13 > 1 as expected.
Longshots Technique Passing Crossing 16 Meta vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 236 (78.67%), Draw 48 (16.00%), Loss 16 (5.33%), avg. 2.88-0.84
Control Meta (Knap 424 tactic) vs Wolves (Away) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 256 (85.33%, Draw 31 (10.33%), Loss 13 (4.33%), avg. 2.75-0.83
Longshots Technique Passing Crossing 16 Meta vs Wolves (Away) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 274 (91.33%), Draw 21 (7.00%), Loss 5 (1.67%), avg. 3.09-0.82
Longshots Technique Passing Crossing 16 Meta vs West Ham (Away) ~90% condition 300 sample = Win 92, Draw 98, Loss 110, avg. 1.35-1.49
These attributes performed a quite a bit better than I expected. I did find in my testing that this particular combination yields significantly higher goal difference at very high performance levels, but this is showing significant benefits even at a lower performance level - albeit at a cost of +32 total attribute points and a good deal of CA to match.
First results using a new, more precise method:
Control Meta (Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 1000 sample = Win 676 (67.6%), Draw 196 (19.6%), Loss 128 (12.8%), avg. 2.36-0.86
V7 Variant B vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 1000 sample = Win 656 (65.6%), Draw 221 (22.1%), Loss 123 (12.3%), avg. 2.14-0.86
424 Mountain King vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample (not full familiarity) = Win 208 (69.33%), Draw 63 (21.00%), Loss 29 (9.67%), avg. 2.36-0.78
424 TON 424 HP HUB MC P105 EFC vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample (not full familiarity) = Win 221 (73.67%), Draw 50 (16.67%), Loss 29 (9.67%), avg. 2.15-0.75
424 'Park the Bus' (default tactic) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample (not full familiarity) = Win 50 (16.67%), Draw 78 (26.00%), Loss 172 (57.33%), avg. 1.37-0.66
I think an issue with comparing tactics is that the players you are fielding matter, and in real play you're more likely to get good players in certain positions rather than others.
So we can say, this tactic does best in a controlled test, and that tactic does best in a default plug-and-play with Luton, but it would be difficult to find conclusively that X tactic is 2% better than Y tactic. But you could demonstrate it's 2% better in 5 or 6 scenarios say.
The results are suggesting that it is in fact the case that the negative of dirtiness only kicks in at lower fitness levels:
Control Meta (Knap 424 tactic) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 1000 sample = Win 676 (67.6%), Draw 196 (19.6%), Loss 128 (12.8%), avg. 2.36-0.86
Control Meta (Knap 424 tactic) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 217 (72.33%), Draw 44 (14.67%), Loss 39 (13.00%), avg. 2.35-0.83
Dirtiness 12 Meta vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 209 (69.67%), Draw 54 (18.00%), Loss 37 (12.33%), avg. 2.39-0.94
Dirtiness 12 Meta (1 day before) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 197, Draw 67, Loss 36, avg. 2.33-0.91
We see above that Dirtiness 8 > 12 seems to make no difference when the squad is set to 100% fitness.
Longshots Technique Passing Crossing 16 vs West Ham (Away) ~90% condition 300 sample = Win 92, Draw 98, Loss 110, avg. 1.35-1.49
Dirtiness 12 Longshots Technique Passing Crossing 16 vs West Ham (Away) ~90% condition 300 sample = Win 92, Draw 79, Loss 129, avg. 1.35-1.62
By contrast, when fitness is left to standard levels - around ~90% condition ~100% match fitness on average in this case - there does seem to be a significant difference.
This will require further testing to clarify. Other attributes aren't working this way, and are producing results in line with expectations.
I believe that the new method I'm using has fixed up my previous teamwork & technicals results, which should be disregarded as erroneous. I think it's mainly that I didn't adjust CA upwards in the realtime editor to match the increases, which I've done accurately now. I'll probably edit the previous post later to remove the old results to avoid confusion.
Control Meta (Knap 424 tactic) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 1000 sample = Win 676 (67.6%), Draw 196 (19.6%), Loss 128 (12.8%), avg. 2.36-0.86
Control Meta (Knap 424 tactic) vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 217 (72.33%), Draw 44 (14.67%), Loss 39 (13.00%), avg. 2.35-0.83
Teamwork 14 Meta vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 217 (72.33%), Draw 52 (17.33%), Loss 31 (10.33%), avg. 2.47-0.88
So 8 > 14 Teamwork is now seemingly marginally beneficial. This is what I would have expected.
Pressure 1 Meta vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 146 (48.67%), Draw 73 (24.33%), Loss 81 (27.00%), avg. 1.60-1.00
Thought I'd try a very obvious one just to make sure things are on the right track and provide a yardstick to compare these lesser attributes to. Big drop from Pressure 13 > 1 as expected.
Longshots Technique Passing Crossing 16 Meta vs Man Utd (Home) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 236 (78.67%), Draw 48 (16.00%), Loss 16 (5.33%), avg. 2.88-0.84
Control Meta (Knap 424 tactic) vs Wolves (Away) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 256 (85.33%, Draw 31 (10.33%), Loss 13 (4.33%), avg. 2.75-0.83
Longshots Technique Passing Crossing 16 Meta vs Wolves (Away) Fully healed 300 sample = Win 274 (91.33%), Draw 21 (7.00%), Loss 5 (1.67%), avg. 3.09-0.82
Longshots Technique Passing Crossing 16 Meta vs West Ham (Away) ~90% condition 300 sample = Win 92, Draw 98, Loss 110, avg. 1.35-1.49
These attributes performed a quite a bit better than I expected. I did find in my testing that this particular combination yields significantly higher goal difference at very high performance levels, but this is showing significant benefits even at a lower performance level - albeit at a cost of +32 total attribute points and a good deal of CA to match.